Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 33 references

The paper proposes using the singular values of N-gram frequency tensors as features for a binary classifier that separates hallucinated from factual LLM text, and reports accuracy above 0.95 on HaluEval Dialogue and Summary subsets when 20

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Singular values of label-grouped n-gram frequency tensors are used as MLP features for hallucination detection, with reported gains on HaluEval that rely on label-aware grouping.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-05 challenge →

load-bearing objection The headline results are circular—the test-time features are built from the true labels—so the only non-leaky configuration (group size 1) is near chance and the central claim collapses. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.05360 v1 pith:Q55JY6HG submitted 2025-09-03 cs.CL cs.LG

Beyond ROUGE: N-Gram Subspace Features for LLM Hallucination Detection

Jerry Li , Evangelos Papalexakis This is my paper
classification cs.CL cs.LG
keywords hallucination detectionN-gram tensortensor decompositionsingular valuesMLP classifierHaluEvalLLM-generated textROUGE
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the latent structure of N-gram co-occurrence counts, summarized by tensor decomposition, carries enough signal to distinguish hallucinated LLM output from factual output. It constructs an N-gram frequency tensor from pooled texts, extracts singular values via SVD, Tucker, or CP decomposition, and feeds those values into a small MLP classifier. On the HaluEval benchmark, the method improves on Perplexity, Rouge-L, and BERTScore, and is competitive with a GPT-4o judge, especially when 20–40 texts are grouped together before feature extraction. The central mechanism is that pooling texts by label produces denser tensors whose singular-value profile becomes increasingly discriminative. A sympathetic reader would take the core claim as: N-gram statistics, used differently from overlap scoring, can still be a viable lightweight signal for hallucination detection.

Core claim

The authors claim that representing LLM-generated text as an order-N frequency tensor over the vocabulary, then decomposing that tensor to obtain singular values, yields features that separate hallucinated from factual content better than the classic N-gram overlap metrics they build on. They show this by training an MLP binary classifier on the extracted singular-value vectors and evaluating it on the General, Dialogue, and Summary subsets of HaluEval. The reported results improve monotonically as the text group size grows from 1 to 40, with group-40 Dialogue reaching F1 1.0000 and Accuracy 0.9750, and group-20 General and Summary reaching F1 above 0.83 and 0.97. The authors also test binar

What carries the argument

The N-gram frequency tensor: a tensor whose modes correspond to N-gram positions and whose axes index a group vocabulary, with each entry counting how often a particular N-gram occurs in a group of texts. The authors apply matrix/tensor decomposition—SVD for 2-gram matrices, and Tucker or CP decomposition for higher-order tensors—to collapse the tensor into a fixed-length singular-value vector that serves as the MLP input. The group-size parameter controls how many texts are aggregated into one tensor before decomposition, and it is the main lever behind the reported accuracy gains.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that at test time texts can be grouped by their true hallucination label before features are extracted, so the label being predicted is already known when the N-gram tensor is built.

What would settle it

Re-run the evaluation on HaluEval with groups formed without using true labels—for example, by random batches, hashing, or embedding-based clustering—and measure the MLP's F1 on single texts. If the reported accuracy at group sizes 20–40 (e.g., Dialogue 0.9750) drops to near the Perplexity baseline, the gains come from the label-known grouping rather than from the singular-value features themselves.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • At group sizes of 20 or 40, the singular-value classifier surpasses Perplexity, Rouge-L, and BERTScore on General, Dialogue, and Summary subsets, and matches or exceeds the GPT-4o judge on several configurations.
  • Larger grouping consistently improves performance, indicating that denser N-gram tensors carry more discriminative subspace structure.
  • The method works without querying an LLM judge or external retrieval, so it offers a comparatively cheap detection route based only on token counts and linear algebra.
  • Tucker and CP decompositions also produce usable features, though memory constraints prevent some higher-order configurations from being evaluated.
  • Frequency-based features are not uniquely necessary: binary and log-frequency representations give comparable or better results in some settings, suggesting the signal is robust to how counts are normalized.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A fair single-text deployment would need the grouping step to be replaced by something label-free, such as clustering by embedding similarity or grouping by a first-pass detector's predicted labels; until then the reported numbers are an upper bound for settings where labels are already known.
  • The strong dependence on group size suggests the features mostly capture aggregate per-class corpus statistics rather than signals localized to one generated response, so the method is unlikely to transfer as-is to per-response hallucination flags.
  • A testable extension is to train on label-known training groups but evaluate on label-free held-out groups—if the gap is small, self-supervised grouping could recover most of the reported benefit.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a hallucination-detection method that represents LLM-generated text as N-gram frequency tensors, applies matrix/tensor decomposition (SVD, Tucker, CP) to extract singular-value features, and feeds these features into an MLP binary classifier. The method is evaluated on the HaluEval dataset (General, Dialogue, Summary; QA excluded), with text entries grouped by their true label before tensor construction. The paper reports large performance gains as group size increases, claiming to surpass traditional metrics (Perplexity, ROUGE-L, BERTScore) and to be competitive with a GPT-4o judge. The central claim is that N-gram subspace features capture semantic structure useful for hallucination detection.

