Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 2 cited by

SeeMe restructures visual tokens in three stages so large vision-language models invent fewer details that are not in the image, with no retraining.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-11 21:14 UTC pith:THOL7EL6

load-bearing objection Solid training-free token-restructuring method with real but modest gains; the ablation shows Stage-2 fusion is nearly interchangeable with naive re-injection of original embeddings, so the "engineering" story is thinner than claimed. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.04163 v1 pith:THOL7EL6 submitted 2026-07-05 cs.CV cs.AI

SeeMe: Mitigating Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models through Effective Visual Token Engineering

Kai Tang , Jinhao You , Bohua Zhang , Yichen Guo , Yiding Sun , Dongxu Zhang , Chenxi Li , Xiande Huang
show 1 more author
Shanghang Zhang
This is my paper
classification cs.CV cs.AI
keywords visual token engineeringhallucination mitigationlarge vision-language modelstraining-free inferencecross-modal attentiontoken pruningfeature engineering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Large vision-language models often produce answers that invent objects, attributes, or relations absent from the image. This paper argues that a major source of those errors is the flood of irrelevant or noisy visual tokens the vision encoder hands to the language decoder. Instead of only adjusting decoding rules, the authors treat those tokens as editable features and introduce a training-free pipeline called SeeMe. It first discards tokens that receive little cross-modal attention, then builds new tokens by fusing similar original embeddings so that useful fine detail is not lost, and finally keeps only the fused tokens that best match the textual context. On three standard hallucination benchmarks and four different models the method raises accuracy and consistency while adding almost no latency. Readers who care about reliable multimodal systems should notice that the fix requires no new data, no fine-tuning, and no architecture change.

Core claim

Hallucinations in large vision-language models arise in large part from irrelevant or noisy visual tokens; actively restructuring those tokens through a three-stage prune-merge-select process suppresses the noise while recovering informative visual evidence, producing more faithful outputs without any training or model changes.

What carries the argument

SeeMe’s three-stage visual token engineering: cross-modal attention pruning of low-importance tokens, similarity-guided fusion of original embedding-layer tokens into an enriched pool, and final text-aligned selection of the most relevant fused tokens.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that attention scores from one intermediate decoder layer reliably identify which visual tokens to keep, and that fusing original embedding tokens can restore the useful information the prune discards.

What would settle it

Apply the fixed mid-layer prune-merge-select pipeline to a held-out LVLM and a set of images dense with small objects; if MME perception or POPE F1 scores fall below the regular-decoding baseline, the claim that the three-stage restructuring is generally beneficial is falsified.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Existing LVLMs can lower object and attribute hallucinations at inference time by inserting the three-stage process at a mid-decoder layer.
  • Pure pruning loses information; the subsequent merge-and-reselect step is required to keep perception scores from collapsing.
  • The same expand-then-compress style of feature engineering can be applied to other multimodal token streams.
  • Throughput remains comparable to ordinary decoding, so the method is usable in real-time settings.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If intermediate-layer cross-modal attention is a stable importance signal, the same token-engineering pattern may also stabilize long-context video or multi-image models.
  • The fact that original-embedding fusion recovers most of the lost performance implies early visual embeddings retain more usable detail than deeper attention maps suggest.
  • Hard pruning ratios near 5 % appear near-optimal; an automatic per-image ratio could further improve robustness across image densities.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper proposes SeeMe, a training-free inference-time framework that restructures visual tokens in LVLMs via a three-stage process (cross-modal attention pruning at an intermediate decoder layer, similarity-guided fusion of original embedding-layer tokens, and final text-aligned selection) to suppress noisy tokens while recovering informative visual evidence. It claims this token-engineering approach, inspired by classical feature engineering, consistently reduces hallucinations relative to regular decoding and prior methods (VCD, DoLa, DCLA, SPIN) on MME, POPE and AMBER across four 7B LVLMs (LLaVA-1.5, LLaVA-NEXT, INF-MLLM, mPLUG-Owl2), with negligible overhead and no retraining.

