Evaluates the ability of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) to mitigate object hallucinations during text generation. It probes visual-text alignment by measuring hallucination rates, recall of existing objects, and accuracy on binary probing questions, alongside GPT-4V-aided assessments of response accuracy and detailness. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MSCOCO val2014, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports CHAIRS.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill marine-hallucination-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Marine Hallucination Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-marine-hallucination-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: marine-hallucination-eval
description: Evaluates the ability of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) to mitigate object hallucinations during text generation. It probes visual-text alignment by measuring hallucination rates, recall of existing objects, and accuracy on binary probing questions, alongside GPT-4V-aided assessments of response accuracy and detailness. Use when the user wants to benchmark on MSCOCO val2014, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports CHAIRS.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2402.08680
bibtex_key: zhao2024marine
confidence: high
---
# marine-hallucination-eval
> Mitigating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models via Image-Grounded Guidance — Linxi Zhao et al. (2024) (arXiv:2402.08680, 2024)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates the ability of Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) to mitigate object hallucinations during text generation. It probes visual-text alignment by measuring hallucination rates, recall of existing objects, and accuracy on binary probing questions, alongside GPT-4V-aided assessments of response accuracy and detailness.
## Datasets
- **MSCOCO val2014** — total 5000; splits: val (5000)
## Metrics
- `CHAIRI` — range: [0, 1]
- Instance-level hallucination rate: ratio of hallucinated objects to all mentioned objects in the generated caption.
- `CHAIRS` **(primary)** — range: [0, 1]
- Sentence-level hallucination rate: ratio of captions containing hallucinated objects to all generated captions.
- `Recall` — range: [0, 1]
- Instance-level recall: ratio of non-hallucinated (correctly mentioned) objects to all existing ground-truth objects.
- `POPE Accuracy` — range: [0, 1]
- Accuracy on binary yes/no object probing questions in the adversarial setting.
- `POPE F1` — range: [0, 1]
- F1 score for yes/no object probing responses in the adversarial setting.
- `GPT-4V Accuracy` — range: [1, 10]
- Score out of 10 from GPT-4V judge on how accurately the model describes the image.
- `GPT-4V Detailness` — range: [1, 10]
- Score out of 10 from GPT-4V judge on the richness of necessary details in the response.
## Input / output format
**Input**: An input image paired with a text prompt (e.g., image captioning instruction or binary yes/no question).
**Output**: A generated text response (natural language description or 'yes'/'no' answer).
## Scoring recipe
```python
def score_chair(pred_objects, gold_objects):
hallucinated = set(pred_objects) - set(gold_objects)
chair_i = len(hallucinated) / len(pred_objects) if pred_objects else 0
chair_s = 1.0 if hallucinated else 0.0
recall = len(gold_objects - hallucinated) / len(gold_objects) if gold_objects else 0.0
return chair_i, chair_s, recall
def score_pope(preds, golds):
acc = sum(1 for p, g in zip(preds, golds) if p == g) / len(golds)
f1 = f1_score(golds, preds, pos_label='yes')
yes_ratio = sum(1 for p in preds if p == 'yes') / len(preds)
return acc, f1, yes_ratio
def score_gpt4v(image, prompt, pred):
# Use GPT-4V judge prompt to get scores 1-10 for accuracy and detailness
return gpt4v_judge(image, prompt, pred).accuracy, gpt4v_judge(image, prompt, pred).detailness
```
## Common pitfalls
- Fine-tuning baselines like LURE can overwrite original instructions and fail on binary question formats, making POPE evaluation impractical.
- POPE adversarial setting often suffers from a strong 'yes' bias in LVLMs, skewing accuracy and requiring explicit reporting of the yes-ratio.
- Excessive classifier-free guidance strength can degrade instruction-following capability despite reducing hallucinations, requiring careful tuning (γ∈(0.3,0.7)).
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> In alignment with established evaluations from previous studies, we assess our method using the following metrics: Caption Hallucination Assessment with Image Relevance (CHAIR)... Polling-based Object Probing Evaluation (POPE)... GPT-4V-aided Evaluation... All evaluations are conducted using the MSCOCO val2014 dataset.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{zhao2024marine,
title={Mitigating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models via Image-Grounded Guidance},
author={Linxi Zhao et al. (2024)},
year={2024},
note={arXiv:2402.08680}
}
```
- arXiv: 2402.08680
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!