REVIEW 4 cited by
HALoGEN: Fantastic LLM Hallucinations and Where to Find Them
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
Despite their impressive ability to generate high-quality and fluent text, generative large language models (LLMs) also produce hallucinations: statements that are misaligned with established world knowledge or provided input context. However, measuring hallucination can be challenging, as having humans verify model generations on-the-fly is both expensive and time-consuming. In this work, we release HALoGEN, a comprehensive hallucination benchmark consisting of: (1) 10,923 prompts for generative models spanning nine domains including programming, scientific attribution, and summarization, and (2) automatic high-precision verifiers for each use case that decompose LLM generations into atomic units, and verify each unit against a high-quality knowledge source. We use this framework to evaluate ~150,000 generations from 14 language models, finding that even the best-performing models are riddled with hallucinations (sometimes up to 86% of generated atomic facts depending on the domain). We further define a novel error classification for LLM hallucinations based on whether they likely stem from incorrect recollection of training data (Type A errors), or incorrect knowledge in training data (Type B errors), or are fabrication (Type C errors). We hope our framework provides a foundation to enable the principled study of why generative models hallucinate, and advances the development of trustworthy large language models.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
HALLMARK: Diagnosing Three Failure Modes in LLM Citation Verifiers
HALLMARK shows that citation verifiers' false-positive rate, not recall, is what determines whether their flags are mostly real catches or mostly noise at realistic hallucination rates.
-
Auditable Context-Aware HFMD Forecasting with Structured LLM Agents
An LLM-based two-agent system can forecast hand-foot-mouth disease cases with accuracy comparable to top numerical models while generating human-readable risk explanations.
-
MIRAGE-Bench: LLM Agent is Hallucinating and Where to Find Them
A new benchmark with a three-way hallucination taxonomy, snapshot-based test cases, and an LLM judge shows LLM agents hallucinate at over 30% of risky decision points, with open and closed models closer than expected.
-
A Survey on LLM-based News Recommender Systems
A survey that categorizes LLM-based news recommender systems and reports benchmark comparisons on MIND and Adressa.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.