llava-1-5-7b-captioning-restricting-lora-adapter-attention-heads-picked CLM-0239
mechanismsingle paperReviewed by AI

In LLaVA-1.5-7B captioning, restricting a LoRA adapter to attention heads picked by a hallucination diagnosis (attention-to-image drop around hallucinated object words, then ablation screening) reduces object hallucination, while an identically trained layer-matched random-head adapter does not — so the selection, not the added adapter capacity, carries the effect.

Capability: Grounding answers in the image

Observed on

One model (LLaVA-1.5-7B), one captioning prompt, COCO val2014 images, CHAIR scoring; 32 selected heads across 19 layers; control split of 200 images. Gains come with shorter captio.

Sources

  • Validated by: Not stated. Measured on 400 held-out COCO images (CHAIRs 0.370 to 0.230, CHAIRi 0.156 to 0.096, paired sign-flip p<0.001) plus a 200-image control split where random-head LoRA gave CHAIRs 0.400 vs 0.100 for selected heads. Fixed-budget runs (64/80/128 tokens) rule out pure truncation, but no fully length-matched or all-head-LoRA baseline, and recall falls, so precision-coverage tradeoff is not isolated.
Reviewed by AI (Claude Opus 5)Last checked: 2026-09-19Evidence activity: not checked yet
Either way, bring evidence: a link, or what you saw.

Disagreeing is the most useful thing you can do here. Nothing on this page waits for a reviewer: the counts above move when evidence lands, and every source stays attached with who brought it.

Related claims

Notes

Drafted from the paper by a model and filed unreviewed. Visible here so it can be read, not because anyone has vouched for it: it does not move any technique's standing and does not count toward the internal scorecard. Drafted confidence: medium. Falsifier as drafted: A random-head or all-head LoRA trained with the same DPO pairs and matched length reaching the same CHAIR reduction, or the selected heads failing to transfer to other VLMs/prompts.