Significance. If the gains are robustly attributable to the proposed restructuring, the work offers a practical, architecture-agnostic, training-free alternative to decoder-side interventions and pure suppression methods, with clear efficiency advantages (Table 5) and multi-model/multi-benchmark coverage. The explicit framing as feature engineering and the progressive prune–expand–refine design are novel relative to prior token-pruning or zeroing approaches. Strengths include the layer/ratio sweeps (Fig. 3), stage-wise ablations (Table 4, Fig. 4), hyper-parameter guidelines, and public-benchmark evaluation. Absolute improvements remain modest and hyper-parameters are model-specific, so the practical impact hinges on whether the full pipeline (especially fusion) is necessary rather than simple prune-plus-reinjection.

major comments (4)
  1. Table 4 (r=0.05 column) shows that Stage-1-only collapses (1325.4), while simply appending original embedding tokens (row B) recovers nearly the entire score (1473.7). Stage-2 fusion is statistically indistinguishable from that naïve append (Δ(C−B)≈−0.1) and Stage-3 adds only +4.5. This undercuts the central claim that the engineered fused tokens (the novel contribution of the three-stage pipeline) are the primary driver of the reported gains; the improvements may largely be an artifact of aggressive pruning plus re-injection of the original visual set. A stronger ablation isolating fusion quality (e.g., fused-only vs. original-only selection, or qualitative token visualizations) is needed to support the token-engineering narrative.
  2. Section 5.5 and Table 6 select K, retain ratio (0.05), top-k and select-n on the same evaluation suites (MME/POPE/AMBER) used for final reporting. While guidelines are provided, this introduces mild selection circularity. A hold-out validation split or a sensitivity study on an unseen model/benchmark is required to demonstrate that the gains are not over-tuned to the reported tables.
  3. Tables 1–3 report point estimates only, with no error bars, multiple seeds, or statistical tests. Absolute gains are modest (e.g., MME total +20–40 points on a ~1800 scale; POPE F1 improvements often <1 point). Without variance estimates it is impossible to judge whether the consistent ranking of SeeMe is reliable or within noise, especially given temperature-0 decoding.
  4. Sections 4.1–4.2 rest on the assumption that cross-modal attention at a single intermediate layer K (≈40–50 % of depth) is a sufficiently reliable hard-pruning signal and that similarity fusion of original embeddings can recover discarded fine-grained evidence. Figure 3 shows intermediate layers are better than early/late ones, yet the paper never quantifies how often the recovered fused tokens actually differ from the originals that would have been kept under a milder retain ratio. A failure-case analysis or attention-map comparison would strengthen this load-bearing design choice.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation; purely empirical method whose gains are measured on external public benchmarks, with only mild (standard) hyperparameter selection on the same suites.

full rationale

SeeMe is a training-free engineering pipeline (cross-modal prune at intermediate layer K, similarity-weighted fusion of original embedding tokens, final text-aligned selection) whose sole claims are empirical improvements on MME/POPE/AMBER across four frozen LVLMs. There are no first-principles equations, uniqueness theorems, or theoretical predictions that reduce to their own inputs by construction. Hyper-parameters (K ≈ 40-50 % of layers, retain ratio 0.05, select-n, top-k) are chosen with reference to the same benchmarks (Section 5.5 and Table 6), introducing the usual mild selection effect common to all inference-time methods, but this does not equate any reported score to a fitted quantity by definition. Self-citations (STAR, DCLA, FADE) supply only inspiration or baselines and are not load-bearing for the performance claims, which rest on the public tables. Ablation Table 4 and efficiency Table 5 are independent measurements, not tautologies. Score 1 reflects only the routine hyper-parameter selection; the central result is self-contained against external data.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of free hyper-parameters chosen per model, on the domain assumption that intermediate-layer cross-modal attention is a good importance proxy, and on the invented process of “token engineering.” No new physical entities are postulated; everything is an algorithmic construction inside existing LVLMs.

