REVIEW 2 cited by
Smoothing Out Hallucinations: Mitigating LLM Hallucination with Smoothed Knowledge Distillation
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
Large language models (LLMs) often suffer from hallucination, generating factually incorrect or ungrounded content, which limits their reliability in high-stakes applications. A key factor contributing to hallucination is the use of hard labels during training, which enforce deterministic supervision, encourage overconfidence, and disregard the uncertainty inherent in natural language. To address this, we propose mitigating hallucination through knowledge distillation (KD), where a teacher model provides smoothed soft labels to a student model, reducing overconfidence and improving factual grounding. We apply KD during supervised finetuning on instructional data, evaluating its effectiveness across LLMs from different families. Experimental results on summarization benchmarks demonstrate that KD reduces hallucination compared to standard finetuning while preserving performance on general NLP tasks. These findings highlight KD as a promising approach for mitigating hallucination in LLMs and improving model reliability.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Stop Rewarding Hallucinated Steps: Faithfulness-Aware Step-Level Reinforcement Learning for Small Reasoning Models
A step-level reinforcement-learning reward combining a process reward model with truncated resampling reduces chain-of-thought faithfulness hallucinations in small reasoning models.
-
SwS: Self-aware Weakness-driven Problem Synthesis in Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning
SwS uses failures during RL training to synthesize targeted math problems, improving reasoning accuracy on eight benchmarks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.