Why Does ChatGPT Fall Short in Providing Truthful Answers?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.10513v3
• Date: Sun, 3 Dec 2023 23:01:19 GMT
• Title: Why Does ChatGPT Fall Short in Providing Truthful Answers?
• Authors: Shen Zheng, Jie Huang, Kevin Chen-Chuan Chang
• Abstract summary: We investigate ChatGPT's failures in providing truthful answers to user questions. We identify two critical abilities associated with factuality: knowledge memorization and knowledge recall. Our findings suggest that augmenting the model with granular external knowledge and cues for knowledge recall can enhance the model's factuality in answering questions.
• Score: 31.656442655938445
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Recent advancements in large language models, such as ChatGPT, have demonstrated significant potential to impact various aspects of human life. However, ChatGPT still faces challenges in providing reliable and accurate answers to user questions. To better understand the model's particular weaknesses in providing truthful answers, we embark an in-depth exploration of open-domain question answering. Specifically, we undertake a detailed examination of ChatGPT's failures, categorized into: comprehension, factuality, specificity, and inference. We further pinpoint factuality as the most contributing failure and identify two critical abilities associated with factuality: knowledge memorization and knowledge recall. Through experiments focusing on factuality, we propose several potential enhancement strategies. Our findings suggest that augmenting the model with granular external knowledge and cues for knowledge recall can enhance the model's factuality in answering questions.

Related papers

• Evaluating ChatGPT as a Question Answering System: A Comprehensive Analysis and Comparison with Existing Models [0.0]
  This article scrutinizes ChatGPT as a Question Answering System (QAS) The primary focus is on evaluating ChatGPT's proficiency in extracting responses from provided paragraphs. The evaluation highlights hallucinations, where ChatGPT provides responses to questions without available answers in the provided context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-11T08:49:18Z)
• Primacy Effect of ChatGPT [69.49920102917598]
  We study the primacy effect of ChatGPT: the tendency of selecting the labels at earlier positions as the answer. We hope that our experiments and analyses provide additional insights into building more reliable ChatGPT-based solutions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-20T00:37:28Z)
• RECKONING: Reasoning through Dynamic Knowledge Encoding [51.076603338764706]
  We show that language models can answer questions by reasoning over knowledge provided as part of the context. In these situations, the model fails to distinguish the knowledge that is necessary to answer the question. We propose teaching the model to reason more robustly by folding the provided contextual knowledge into the model's parameters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-10T17:54:51Z)
• ChatGPT-Crawler: Find out if ChatGPT really knows what it's talking about [15.19126287569545]
  This research examines the responses generated by ChatGPT from different Conversational QA corpora. The study employed BERT similarity scores to compare these responses with correct answers and obtain Natural Language Inference(NLI) labels. The study identified instances where ChatGPT provided incorrect answers to questions, providing insights into areas where the model may be prone to error.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-04-06T18:42:47Z)
• ChatGPT is a Knowledgeable but Inexperienced Solver: An Investigation of Commonsense Problem in Large Language Models [49.52083248451775]
  Large language models (LLMs) have made significant progress in NLP. We specifically focus on ChatGPT, a widely used and easily accessible LLM. We conduct a series of experiments on 11 datasets to evaluate ChatGPT's commonsense abilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-29T03:05:43Z)
• Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT [103.57103957631067]
  ChatGPT has attracted great attention, as it can generate fluent and high-quality responses to human inquiries. We evaluate ChatGPT's understanding ability by evaluating it on the most popular GLUE benchmark, and comparing it with 4 representative fine-tuned BERT-style models. We find that: 1) ChatGPT falls short in handling paraphrase and similarity tasks; 2) ChatGPT outperforms all BERT models on inference tasks by a large margin; 3) ChatGPT achieves comparable performance compared with BERT on sentiment analysis and question answering tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-19T12:29:33Z)
• Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver? [113.22611481694825]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the ability to perform a variety of natural language processing (NLP) tasks zero-shot. Recently, the debut of ChatGPT has drawn a great deal of attention from the natural language processing (NLP) community. It is not yet known whether ChatGPT can serve as a generalist model that can perform many NLP tasks zero-shot.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-08T09:44:51Z)
• A Categorical Archive of ChatGPT Failures [47.64219291655723]
  ChatGPT, developed by OpenAI, has been trained using massive amounts of data and simulates human conversation. It has garnered significant attention due to its ability to effectively answer a broad range of human inquiries. However, a comprehensive analysis of ChatGPT's failures is lacking, which is the focus of this study.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-06T04:21:59Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.