free parameters (4)
  • retain ratio P (Stage 1) = 0.05 (0.01 on AMBER)
    Hard-coded to 0.05 (or 0.01 on AMBER); controls how many visual tokens survive the first prune and is selected by validation performance.
  • decoder layer K = 14 / 16 / 13 / 14
    Chosen in the 13–16 range (≈40–50 % of layers) per model; determines where attention is read for pruning.
  • top-k neighbors for fusion = 1–2
    1 or 2; controls how many similar original tokens are blended into each fused token.
  • select-n final tokens = 27 or 54
    27 or 54; number of fused tokens kept after Stage-3 attention ranking.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption Cross-modal attention weights at an intermediate decoder layer are a reliable proxy for visual-token importance to the current text query.
    Invoked in §4.1 and the motivation experiment of Figure 3; without it the hard prune would be arbitrary.
  • domain assumption Cosine similarity among original embedding-layer tokens identifies neighbors whose linear fusion recovers fine-grained visual evidence lost by pruning.
    Stated in §4.2; the design choice to fuse original rather than pruned tokens rests on this assumption.
  • standard math Standard transformer attention and softmax arithmetic hold inside the frozen LVLM decoder.
    Used throughout the score computations in Stages 1 and 3.
invented entities (1)
  • token engineering (three-stage prune–merge–refine pipeline) no independent evidence
    purpose: To restructure the visual token sequence so that noisy tokens are suppressed while informative evidence is preserved or recovered.
    The pipeline is the paper’s central algorithmic invention; it has no independent existence outside the described method.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 20673 in / 2755 out tokens · 26955 ms · 2026-07-11T21:14:16.885924+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in visual understanding tasks such as image captioning and visual question answering. However, they remain susceptible to hallucinations, generating content that is inconsistent with the actual visual input. Existing methods primarily intervene at the decoding stage, while overlooking a critical source of hallucinations: irrelevant or noisy visual tokens that mislead the decoding process. To address this issue, we propose SeeMe, a training-free framework that introduces the concept of feature engineering from traditional machine learning into LVLMs. SeeMe restructures visual tokens through a three-stage token engineering process to suppress hallucination sources while preserving informative visual evidence. Experiments on MME, POPE, and AMBER benchmarks across four LVLMs demonstrate that SeeMe consistently reduces hallucinations and improves output consistency, providing a novel perspective for mitigating hallucinations in LVLMs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.04163 by Bohua Zhang, Chenxi Li, Dongxu Zhang, Jinhao You, Kai Tang, Shanghang Zhang, Xiande Huang, Yichen Guo, Yiding Sun.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Comparison of visual token handling strategies. Token engineering reconstructs informative representations, leading to more accurate answers. spite these advances, LVLMs remain prone to hallucina￾tion—generating content that is inconsistent with the actual visual input (Liu et al., 2024b). This phenomenon severely undermines their reliability in practical applications, par￾ticularly in safety-critical or f… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Architecture of the proposed SeeMe framework, which restructures visual tokens through three stages: cross-modal pruning, semantic merging, and self-attention-based refinement. 2.3. Visual Token Manipulation In typical LVLM architectures, an image is processed by a vision encoder into a sequence of visual tokens, which are then passed to the language decoder (Radford et al., 2021; Hu et al., 2023). A 336 ×… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Perception performance of LLaVA-1.5-7B on the MME dataset with varying retain ratios of visual tokens at different inter￾mediate layers. 4.1. Stage 1: Cross-Modal Attention Selector To reduce unnecessary computation and suppress halluci￾nation sources early in the pipeline, we introduce a cross￾modal attention-based filtering mechanism to eliminate se￾mantically irrelevant visual tokens before further proc… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: This figure shows that both omitting the final refinement stage (Stage 3) and selecting suboptimal token counts (too few or too many) lead to lower overall scores. Selecting 54 tokens in Stage 3 yields the highest performance, validating its necessity. aligned with the language stream. It enhances grounding ac￾curacy while suppressing residual hallucinations introduced by low-confidence visual content. 5. … view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. SPARK: Susceptibility-Guided Profiling and Steering of Latent Reasoning States in Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Length-controlled hidden-state susceptibility diagnoses under-activated reasoning in LLMs and guides selective test-time steering that lifts MATH-500 accuracy by roughly 2–3 points.

  2. Better Starts, Better Ends: Bootstrapped Iterative Self-Reasoning Distillation for Compressed Reasoning

    cs.CL 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0

    Warm-starting on-policy self-distillation with a correctness-filtered, prompt-switched SFT bootstrap improves compression and accuracy of reasoning traces across math benchmarks.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Qwen technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609,

    Bai, J., Bai, S., Chu, Y ., Cui, Z., Dang, K., Deng, X., Fan, Y ., Ge, W., Han, Y ., Huang, F., et al. Qwen technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  2. [2]

    Token merging: Your vit but faster.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09461,

