When Model Priors Conflict with Visual Evidence: Mitigating Commonsense-Driven Hallucinations by Selective Prior Calibration

In vision--language models, commonsense-driven hallucination (CDH) occurs when a model's commonsense prior overrides clear visual evidence of an atypical state. For example, a model may report that a visibly six-fingered hand has five fingers. We show that these errors are systematically directed: when a model answers a question about a counterfactual (CF) image incorrectly, its answer often coincides with the candidate it prefers without access to the image. Suppressing this prior indiscriminately can repair CF errors, but may also disrupt correct answers on matched commonsense (CS) images, where the same prior is helpful. We therefore propose Selective Prior Calibration (SPC), which subtracts candidate-level prior-preference estimates from image-conditioned scores with an instance-dependent strength and revises the original prediction only when the resulting score pattern strongly supports an alternative. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SPC substantially improves accuracy on CF images while largely preserving accuracy on matched CS images. Furthermore, these gains generalize across CDH categories, candidate-answer permutations, and other conflict benchmarks, while SPC rarely alters predictions on benchmarks without such conflicts.

CDH-Bench: A Commonsense-Driven Hallucination Benchmark for Evaluating Visual Fidelity in Vision-Language Models

Vision-language models (VLMs) achieve strong performance on many benchmarks, yet a basic reliability question remains underexplored: when visual evidence conflicts with commonsense, do models follow what is shown or what commonsense suggests? A characteristic failure in this setting is that the model overrides visual evidence and outputs the commonsense alternative. We term this phenomenon \textbf{commonsense-driven hallucination} (CDH). To evaluate it, we introduce \textbf{CDH-Bench}, a benchmark designed to create explicit \textbf{visual evidence--commonsense conflicts}. CDH-Bench covers three dimensions: \textit{counting anomalies}, \textit{relational anomalies}, and \textit{attribute anomalies}. We evaluate frontier VLMs under \textit{binary Question Answering (QA)} and \textit{multiple-choice QA}, and report metrics including \textit{Counterfactual Accuracy} (CF-Acc), \textit{Commonsense Accuracy} (CS-Acc), \textit{Counterfactual Accuracy Drop} (CFAD), \textit{Commonsense Collapse Rate} (CCR), and \textit{Relative Prior Dependency} (RPD). Results show that even strong models remain vulnerable to prior-driven normalization under visual evidence--commonsense conflict. CDH-Bench provides a controlled diagnostic of visual fidelity under visual evidence--commonsense conflict.

A Novel Immune Algorithm for Multiparty Multiobjective Optimization

Traditional multiobjective optimization problems (MOPs) are insufficiently equipped for scenarios involving multiple decision makers (DMs), which are prevalent in many practical applications. These scenarios are categorized as multiparty multiobjective optimization problems (MPMOPs). For MPMOPs, the goal is to find a solution set that is as close to the Pareto front of each DM as much as possible. This poses challenges for evolutionary algorithms in terms of searching and selecting. To better solve MPMOPs, this paper proposes a novel approach called the multiparty immune algorithm (MPIA). The MPIA incorporates an inter-party guided crossover strategy based on the individual's non-dominated sorting ranks from different DM perspectives and an adaptive activation strategy based on the proposed multiparty cover metric (MCM). These strategies enable MPIA to activate suitable individuals for the next operations, maintain population diversity from different DM perspectives, and enhance the algorithm's search capability. To evaluate the performance of MPIA, we compare it with ordinary multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (MOEAs) and state-of-the-art multiparty multiobjective optimization evolutionary algorithms (MPMOEAs) by solving synthetic multiparty multiobjective problems and real-world biparty multiobjective unmanned aerial vehicle path planning (BPUAV-PP) problems involving multiple DMs. Experimental results demonstrate that MPIA outperforms other algorithms.

Evolutionary Biparty Multiobjective UAV Path Planning: Problems and Empirical Comparisons

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been widely used in urban missions, and proper planning of UAV paths can improve mission efficiency while reducing the risk of potential third-party impact. Existing work has considered all efficiency and safety objectives for a single decision-maker (DM) and regarded this as a multiobjective optimization problem (MOP). However, there is usually not a single DM but two DMs, i.e., an efficiency DM and a safety DM, and the DMs are only concerned with their respective objectives. The final decision is made based on the solutions of both DMs. In this paper, for the first time, biparty multiobjective UAV path planning (BPMO-UAVPP) problems involving both efficiency and safety departments are modeled. The existing multiobjective immune algorithm with nondominated neighbor-based selection (NNIA), the hybrid evolutionary framework for the multiobjective immune algorithm (HEIA), and the adaptive immune-inspired multiobjective algorithm (AIMA) are modified for solving the BPMO-UAVPP problem, and then biparty multiobjective optimization algorithms, including the BPNNIA, BPHEIA, and BPAIMA, are proposed and comprehensively compared with traditional multiobjective evolutionary algorithms and typical multiparty multiobjective evolutionary algorithms (i.e., OptMPNDS and OptMPNDS2). The experimental results show that BPAIMA performs better than ordinary multiobjective evolutionary algorithms such as NSGA-II and multiparty multiobjective evolutionary algorithms such as OptMPNDS, OptMPNDS2, BPNNIA and BPHEIA.

BAMBO: Construct Ability and Efficiency LLM Pareto Set via Bayesian Adaptive Multi-objective Block-wise Optimization

Constructing a Pareto set is pivotal for navigating the capability-efficiency trade-offs in Large Language Models (LLMs); however, existing merging techniques remain inadequate for this task. Coarse-grained, model-level methods yield only a sparse set of suboptimal solutions, while fine-grained, layer-wise approaches suffer from the "curse of dimensionality," rendering the search space computationally intractable. To resolve this dichotomy, we propose BAMBO (Bayesian Adaptive Multi-objective Block-wise Optimization), a novel framework that automatically constructs the LLM Pareto set. BAMBO renders the search tractable by introducing a Hybrid Optimal Block Partitioning strategy. Formulated as a 1D clustering problem, this strategy leverages a dynamic programming approach to optimally balance intra-block homogeneity and inter-block information distribution, thereby dramatically reducing dimensionality without sacrificing critical granularity. The entire process is automated within an evolutionary loop driven by the q-Expected Hypervolume Improvement (qEHVI) acquisition function. Experiments demonstrate that BAMBO discovers a superior and more comprehensive Pareto frontier than baselines, enabling agile model selection tailored to diverse operational constraints. Code is available at: https://github.com/xin8coder/BAMBO.