# Targeting the Attention Heads Behind Object Hallucination in LLaVA

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.24966 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.24966/

## Key facts

- Cited by 1 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Hallucination mitigation in LVLMs, one of 16 directions in Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models.
- Builds on 11 of its 15 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 25 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- Multimodal LLMs / vision-language models / [Hallucination mitigation in LVLMs](https://mlsanity.com/mllm/hallucination-mitigation-in-lvlms/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 11 of 11)

- [Microsoft COCO: Common Objects in Context](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1405.0312/) (2014)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.08485/) (2023)
- [Improved Baselines with Visual Instruction Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03744/) (2023)
- [QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14314/) (2023)
- [Attention is not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1902.10186/) (2019)
- [Mitigating Object Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models through Visual Contrastive Decoding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.16922/) (2023)
- [Object Hallucination in Image Captioning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.02156/) (2018)
- [Attention is not not Explanation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.04626/) (2019)
- [Devils in Middle Layers of Large Vision-Language Models: Interpreting, Detecting and Mitigating Object Hallucinations via Attention Lens](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.16724/) (2024)
- [Mitigating Hallucinations in Vision-Language Models through Image-Guided Head Suppression](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.16411/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 1 of 1)

- [What Do Visual-Head Discovery Scores Actually Find? Attention Source, Necessity, and Random-Control Pitfalls in Vision-Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.13111/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Vision-language models such as LLaVA-1.5-7B often hallucinate objects absent from the image when generating captions. We ask whether an interpretability diagnosis of this failure can guide a targeted fix, and we measure what that fix actually changes. We rank attention heads by how much their image attention drops around hallucinated object words, then screen the shortlist by ablating candidate heads and measuring the change in hallucination-token log probability, yielding a 32-head set. We restrict two interventions to these heads: a head-sliced LoRA adapter and an inference-time grounding controller. On 400 held-out COCO images, the combined method lowers CHAIRs (the fraction of captions with a hallucinated object) from 0.370 to 0.230 and CHAIRi (the fraction of hallucinated object mentions) from 0.156 to 0.096 (p < 0.001, paired sign-flip tests). Two controls sharpen attribution. A random-head LoRA control, matched layer-for-layer and trained identically, performs no better than the matched baseline on a separate 200-image control split, supporting the role of head selection rather than LoRA capacity. Under fixed decoding budgets, the CHAIR reduction persists and grows with budget (23% at 64 tokens to 58% at 128), arguing against a pure max-token or truncation artifact, although the method remains shorter and more conservative. The resulting behavior reduces unsupported object mentions while also lowering object recall (0.78 to 0.70). We present a diagnosis-to-intervention pipeline for object hallucination, and, more importantly, a controlled account of what acting on the diagnostic signal actually does: it localizes intervention sites with real, non-random leverage, reported as a behavioral profile rather than a single score.