    Bolya, D., Fu, C.-Y ., Dai, X., Zhang, P., Feichtenhofer, C., and Hoffman, J. Token merging: Your vit but faster.arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.09461,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  3. [3]

    Q., Jia, J., Qin, W., Tang, R., and Pavlovic, V

    Che, L., Liu, T. Q., Jia, J., Qin, W., Tang, R., and Pavlovic, V . Eazy: Eliminating hallucinations in lvlms by ze- roing out hallucinatory image tokens.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07772,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  4. [4]

    An image is worth 1/2 tokens after layer 2: Plug-and-play inference acceleration for large vision- language models

    Chen, L., Zhao, H., Liu, T., Bai, S., Lin, J., Zhou, C., and Chang, B. An image is worth 1/2 tokens after layer 2: Plug-and-play inference acceleration for large vision- language models. InEuropean Conference on Computer Vision, pp. 19–35. Springer, 2024a. Chen, X., Ma, Z., Zhang, X., Xu, S., Qian, S., Yang, J., Fouhey, D., and Chai, J. Multi-object hallu...

    2023

  5. [5]

    Dola: Decoding by contrasting layers improves factuality in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03883,

    Chuang, Y .-S., Xie, Y ., Luo, H., Kim, Y ., Glass, J., and He, P. Dola: Decoding by contrasting layers improves factuality in large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.03883,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  6. [6]

    Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for lan- guage understanding

    Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., and Toutanova, K. Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for lan- guage understanding. InProceedings of the 2019 confer- ence of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, volume 1 (long and short papers), pp. 4171–4186,

    2019

  7. [8]

    Guan, T., Liu, F., Wu, X., Xian, R., Li, Z., Liu, X., Wang, X., Chen, L., Huang, F., Yacoob, Y ., et al

    URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2306.13394. Guan, T., Liu, F., Wu, X., Xian, R., Li, Z., Liu, X., Wang, X., Chen, L., Huang, F., Yacoob, Y ., et al. Hallusionbench: an advanced diagnostic suite for entangled language hal- lucination and visual illusion in large vision-language models. InProceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Reco...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  8. [9]

    Star: Stage-wise attention-guided token reduction for efficient large vision-language models inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12359,

    Guo, Y ., Li, H., Zhang, Z., You, J., Tang, K., and Huang, X. Star: Stage-wise attention-guided token reduction for efficient large vision-language models inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.12359,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  9. [10]

    Han, Y ., Nie, L., Yin, J., Wu, J., and Yan, Y

    URL https: //arxiv.org/abs/2606.29431. Han, Y ., Nie, L., Yin, J., Wu, J., and Yan, Y . Vi- sual perturbation-aware collaborative learning for over- coming the language prior problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.11850,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  10. [11]

    Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06500,

    Hu, X., Gao, J., Li, C., and et al. Instructblip: Towards general-purpose vision-language models with instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.06500,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  11. [12]

    X., and Wen, J.-R

    Li, Y ., Du, Y ., Zhou, K., Wang, J., Zhao, W. X., and Wen, J.-R. Evaluating object hallucination in large vision- language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10355,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  12. [13]

    10 SeeMe: Mitigating Hallucinations in LVLMs through Visual Token Engineering Lin, T.-Y ., Maire, M., Belongie, S., Hays, J., Perona, P., Ra- manan, D., Doll´ar, P., and Zitnick, C. L. Microsoft coco: Common objects in context. InComputer vision–ECCV 2014: 13th European conference, zurich, Switzerland, September 6-12, 2014, proceedings, part v 13, pp. 740–

    2014

  13. [14]

    Mitigating hallucination in large multi-modal models via robust instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14565, 2023a

    Liu, F., Lin, K., Li, L., Wang, J., Yacoob, Y ., and Wang, L. Mitigating hallucination in large multi-modal models via robust instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.14565, 2023a. Liu, H., Zhang, P., Yang, Z., Yang, J., Yuan, L., and Zhang, L. Visual instruction tuning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.08485, 2023b. Liu, H., Li, C., Li, Y ., Li, B., Zhang, Y...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1907

  14. [15]

    A survey on vision-language-action models for embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14093,

    Ma, Y ., Song, Z., Zhuang, Y ., Hao, J., and King, I. A survey on vision-language-action models for embodied ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14093,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [16]

