Detecting Hallucination and Coverage Errors in Retrieval Augmented Generation for Controversial Topics
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2403.08904v1
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2024 18:47:00 GMT
- Title: Detecting Hallucination and Coverage Errors in Retrieval Augmented Generation for Controversial Topics
- Authors: Tyler A. Chang, Katrin Tomanek, Jessica Hoffmann, Nithum Thain, Erin van Liemt, Kathleen Meier-Hellstern, Lucas Dixon,
- Abstract summary: We explore a strategy to handle controversial topics in LLM-based chatbots based on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) principle.
We use a deterministic retrieval system and then focus on common LLM failure modes that arise during this approach to text generation, namely hallucination and coverage errors.
We show that our methods still yield good results on hallucination (84.0%) and coverage error (85.2%) detection.
- Score: 16.874364446070967
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: We explore a strategy to handle controversial topics in LLM-based chatbots based on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) principle: acknowledge the absence of a single true answer and surface multiple perspectives. We frame this as retrieval augmented generation, where perspectives are retrieved from a knowledge base and the LLM is tasked with generating a fluent and faithful response from the given perspectives. As a starting point, we use a deterministic retrieval system and then focus on common LLM failure modes that arise during this approach to text generation, namely hallucination and coverage errors. We propose and evaluate three methods to detect such errors based on (1) word-overlap, (2) salience, and (3) LLM-based classifiers. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based classifiers, even when trained only on synthetic errors, achieve high error detection performance, with ROC AUC scores of 95.3% for hallucination and 90.5% for coverage error detection on unambiguous error cases. We show that when no training data is available, our other methods still yield good results on hallucination (84.0%) and coverage error (85.2%) detection.
Related papers
- LLM Hallucination Reasoning with Zero-shot Knowledge Test [10.306443936136425]
We introduce a new task, Hallucination Reasoning, which classifies LLM-generated text into one of three categories: aligned, misaligned, and fabricated.
Our experiments conducted on new datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in hallucination reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-14T18:55:26Z) - Provenance: A Light-weight Fact-checker for Retrieval Augmented LLM Generation Output [49.893971654861424]
We present a light-weight approach for detecting nonfactual outputs from retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)
We compute a factuality score that can be thresholded to yield a binary decision.
Our experiments show high area under the ROC curve (AUC) across a wide range of relevant open source datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-11-01T20:44:59Z) - LLM Robustness Against Misinformation in Biomedical Question Answering [50.98256373698759]
The retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach is used to reduce the confabulation of large language models (LLMs) for question answering.
We evaluate the effectiveness and robustness of four LLMs against misinformation in answering biomedical questions.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-10-27T16:23:26Z) - Analyzing LLM Behavior in Dialogue Summarization: Unveiling Circumstantial Hallucination Trends [38.86240794422485]
We evaluate the faithfulness of large language models for dialogue summarization.
Our evaluation reveals subtleties as to what constitutes a hallucination.
We introduce two prompt-based approaches for fine-grained error detection that outperform existing metrics.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-05T17:49:47Z) - "Knowing When You Don't Know": A Multilingual Relevance Assessment Dataset for Robust Retrieval-Augmented Generation [90.09260023184932]
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) grounds Large Language Model (LLM) output by leveraging external knowledge sources to reduce factual hallucinations.
NoMIRACL is a human-annotated dataset for evaluating LLM robustness in RAG across 18 typologically diverse languages.
We measure relevance assessment using: (i) hallucination rate, measuring model tendency to hallucinate, when the answer is not present in passages in the non-relevant subset, and (ii) error rate, measuring model inaccuracy to recognize relevant passages in the relevant subset.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-18T17:18:04Z) - Enhancing Uncertainty-Based Hallucination Detection with Stronger Focus [99.33091772494751]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant popularity for their impressive performance across diverse fields.
LLMs are prone to hallucinate untruthful or nonsensical outputs that fail to meet user expectations.
We propose a novel reference-free, uncertainty-based method for detecting hallucinations in LLMs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-11-22T08:39:17Z) - A New Benchmark and Reverse Validation Method for Passage-level
Hallucination Detection [63.56136319976554]
Large Language Models (LLMs) generate hallucinations, which can cause significant damage when deployed for mission-critical tasks.
We propose a self-check approach based on reverse validation to detect factual errors automatically in a zero-resource fashion.
We empirically evaluate our method and existing zero-resource detection methods on two datasets.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-10T10:14:59Z) - HyPoradise: An Open Baseline for Generative Speech Recognition with
Large Language Models [81.56455625624041]
We introduce the first open-source benchmark to utilize external large language models (LLMs) for ASR error correction.
The proposed benchmark contains a novel dataset, HyPoradise (HP), encompassing more than 334,000 pairs of N-best hypotheses.
LLMs with reasonable prompt and its generative capability can even correct those tokens that are missing in N-best list.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-27T14:44:10Z)
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.