Can We Catch the Elephant? A Survey of the Evolvement of Hallucination Evaluation on Natural Language Generation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2404.12041v2
• Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2024 22:57:20 GMT
• Title: Can We Catch the Elephant? A Survey of the Evolvement of Hallucination Evaluation on Natural Language Generation
• Authors: Siya Qi, Yulan He, Zheng Yuan,
• Abstract summary: The evaluation system for hallucination is complex and diverse, lacking clear organization. This survey aims to help researchers identify current limitations in hallucination evaluation and highlight future research directions.
• Score: 15.67906403625006
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Hallucination in Natural Language Generation (NLG) is like the elephant in the room, obvious but often overlooked until recent achievements significantly improved the fluency and grammaticality of generated text. As the capabilities of text generation models have improved, researchers have begun to pay more attention to the phenomenon of hallucination. Despite significant progress in this field in recent years, the evaluation system for hallucination is complex and diverse, lacking clear organization. We are the first to comprehensively survey how various evaluation methods have evolved with the development of text generation models from three dimensions, including hallucinated fact granularity, evaluator design principles, and assessment facets. This survey aims to help researchers identify current limitations in hallucination evaluation and highlight future research directions.

Related papers

• Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications [59.721265428780946]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine have enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning.<n>This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field.<n>We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies and test-time mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T14:41:31Z)
• Learning to Align Multi-Faceted Evaluation: A Unified and Robust Framework [61.38174427966444]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios.<n>Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models.<n>We propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:45Z)
• Aspect-Guided Multi-Level Perturbation Analysis of Large Language Models in Automated Peer Review [36.05498398665352]
  We propose an aspect-guided, multi-level perturbation framework to evaluate the robustness of Large Language Models (LLMs) in automated peer review.<n>Our framework explores perturbations in three key components of the peer review process-papers, reviews, and rebuttals-across several quality aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T03:50:06Z)
• The Lessons of Developing Process Reward Models in Mathematical Reasoning [62.165534879284735]
  Process Reward Models (PRMs) aim to identify and mitigate intermediate errors in the reasoning processes.<n>We develop a consensus filtering mechanism that effectively integrates Monte Carlo (MC) estimation with Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>We release a new state-of-the-art PRM that outperforms existing open-source alternatives.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-13T13:10:16Z)
• H-POPE: Hierarchical Polling-based Probing Evaluation of Hallucinations in Large Vision-Language Models [0.0]
  We propose H-POPE, a coarse-to-fine-grained benchmark that assesses hallucinations in object existence and attributes. Our evaluation shows that models are prone to hallucinations on object existence, and even more so on fine-grained attributes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-06T17:55:37Z)
• MIBench: A Comprehensive Framework for Benchmarking Model Inversion Attack and Defense [42.56467639172508]
  Model Inversion (MI) attacks aim at leveraging the output information of target models to reconstruct privacy-sensitive training data.<n>We build the first practical benchmark named MIBench for systematic evaluation of model inversion attacks and defenses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T16:13:49Z)
• Benchmarks as Microscopes: A Call for Model Metrology [76.64402390208576]
  Modern language models (LMs) pose a new challenge in capability assessment. To be confident in our metrics, we need a new discipline of model metrology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-22T17:52:12Z)
• MR-Ben: A Meta-Reasoning Benchmark for Evaluating System-2 Thinking in LLMs [55.20845457594977]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown increasing capability in problem-solving and decision-making.<n>We present a process-based benchmark MR-Ben that demands a meta-reasoning skill.<n>Our meta-reasoning paradigm is especially suited for system-2 slow thinking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T03:50:23Z)
• The Hallucinations Leaderboard -- An Open Effort to Measure Hallucinations in Large Language Models [24.11077502209129]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have transformed the Natural Language Processing (NLP) landscape with their remarkable ability to understand and generate human-like text. However, these models are prone to hallucinations'' -- outputs that do not align with factual reality or the input context. This paper introduces the Hallucinations Leaderboard, an open initiative to quantitatively measure and compare the tendency of each model to produce hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T23:16:22Z)
• Inadequacies of Large Language Model Benchmarks in the Era of Generative Artificial Intelligence [5.147767778946168]
