Groundedness in Retrieval-augmented Long-form Generation: An Empirical Study

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.07060v1
• Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 14:50:10 GMT
• Title: Groundedness in Retrieval-augmented Long-form Generation: An Empirical Study
• Authors: Alessandro Stolfo,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate whether every generated sentence is grounded in retrieved documents or the model's pre-training data. Across 3 datasets and 4 model families, our findings reveal that a significant fraction of generated sentences are consistently ungrounded. Our results show that while larger models tend to ground their outputs more effectively, a significant portion of correct answers remains compromised by hallucinations.
• Score: 61.74571814707054
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: We present an empirical study of groundedness in long-form question answering (LFQA) by retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs). In particular, we evaluate whether every generated sentence is grounded in the retrieved documents or the model's pre-training data. Across 3 datasets and 4 model families, our findings reveal that a significant fraction of generated sentences are consistently ungrounded, even when those sentences contain correct ground-truth answers. Additionally, we examine the impacts of factors such as model size, decoding strategy, and instruction tuning on groundedness. Our results show that while larger models tend to ground their outputs more effectively, a significant portion of correct answers remains compromised by hallucinations. This study provides novel insights into the groundedness challenges in LFQA and underscores the necessity for more robust mechanisms in LLMs to mitigate the generation of ungrounded content.

Related papers

• A Debate-Driven Experiment on LLM Hallucinations and Accuracy [7.821303946741665]
  This study investigates the phenomenon of hallucination in large language models (LLMs) Multiple instances of GPT-4o-Mini models engage in a debate-like interaction prompted with questions from the TruthfulQA dataset. One model is deliberately instructed to generate plausible but false answers while the other models are asked to respond truthfully.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T11:41:27Z)
• Aggregation Artifacts in Subjective Tasks Collapse Large Language Models' Posteriors [74.04775677110179]
  In-context Learning (ICL) has become the primary method for performing natural language tasks with Large Language Models (LLMs) In this work, we examine whether this is the result of the aggregation used in corresponding datasets, where trying to combine low-agreement, disparate annotations might lead to annotation artifacts that create detrimental noise in the prompt. Our results indicate that aggregation is a confounding factor in the modeling of subjective tasks, and advocate focusing on modeling individuals instead.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T17:16:00Z)
• A linguistic analysis of undesirable outcomes in the era of generative AI [4.841442157674423]
  We present a comprehensive simulation framework built upon the chat version of LLama2, focusing on the linguistic aspects of the generated content. Our results show that the model produces less lexical rich content across generations, reducing diversity. We find that autophagy transforms the initial model into a more creative, doubtful and confused one, which might provide inaccurate answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T08:02:48Z)
• Analysis of Plan-based Retrieval for Grounded Text Generation [78.89478272104739]
  hallucinations occur when a language model is given a generation task outside its parametric knowledge. A common strategy to address this limitation is to infuse the language models with retrieval mechanisms. We analyze how planning can be used to guide retrieval to further reduce the frequency of hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-20T02:19:35Z)
• Enhancing Noise Robustness of Retrieval-Augmented Language Models with Adaptive Adversarial Training [39.21885486667879]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit substantial capabilities yet encounter challenges, including hallucination, outdated knowledge, and untraceable reasoning processes. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising solution, integrating knowledge from external databases to mitigate these challenges. We propose a novel RAG approach known as Retrieval-augmented Adaptive Adrial Training (RAAT)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T16:24:53Z)
• Evaluating Consistency and Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are extensively used today across various sectors, including academia, research, business, and finance. Despite their widespread adoption, these models often produce incorrect and misleading information, exhibiting a tendency to hallucinate. This paper aims to evaluate and compare the consistency and reasoning capabilities of both public and proprietary LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T10:03:14Z)
• A Glitch in the Matrix? Locating and Detecting Language Model Grounding with Fakepedia [57.31074448586854]
  Large language models (LLMs) have an impressive ability to draw on novel information supplied in their context. Yet the mechanisms underlying this contextual grounding remain unknown. We present a novel method to study grounding abilities using Fakepedia.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-04T17:35:42Z)
• How Well Do Large Language Models Truly Ground? [39.39062385290276]
  A common method is to generate responses by grounding on external contexts given as input, known as knowledge-augmented models. Previous research often narrowly defines "grounding" as just having the correct answer, which does not ensure the reliability of the entire response. We propose a stricter definition of grounding: a model is truly grounded if it (1) fully utilizes the necessary knowledge from the provided context, and (2) stays within the limits of that knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T16:11:27Z)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation [53.504471079548]
  We systematically investigate the impact of Retrieval-Augmented Generation on large language models. We analyze the performance of different large language models in 4 fundamental abilities required for RAG. We establish Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (RGB), a new corpus for RAG evaluation in both English and Chinese.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-04T08:28:44Z)
• "According to ...": Prompting Language Models Improves Quoting from Pre-Training Data [52.03853726206584]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) may hallucinate and generate fake information, despite pre-training on factual data. We propose according-to prompting: directing LLMs to ground responses against previously observed text. To quantify this grounding, we propose a novel evaluation metric (QUIP-Score) that measures the extent to which model-produced answers are directly found in underlying text corpora.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T17:25:24Z)

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.