Significance. If the reported evaluation were valid, the paper would present a lightweight, interpretable alternative to LLM-based judges, and the release of code is a positive element. The investigation of binary and log-frequency N-gram matrix variants is also a useful robustness check. However, the central evaluation is invalidated by label leakage: for group sizes greater than one, the test-time features are constructed by grouping texts according to the very labels the classifier is supposed to predict. The only non-leaking configuration, SVD-G1, gives uncompetitive results. Thus the paper's main empirical claims are not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.1, Section 3.1] The grouping step in Section 2.1 defines groups as texts 'with the same label, either hallucinated or factual.' For group sizes > 1, the N-gram tensor—and hence the singular-value feature vector—for an evaluation-split group is a function of the true labels of the texts in that group. The note in Section 3.1 that groups are constructed 'using only each respective train-eval split' prevents train/test contamination but does not remove the label requirement. At inference on a single unseen text, there is no way to choose its group without knowing the label being predicted. Consequently the reported results for SVD-G5/G20/G40 (e.g., Table 2: Dialogue G40 F1=1.0000, Accuracy=0.9750; Summary G20 F1=0.9792) are not achievable by a deployed detector. The only non-circular configuration is SVD-G1, where AUROC is 0.5399/0.6830/0.5375 across General/Dialogue/Summary—worse than Perplexity on Genera
  2. [Table 2, Section 3.1] Even setting aside the inference problem, for group sizes > 1 all texts in a group share the same true label and therefore receive an identical feature vector. The reported per-text F1 and accuracy are computed over many duplicated copies of a single group-level decision. This inflates the apparent number of independent test examples and makes the comparison with per-text baselines (Perplexity, ROUGE-L, BERTScore, GPT-4o Judge) unfair. The effective sample size for G20/G40 is the number of groups, not the number of individual texts.
  3. [Section 3.3, QA exclusion, feature-size selection] The QA subset is excluded because of a 'strong textual bias' (factual answers being consistently shorter), but no quantitative bias analysis is provided; this weakens the claim of effectiveness across HaluEval. Additionally, the feature size k is described as determined 'through trial and error,' and it is not specified whether this tuning was confined to the training split. If k was selected using evaluation-set performance, the reported numbers are further optimistic. These issues are secondary to the label-leakage problem but would need to be addressed in any revision.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.1] There are several typos: a stray 'there' before 'We construct the N-Gram Tensor', and 'how We construct' appears mid-sentence. The prose should be cleaned.
  2. [Table 3] The General and Summary rows for TUCKER-G1, TUCKER-G5, TUCKER-G20, CPD-G1, CPD-G5 etc. are numerically identical, which looks like a copy-paste error. Please verify the underlying results.
  3. [References] Reference [15] is cited as 'SelfCheckGPT' but the listed paper is titled 'SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoning'; the actual SelfCheckGPT paper appears to be missing. Please check the citation.
  4. [Table 1] Table 1 reports average n-gram counts and lengths without standard deviations or sample sizes. Since hallucinated responses are generally longer, the count differences may partly reflect length differences rather than semantic structure.
  5. [Notation] The paper inconsistently uses 'N-Gram', 'N-gram', and 'n-gram'. Please standardize.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

For group sizes >1, the input features are built from the true labels being predicted, so the reported gains are circular.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 2.1 (Text Grouping), Section 3.1 (Experimental Setup), Table 2]
    "We first group together texts with the same label, either hallucinated or factual, and convert them into N-Grams. ... For experiments done with group sizes larger than 1, we construct the text groups using only each respective train-eval split."