  We critically assess 23 state-of-the-art Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks. Our research uncovered significant limitations, including biases, difficulties in measuring genuine reasoning, adaptability, implementation inconsistencies, prompt engineering complexity, diversity, and the overlooking of cultural and ideological norms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-15T11:08:10Z)
• Fine-grained Hallucination Detection and Editing for Language Models [109.56911670376932]
  Large language models (LMs) are prone to generate factual errors, which are often called hallucinations. We introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of hallucinations and argue that hallucinations manifest in diverse forms. We propose a novel task of automatic fine-grained hallucination detection and construct a new evaluation benchmark, FavaBench.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-12T19:02:48Z)
• Alleviating Hallucinations of Large Language Models through Induced Hallucinations [67.35512483340837]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been observed to generate responses that include inaccurate or fabricated information. We propose a simple textitInduce-then-Contrast Decoding (ICD) strategy to alleviate hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-25T12:32:49Z)
• On Early Detection of Hallucinations in Factual Question Answering [4.76359068115052]
  hallucinations remain a major impediment towards gaining user trust. In this work, we explore if the artifacts associated with the model generations can provide hints that the generation will contain hallucinations. Our results show that the distributions of these artifacts tend to differ between hallucinated and non-hallucinated generations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T14:35:04Z)
• Post Turing: Mapping the landscape of LLM Evaluation [22.517544562890663]
  This paper traces the historical trajectory of Large Language Models (LLMs) evaluations, from the foundational questions posed by Alan Turing to the modern era of AI research. We emphasize the pressing need for a unified evaluation system, given the broader societal implications of these models. This work serves as a call for the AI community to collaboratively address the challenges of LLM evaluation, ensuring their reliability, fairness, and societal benefit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T17:24:50Z)
• Towards Mitigating Hallucination in Large Language Models via Self-Reflection [63.2543947174318]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise for generative and knowledge-intensive tasks including question-answering (QA) tasks. This paper analyses the phenomenon of hallucination in medical generative QA systems using widely adopted LLMs and datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-10T03:05:44Z)
• AutoHall: Automated Hallucination Dataset Generation for Large Language Models [56.92068213969036]
  This paper introduces a method for automatically constructing model-specific hallucination datasets based on existing fact-checking datasets called AutoHall. We also propose a zero-resource and black-box hallucination detection method based on self-contradiction.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-30T05:20:02Z)
• Cognitive Mirage: A Review of Hallucinations in Large Language Models [10.86850565303067]
  We present a novel taxonomy of hallucinations from various text generation tasks. We provide theoretical insights, detection methods and improvement approaches. As hallucinations garner significant attention, we will maintain updates on relevant research progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-13T08:33:09Z)
• Plausible May Not Be Faithful: Probing Object Hallucination in Vision-Language Pre-training [66.0036211069513]
  Large-scale vision-language pre-trained models are prone to hallucinate non-existent visual objects when generating text. We show that models achieving better scores on standard metrics could hallucinate objects more frequently. Surprisingly, we find that patch-based features perform the best and smaller patch resolution yields a non-trivial reduction in object hallucination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-14T10:27:22Z)
• Evaluation Gaps in Machine Learning Practice [13.963766987258161]
  In practice, evaluations of machine learning models frequently focus on a narrow range of decontextualized predictive behaviours. We examine the evaluation gaps between the idealized breadth of evaluation concerns and the observed narrow focus of actual evaluations. By studying these properties, we demonstrate the machine learning discipline's implicit assumption of a range of commitments which have normative impacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-11T04:00:44Z)
• Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation [69.9926849848132]
  Natural Language Generation (NLG) has improved exponentially in recent years thanks to the development of sequence-to-sequence deep learning technologies. Deep learning based generation is prone to hallucinate unintended text, which degrades the system performance. This survey serves to facilitate collaborative efforts among researchers in tackling the challenge of hallucinated texts in NLG.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-08T03:55:01Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation of Dialog Systems: A Model-Free Off-Policy Evaluation Approach [84.02388020258141]
  We propose a new framework named ENIGMA for estimating human evaluation scores based on off-policy evaluation in reinforcement learning. ENIGMA only requires a handful of pre-collected experience data, and therefore does not involve human interaction with the target policy during the evaluation. Our experiments show that ENIGMA significantly outperforms existing methods in terms of correlation with human evaluation scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-20T03:29:20Z)

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.