REVIEW 1 cited by
Can LLMs Detect Intrinsic Hallucinations in Paraphrasing and Machine Translation?
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
Can LLMs Detect Intrinsic Hallucinations in Paraphrasing and Machine Translation?
read the original abstract
A frequently observed problem with LLMs is their tendency to generate output that is nonsensical, illogical, or factually incorrect, often referred to broadly as hallucination. Building on the recently proposed HalluciGen task for hallucination detection and generation, we evaluate a suite of open-access LLMs on their ability to detect intrinsic hallucinations in two conditional generation tasks: translation and paraphrasing. We study how model performance varies across tasks and language and we investigate the impact of model size, instruction tuning, and prompt choice. We find that performance varies across models but is consistent across prompts. Finally, we find that NLI models perform comparably well, suggesting that LLM-based detectors are not the only viable option for this specific task.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
$M^2PO$: Multi-Perspective Multi-Pair Preference Optimization for Machine Translation
M2PO combines a QE-plus-alignment reward with a dynamic curriculum and multi-pair DPO loss, and reports WMT21-22 gains for a 7B translation model, but the abstract's WMT23/24 9B parity claims are unsupported.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.