    The tensor feature for each group is defined by pooling texts that share the same true label, the exact quantity the classifier is trained to predict. Because the eval split is grouped the same way, every test-time feature vector encodes the label of the texts in its group before classification. There is no inference-time procedure to form these groups for unseen texts without first knowing whether each is hallucinated; a single-text detector cannot produce such groups at all. Moreover, all texts in one group share one label, so per-text metrics in Table 2 for G5/G20/G40 count repeated copies of a single group-level, label-conditioned decision. At G1, where no label is used, the paper reports weak results (General AUROC 0.5399, Summary 0.5375). Thus the paper's central claim of 'significan

full rationale

The circularity is in the evaluation protocol, not in the tensor algebra. Section 2.1 defines groups by true label; Section 3.1 confirms the same grouping is used within each train-eval split, so the test features are not label-free. The authors' own robustness analysis (Section 3.3.3) checks binary/log/frequency matrix variants, but all variants are still computed over label-homogeneous groups, so it does not address the label-grouping leakage. The paper's Figure 2 caption says larger group sizes 'consistently improve' performance; under this protocol, larger groups simply inject more label information into each feature vector, so the improvement is expected by construction. I assign 8 because the central claim (group-size>1 superiority over baselines and GPT-4o judge) rests entirely on this label-leaked feature construction; only the G1 results are non-circular, and the paper concedes those are weak. No load-bearing self-citation is involved.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities, but the approach rests on several hand-set hyperparameters and a label-conditioned grouping step that drives the circularity problem. The key domain assumption, that singular values of n-gram count tensors separate hallucinated from factual text, is asserted rather than derived.

free parameters (5)
  • N-gram size N = 2 (bigram matrices used in all main experiments)
    The tensor construction permits any N, but the SVD results use 2-Gram matrices only; no study varying N.
  • Group size G = 1, 5, 20, 40
    Number of same-label texts aggregated into one tensor; performance improves with larger G, showing the feature quality depends on this choice.
  • Feature dimension k (cropping/padding) = 20 for G=1,5; 40 for G=20,40
    Selected by 'trial and error in experimentation' (Section 3.3).
  • MLP hidden dimensions and training hyperparameters = 48, 64, 32, 1; lr=1e-4; 20 epochs
    Set by authors; no ablation reported.
  • Tensor decomposition choice = SVD for matrices; Tucker and CP for higher-order tensors
    Tucker uses top-k absolute core values; CP uses decomposition weights; choice materially affects results (Table 3).
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Singular values of N-gram frequency tensors encode hallucination-relevant structure
    Central premise of the method; asserted, not derived or independently validated.
  • domain assumption HaluEval labels are reliable ground truth
    The classifier is trained and evaluated on HaluEval's hallucinated/factual labels without error analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper Grouping texts by their true label is a legitimate feature-construction step at test time
    Sections 2.1 and 3.1 define groups by label within train and eval splits, making test features depend on the outcome being predicted.
  • standard math Standard properties of SVD, Tucker, and CP decompositions
    Used to extract singular values from count tensors.

reviewed 2026-08-05 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond ROUGE: N-Gram Subspace Features for LLM Hallucination Detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q55JY6HG

@misc{pith2026250905360,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond ROUGE: N-Gram Subspace Features for LLM Hallucination Detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q55JY6HG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.05360}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated effectiveness across a wide variety of tasks involving natural language, however, a fundamental problem of hallucinations still plagues these models, limiting their trustworthiness in generating consistent, truthful information. Detecting hallucinations has quickly become an important topic, with various methods such as uncertainty estimation, LLM Judges, retrieval augmented generation (RAG), and consistency checks showing promise. Many of these methods build upon foundational metrics, such as ROUGE, BERTScore, or Perplexity, which often lack the semantic depth necessary to detect hallucinations effectively. In this work, we propose a novel approach inspired by ROUGE that constructs an N-Gram frequency tensor from LLM-generated text. This tensor captures richer semantic structure by encoding co-occurrence patterns, enabling better differentiation between factual and hallucinated content. We demonstrate this by applying tensor decomposition methods to extract singular values from each mode and use these as input features to train a multi-layer perceptron (MLP) binary classifier for hallucinations. Our method is evaluated on the HaluEval dataset and demonstrates significant improvements over traditional baselines, as well as competitive performance against state-of-the-art LLM judges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.05360 by Evangelos Papalexakis, Jerry Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: N-Gram Matrix/Tensor creation and input feature extraction process for the binary MLP classifier. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Performance comparison as text group size in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Comparison of performances between Binary, Log [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 6 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Orlando Ayala and Patrice Bechard. 2024. Reducing hallucination in structured outputs via Retrieval-Augmented Generation. In Proceedings of the 2024 Confer- ence of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 6: Industry Track). Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, 228–238. https...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-industry.19 2024

