Knowing but Not Correcting: Routine Task Requests Suppress Factual Correction in LLMs

LLMs reliably correct false claims when presented in isolation, yet when the same claims are embedded in task-oriented requests, they often comply rather than correct. We term this failure mode \emph{correction suppression} and construct a benchmark of 300 false premises to systematically evaluate it across eight models. Suppression rates range from 19\% to 90\%, with four models exceeding 80\%, establishing correction suppression as a prevalent and severe phenomenon. Mechanistic analysis reveals that suppression is not a knowledge failure: the model registers the error internally but task context diverts early-layer attention from the false claim as output intent crystallizes toward compliance at middle layers. We characterize this as \emph{knowing but not correcting} -- suppression occurs at response selection rather than knowledge encoding. Guided by this mechanism, we propose two training-free interventions. Correction Direction Steering (CDS) estimates a correction-compliance direction from matched pairs and injects it at middle layers before output intent crystallizes. Dynamic Payload Amplification (DPA) localizes payload tokens via attention divergence between early and late layers and amplifies their representation at the final layer, requiring no calibration data. Experiments on Qwen3.5-9B and LLaMA3.1-8B show both methods substantially improve factual strictness. CDS achieves the highest correction rate on Qwen3.5-9B (0\%$\to$58.2\%). DPA is the only method that preserves or improves reasoning capability on both models. These findings introduce \emph{factual strictness} -- the willingness to uphold accuracy against contextual pressures -- as a new dimension of model reliability.

MESH -- Understanding Videos Like Human: Measuring Hallucinations in Large Video Models

Large Video Models (LVMs) build on the semantic capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) and vision modules by integrating temporal information to better understand dynamic video content. Despite their progress, LVMs are prone to hallucinations-producing inaccurate or irrelevant descriptions. Current benchmarks for video hallucination depend heavily on manual categorization of video content, neglecting the perception-based processes through which humans naturally interpret videos. We introduce MESH, a benchmark designed to evaluate hallucinations in LVMs systematically. MESH uses a Question-Answering framework with binary and multi-choice formats incorporating target and trap instances. It follows a bottom-up approach, evaluating basic objects, coarse-to-fine subject features, and subject-action pairs, aligning with human video understanding. We demonstrate that MESH offers an effective and comprehensive approach for identifying hallucinations in videos. Our evaluations show that while LVMs excel at recognizing basic objects and features, their susceptibility to hallucinations increases markedly when handling fine details or aligning multiple actions involving various subjects in longer videos.