# Measuring Epistemic Humility in Multimodal Large Language Models

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.09658 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2509.09658/

## Key facts

- Cited by 4 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in MLLM training and visual instruction tuning, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 43 of its 55 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Sep 2025.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [MLLM training and visual instruction tuning](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/mllm-training-and-visual-instruction-tuning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 43)

- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Qwen2.5-VL Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13923/) (2025)
- [InstructBLIP: Towards General-purpose Vision-Language Models with Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.06500/) (2023)
- [InternVL: Scaling up Vision Foundation Models and Aligning for Generic Visual-Linguistic Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.14238/) (2023)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.03314/) (2024)
- [InternVL3: Exploring Advanced Training and Test-Time Recipes for Open-Source Multimodal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.10479/) (2025)
- [Gemma 3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.19786/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.10355/) (2023)
- [MME: A Comprehensive Evaluation Benchmark for Multimodal Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13394/) (2023)
- [Cambrian-1: A Fully Open, Vision-Centric Exploration of Multimodal LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.16860/) (2024)
- [Phi-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.08905/) (2024)
- [VILA: On Pre-training for Visual Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2312.07533/) (2023)
- [Mitigating Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models through Visual Contrastive Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16922/) (2023)
- [HallusionBench: An Advanced Diagnostic Suite for Entangled Language Hallucination and Visual Illusion in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.14566/) (2023)
- [DeepSeek-VL2: Mixture-of-Experts Vision-Language Models for Advanced Multimodal Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.10302/) (2024)
- [OPERA: Alleviating Hallucination in Multi-Modal Large Language Models via Over-Trust Penalty and Retrospection-Allocation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.17911/) (2023)
- [LLaVA-CoT: Let Vision Language Models Reason Step-by-Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.10440/) (2024)
- [Mitigating Hallucination in Large Multi-Modal Models via Robust Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.14565/) (2023)
- [R1-Onevision: Advancing Generalized Multimodal Reasoning through Cross-Modal Formalization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10615/) (2025)
- [Monkey: Image Resolution and Text Label Are Important Things for Large Multi-modal Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.06607/) (2023)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.00253/) (2024)
- [Molmo and PixMo: Open Weights and Open Data for State-of-the-Art Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.17146/) (2024)
- [R1-VL: Learning to Reason with Multimodal Large Language Models via Step-wise Group Relative Policy Optimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.12937/) (2025)
- [MME-RealWorld: Could Your Multimodal LLM Challenge High-Resolution Real-World Scenarios that are Difficult for Humans?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.13257/) (2024)
- [Multi-Modal Hallucination Control by Visual Information Grounding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.14003/) (2024)
- [Mitigating Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models with Instruction Contrastive Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.18715/) (2024)
- [Pixtral 12B](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07073/) (2024)
- [Mulberry: Empowering MLLM with o1-like Reasoning and Reflection via Collective Monte Carlo Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.18319/) (2024)

## Built on by (most cited first, 4 of 4)

- [Honesty over Accuracy: Trustworthy Language Models through Reinforced Hesitation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.11500/) (2025)
- [Positive Alignment: Artificial Intelligence for Human Flourishing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.10310/) (2026)
- [Learning to Think Fast and Slow for Visual Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.16670/) (2025)
- [Accurate but Not Humble: Evaluating Epistemic Humility in LLM Agents under Knowledge Conflict](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.12360/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Hallucinations in multimodal large language models (MLLMs), where a model generates content inconsistent with the input image, pose significant risks in real-world applications. Existing hallucination benchmarks primarily test recognition, i.e., whether a model can select the correct answer among distractors. They overlook another capability that is essential for trustworthy AI: recognizing when none of the provided options is supported by the image and declining to commit to a false choice. We present HumbleBench, a hallucination benchmark that evaluates this false-option rejection behavior, a directly observable facet of epistemic humility, through multiple-choice questions that always include a "None of the above" (NOTA) option. HumbleBench is built from the Panoptic Scene Graph dataset: its object and relation annotations, together with candidate attribute cues, are used to prompt GPT-4-Turbo to generate questions, which are then manually verified, yielding 22,831 questions on object, relation, and attribute hallucinations. We evaluate 27 MLLMs, including general-purpose, reasoning-oriented, and proprietary models, and complement standard accuracy with NOTA-aware metrics, diagnostic stress tests, and a human evaluation. Even the strongest models select NOTA for only about half of the questions in which it is correct, cautious prompting shifts models toward NOTA without improving their ability to detect unsupported options, and humans reject unsupported options considerably more reliably than all evaluated models. These results show that recognition accuracy alone is insufficient for assessing hallucination robustness. Our code and dataset are publicly available at https://github.com/maifoundations/HumbleBench.