  2. [2]

    Zechen Bai, Pichao Wang, Tianjun Xiao, Tong He, Zongbo Han, Zheng Zhang, and Mike Zheng Shou. 2025. Hallucination of Multimodal Large Language Models: A Survey. arXiv:2404.18930 [cs.CV] https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.18930

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Chao Chen, Kai Liu, Ze Chen, Yi Gu, Yue Wu, Mingyuan Tao, Zhihang Fu, and Jieping Ye. 2024. INSIDE: LLMs’ Internal States Retain the Power of Hallucination Detection. arXiv:2402.03744 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.03744

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    I-Chun Chern, Steffi Chern, Shiqi Chen, Weizhe Yuan, Kehua Feng, Chunting Zhou, Junxian He, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. FacTool: Factuality Detection in Generative AI – A Tool Augmented Framework for Multi-Task and Multi-Domain Scenarios. arXiv:2307.13528 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307. 13528

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Lieven De Lathauwer, Bart De Moor, and Joos Vandewalle. 2000. A multilinear singular value decomposition. SIAM J. Matrix Anal. Appl. 21, 4 (2000), 1253–1278

    work page 2000

  6. [6]

    Shehzaad Dhuliawala, Mojtaba Komeili, Jing Xu, Roberta Raileanu, Xian Li, Asli Celikyilmaz, and Jason Weston. 2023. Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucina- tion in Large Language Models. arXiv:2309.11495 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2309.11495

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, Weitao Ma, Weihong Zhong, Zhangyin Feng, Haotian Wang, Qianglong Chen, Weihua Peng, Xiaocheng Feng, Bing Qin, and Ting Liu. 2025. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 43, 2 (Jan. 2025), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3703155

    doi:10.1145/3703155 2025

  8. [8]

    Ziwei Ji, Tiezheng Yu, Yan Xu, Nayeon Lee, Etsuko Ishii, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Towards Mitigating LLM Hallucination via Self Reflection. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 , Houda Bouamor, Juan Pino, and Kalika Bali (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics, Singapore, 1827–1843. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.123 2023

  9. [9]

    Jean Kossaifi, Yannis Panagakis, Anima Anandkumar, and Maja Pantic. 2018. TensorLy: Tensor Learning in Python. arXiv:1610.09555 [cs.LG] https://arxiv. org/abs/1610.09555

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, Sebastian Riedel, and Douwe Kiela. 2021. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. arXiv:2005.11401 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2005.11401

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  11. [11]

    Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen

  12. [12]

    Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries. In Text Summarization Branches Out. Association for Computational Linguistics, Barcelona, Spain, 74–81. https://aclanthology.org/W04-1013/

    2004

  13. [13]

    Andrey Malinin and Mark Gales. 2021. Uncertainty Estimation in Autoregressive Structured Prediction. arXiv:2002.07650 [stat.ML] https://arxiv.org/abs/2002. 07650

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020. On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Dan Jurafsky, Joyce Chai, Natalie Schluter, and Joel Tetreault (Eds.). Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, Online, 1906–1919....

    doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl- 2020

  15. [15]

    Ning Miao, Yee Whye Teh, and Tom Rainforth. 2023. SelfCheck: Using LLMs to Zero-Shot Check Their Own Step-by-Step Reasoning. arXiv:2308.00436 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.00436

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  16. [16]

    Sewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike Lewis, Wen tau Yih, Pang Wei Koh, Mohit Iyyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. FActScore: Fine- grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation. arXiv:2305.14251 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14251

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Seungwhan Moon, Pararth Shah, Anuj Kumar, and Rajen Subba. 2019. OpenDi- alKG: Explainable Conversational Reasoning with Attention-based Walks over Knowledge Graphs. In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics , Anna Korhonen, David Traum, and Lluís Màrquez (Eds.). Association for Computational Linguistics,...

