REVIEW 2 cited by
HoT: Highlighted Chain of Thought for Referencing Supporting Facts from Inputs
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
An Achilles heel of Large Language Models (LLMs) is their tendency to hallucinate non-factual statements. A response mixed of factual and non-factual statements poses a challenge for humans to verify and accurately base their decisions on. To combat this problem, we propose Highlighted Chain-of-Thought Prompting (HoT), a technique for prompting LLMs to generate responses with XML tags that ground facts to those provided in the question. That is, given an input question, LLMs would first re-format the question to add XML tags highlighting key facts, and then, generate a response with highlights over the facts referenced from the input. Compared to vanilla chain of thought prompting (CoT), HoT reduces the rate of hallucination and separately improves LLM accuracy consistently on over 22 tasks from arithmetic, reading comprehension, to logical reasoning. When asking humans to verify LLM responses, highlights help time-limited participants to more accurately and efficiently recognize when LLMs are correct. Yet, surprisingly, when LLMs are wrong, HoTs tend to fool users into believing that an answer is correct.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
PageGuide: Browser extension to assist users in navigating a webpage and locating information
PageGuide is a browser extension that grounds LLM responses in webpage DOM elements via visual overlays for Find, Guide, and Hide modes, reporting performance gains over unaided browsing in a 94-user study.
-
Generating Privacy Stories From Software Documentation
LLMs can extract privacy behaviors from software documents and draft privacy stories, but the best overall F1 is 0.766, not the abstract's 0.8+.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.