REVIEW 5 cited by
LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examination
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
A prominent weakness of modern language models (LMs) is their tendency to generate factually incorrect text, which hinders their usability. A natural question is whether such factual errors can be detected automatically. Inspired by truth-seeking mechanisms in law, we propose a factuality evaluation framework for LMs that is based on cross-examination. Our key idea is that an incorrect claim is likely to result in inconsistency with other claims that the model generates. To discover such inconsistencies, we facilitate a multi-turn interaction between the LM that generated the claim and another LM (acting as an examiner) which introduces questions to discover inconsistencies. We empirically evaluate our method on factual claims made by multiple recent LMs on four benchmarks, finding that it outperforms existing methods and baselines, often by a large gap. Our results demonstrate the potential of using interacting LMs for capturing factual errors.
Forward citations
Cited by 5 Pith papers
-
HalluField: Detecting LLM Hallucinations via Field-Theoretic Modeling
HalluField flags LLM hallucinations using a hand-weighted temperature-perturbation of token-level 'free energy' (negative log-likelihood) and Shannon entropy.
-
Can Large Language Models Integrate Spatial Data? Empirical Insights into Reasoning Strengths and Computational Weaknesses
LLMs only become competitive at spatial data integration when given pre-computed geometric features; a review-and-refine prompt then exceeds hand-tuned heuristics.
-
Shaking to Reveal: Perturbation-Based Detection of LLM Hallucinations
SSP adds a learned, sample-specific noise prompt to an LLM input and scores hallucination by the cosine shift in intermediate representations, outperforming output-confidence baselines on QA benchmarks.
-
Recon, Answer, Verify: Agents in Search of Truth
Removing annotator cues from fact-checking evidence lowers LLM scores substantially, and a three-agent question-answering pipeline, RAV, outperforms several published fact-checking baselines.
-
Counterfactual Probing for Hallucination Detection and Mitigation in Large Language Models
Counterfactual Probing detects LLM hallucinations by measuring how much a model's confidence changes when a claim is altered to a plausible but incorrect variant, then hedges flagged statements with template-based mit...
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.