Can LLMs Produce Faithful Explanations For Fact-checking? Towards Faithful Explainable Fact-Checking via Multi-Agent Debate

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.07401v1
• Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 04:32:33 GMT
• Title: Can LLMs Produce Faithful Explanations For Fact-checking? Towards Faithful Explainable Fact-Checking via Multi-Agent Debate
• Authors: Kyungha Kim, Sangyun Lee, Kung-Hsiang Huang, Hou Pong Chan, Manling Li, Heng Ji
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text generation, but their capability for producing faithful explanations in fact-checking remains underexamined. We propose the Multi-Agent Debate Refinement (MADR) framework, leveraging multiple LLMs as agents with diverse roles. MADR ensures that the final explanation undergoes rigorous validation, significantly reducing the likelihood of unfaithful elements and aligning closely with the provided evidence.
• Score: 75.10515686215177
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Fact-checking research has extensively explored verification but less so the generation of natural-language explanations, crucial for user trust. While Large Language Models (LLMs) excel in text generation, their capability for producing faithful explanations in fact-checking remains underexamined. Our study investigates LLMs' ability to generate such explanations, finding that zero-shot prompts often result in unfaithfulness. To address these challenges, we propose the Multi-Agent Debate Refinement (MADR) framework, leveraging multiple LLMs as agents with diverse roles in an iterative refining process aimed at enhancing faithfulness in generated explanations. MADR ensures that the final explanation undergoes rigorous validation, significantly reducing the likelihood of unfaithful elements and aligning closely with the provided evidence. Experimental results demonstrate that MADR significantly improves the faithfulness of LLM-generated explanations to the evidence, advancing the credibility and trustworthiness of these explanations.

Related papers

• Understanding the Relationship between Prompts and Response Uncertainty in Large Language Models [55.332004960574004]
  Large language models (LLMs) are widely used in decision-making, but their reliability, especially in critical tasks like healthcare, is not well-established. This paper investigates how the uncertainty of responses generated by LLMs relates to the information provided in the input prompt. We propose a prompt-response concept model that explains how LLMs generate responses and helps understand the relationship between prompts and response uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-20T11:19:58Z)
• Evaluating the Reliability of Self-Explanations in Large Language Models [2.8894038270224867]
  We evaluate two kinds of such self-explanations - extractive and counterfactual. Our findings reveal, that, while these self-explanations can correlate with human judgement, they do not fully and accurately follow the model's decision process. We show that this gap can be bridged because prompting LLMs for counterfactual explanations can produce faithful, informative, and easy-to-verify results.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-19T17:41:08Z)
• Evidence-Focused Fact Summarization for Knowledge-Augmented Zero-Shot Question Answering [14.389264346634507]
  We propose EFSum, an Evidence-focused Fact Summarization framework for enhanced Quesetion Answering (QA) performance. Our experiments show that EFSum improves LLM's zero-shot QA performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-05T13:43:58Z)
• Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs [52.42505579545893]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought explanations alongside answers. We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T05:22:56Z)
• FaithLM: Towards Faithful Explanations for Large Language Models [67.29893340289779]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have become proficient in addressing complex tasks by leveraging their internal knowledge and reasoning capabilities. The black-box nature of these models complicates the task of explaining their decision-making processes. We introduce FaithLM to explain the decision of LLMs with natural language (NL) explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T09:09:14Z)
• Faithfulness vs. Plausibility: On the (Un)Reliability of Explanations from Large Language Models [26.11408084129897]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed as powerful tools for several natural language processing (NLP) applications. Recent works show that modern LLMs can generate self-explanations (SEs), which elicit their intermediate reasoning steps for explaining their behavior. We discuss the dichotomy between faithfulness and plausibility in SEs generated by LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T06:32:50Z)
• Quantifying Uncertainty in Natural Language Explanations of Large Language Models [29.34960984639281]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as powerful tools for high-stakes natural language processing (NLP) applications. We propose two novel metrics -- $textitVerbalized Uncertainty$ and $textitProbing Uncertainty$ -- to quantify the uncertainty of generated explanations. Our empirical analysis of benchmark datasets reveals that verbalized uncertainty is not a reliable estimate of explanation confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-06T21:14:40Z)
• FactCHD: Benchmarking Fact-Conflicting Hallucination Detection [64.4610684475899]
  FactCHD is a benchmark designed for the detection of fact-conflicting hallucinations from LLMs. FactCHD features a diverse dataset that spans various factuality patterns, including vanilla, multi-hop, comparison, and set operation. We introduce Truth-Triangulator that synthesizes reflective considerations by tool-enhanced ChatGPT and LoRA-tuning based on Llama2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T16:27:49Z)
• Assessing the Reliability of Large Language Model Knowledge [78.38870272050106]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been treated as knowledge bases due to their strong performance in knowledge probing tasks. How do we evaluate the capabilities of LLMs to consistently produce factually correct answers? We propose MOdel kNowledge relIabiliTy scORe (MONITOR), a novel metric designed to directly measure LLMs' factual reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-15T12:40:30Z)

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.