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Ramesh Nallapati, Bowen Zhou, Cicero Nogueira dos santos, Caglar Gulcehre, and Bing Xiang. 2016. Abstractive Text Summarization Using Sequence-to-Sequence RNNs and Beyond. arXiv:1602.06023 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/1602.06023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  19. [19]

    Cheng Niu, Yuanhao Wu, Juno Zhu, Siliang Xu, Kashun Shum, Randy Zhong, Juntong Song, and Tong Zhang. 2024. RAGTruth: A Hallucination Corpus for Developing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Language Models. arXiv:2401.00396 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.00396

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    OpenAI. 2024. GPT-4o System Card. https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.21276. Accessed: 2025-06-07

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei-Jing Zhu. 2002. BLEU: a method for automatic evaluation of machine translation. InProceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics (Philadelphia, Penn- sylvania) (ACL ’02). Association for Computational Linguistics, USA, 311–318. https://doi.org/10.3115/1073083.1073135

    work page arXiv 2002

  22. [22]

    Jie Ren, Jiaming Luo, Yao Zhao, Kundan Krishna, Mohammad Saleh, Balaji Lak- shminarayanan, and Peter J. Liu. 2023. Out-of-Distribution Detection and Se- lective Generation for Conditional Language Models. arXiv:2209.15558 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.15558

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Thomas Scialom, Paul-Alexis Dray, Sylvain Lamprier, Benjamin Piwowarski, Jacopo Staiano, Alex Wang, and Patrick Gallinari. 2021. QuestEval: Summa- rization Asks for Fact-based Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 2021 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , Marie-Francine Moens, Xuanjing Huang, Lucia Specia, and Scott Wen-tau Yih (Ed...

    doi:10.18653/v1/2021.emnlp- 2021

  24. [24]

    Gaurang Sriramanan, Siddhant Bharti, Vinu Sankar Sadasivan, Shoumik Saha, Priyatham Kattakinda, and Soheil Feizi. 2024. LLM-Check: Investigating Detec- tion of Hallucinations in Large Language Models. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems . https://openreview.net/ forum?id=LYx4w3CAgy

    work page 2024

  25. [25]

    Liam van der Poel, Ryan Cotterell, and Clara Meister. 2022. Mutual Information and Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarization. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing . Association for Computational Linguistics, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. https://arxiv.org/ abs/2210.13210

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Neeraj Varshney, Wenlin Yao, Hongming Zhang, Jianshu Chen, and Dong Yu

    work page

  27. [27]

    Yixuan Weng, Minjun Zhu, Fei Xia, Bin Li, Shizhu He, Shengping Liu, Bin Sun, Kang Liu, and Jun Zhao. 2023. Large Language Models are Better Reasoners with Self-Verification. arXiv:2212.09561 [cs.AI] https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.09561

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  28. [28]

    Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D

    Zhilin Yang, Peng Qi, Saizheng Zhang, Yoshua Bengio, William W. Cohen, Ruslan Salakhutdinov, and Christopher D. Manning. 2018. HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering. arXiv:1809.09600 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.09600

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  29. [29]

    arXiv:2307.03987 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03987

    A Stitch in Time Saves Nine: Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations of LLMs by Validating Low-Confidence Generation. arXiv:2307.03987 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.03987

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  30. [30]

    Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi

    Tianyi Zhang, Varsha Kishore, Felix Wu, Kilian Q. Weinberger, and Yoav Artzi. 2020. BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT. arXiv:1904.09675 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09675 5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [32]

    Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. BARTScore: Evaluating Generated Text as Text Generation. arXiv:2106.11520 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/ abs/2106.11520

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [854]

    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/P19-1081

    doi:10.18653/v1/p19-1081

  33. [2023]

    arXiv:2305.11747 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11747

    HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.11747 [cs.CL] https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11747

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 5, 2026.