    A., and Kundu, S

    Sarkar, S., Che, Y ., Gavin, A., Beerel, P. A., and Kundu, S. Mitigating hallucinations in vision-language models through image-guided head suppression.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.16411,

    arXiv

  16. [17]

    J., and Yan, Y

    Shang, Y ., Cai, M., Xu, B., Lee, Y . J., and Yan, Y . Llava- prumerge: Adaptive token reduction for efficient large multimodal models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.15388,

    arXiv

  17. [18]

    Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozi`ere, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al

    URL https:// arxiv.org/abs/2505.12343. Touvron, H., Lavril, T., Izacard, G., Martinet, X., Lachaux, M.-A., Lacroix, T., Rozi`ere, B., Goyal, N., Hambro, E., Azhar, F., et al. Llama: Open and efficient foundation lan- guage models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  18. [19]

    Amber: An llm-free multi-dimensional benchmark for mllms hallucination evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07397,

    Wang, J., Wang, Y ., Xu, G., Zhang, J., Gu, Y ., Jia, H., Wang, J., Xu, H., Yan, M., Zhang, J., et al. Amber: An llm-free multi-dimensional benchmark for mllms hallucination evaluation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.07397,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  19. [20]

    Don’t miss the forest for the trees: Attentional vision calibra- tion for large vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17820,

    Woo, S., Kim, D., Jang, J., Choi, Y ., and Kim, C. Don’t miss the forest for the trees: Attentional vision calibra- tion for large vision language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.17820,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [21]

    Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models

    Xu, Z., Jain, S., and Kankanhalli, M. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11817,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  21. [22]

    Llm lies: Hallucinations are not bugs, but features as adversarial examples.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01469,

    Yao, J.-Y ., Ning, K.-P., Liu, Z.-H., Ning, M.-N., Liu, Y .-Y ., and Yuan, L. Llm lies: Hallucinations are not bugs, but features as adversarial examples.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.01469,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  22. [23]

    Not all errors are created equal: Ascot addresses late-stage fragility in efficient llm reasoning.arXiv Prepr

    11 SeeMe: Mitigating Hallucinations in LVLMs through Visual Token Engineering Zhang, D., Wu, Y ., Sun, Y ., Zhu, J., Yang, J., Xin, M., and Tian, B. Not all errors are created equal: Ascot addresses late-stage fragility in efficient llm reasoning.arXiv Prepr. arXiv:2508.05282,

    arXiv

  23. [24]

    Not all queries need deep thought: Coficot for adaptive coarse-to-fine stateful refinement

    Zhang, D., Lin, H., Sun, Y ., Wang, P., Wang, Q., Yang, N., and Zhu, J. Not all queries need deep thought: Coficot for adaptive coarse-to-fine stateful refinement. InAnn. Conf. Uncertain. Artif. Intell., 2026a. Zhang, D., Sun, Y ., Li, P., Liu, Y ., Lin, H., Xu, H., Mu, X., Lin, L., Yan, W., Yang, N., et al. Pointcot: A multi-modal benchmark for explicit ...

    arXiv

  24. [25]

    Sparsevlm: Visual token sparsification for effi- cient vision-language model inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04417,

    Zhang, Y ., Fan, C.-K., Ma, J., Zheng, W., Huang, T., Cheng, K., Gudovskiy, D., Okuno, T., Nakata, Y ., Keutzer, K., et al. Sparsevlm: Visual token sparsification for effi- cient vision-language model inference.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.04417,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [26]

    Infmllm: A unified framework for visual-language tasks

    Zhou, Q., Wang, Z., Chu, W., Xu, Y ., Li, H., and Qi, Y . Infmllm: A unified framework for visual-language tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06791, 2023a. Zhou, X., Liu, M., Yurtsever, E., Zagar, B. L., Zimmer, W., Cao, H., and Knoll, A. C. Vision language models in autonomous driving: A survey and outlook.IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  26. [27]

    Analyzing and mitigating object hallucination in large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00754, 2023b

    Zhou, Y ., Cui, C., Yoon, J., Zhang, L., Deng, Z., Finn, C., Bansal, M., and Yao, H. Analyzing and mitigating object hallucination in large vision-language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.00754, 2023b. Zhu, D. and et al. Minigpt-4: Enhancing vision-language un- derstanding with advanced large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.10592,

    Pith/arXiv arXiv