Factuality or Fiction? Benchmarking Modern LLMs on Ambiguous QA with Citations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.18051v1
• Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2024 23:55:19 GMT
• Title: Factuality or Fiction? Benchmarking Modern LLMs on Ambiguous QA with Citations
• Authors: Maya Patel, Aditi Anand,
• Abstract summary: We evaluate the factual accuracy and citation performance of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on the task of Question Answering (QA) Our results show that larger, recent models consistently predict at least one correct answer in ambiguous contexts but fail to handle cases with multiple valid answers.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Benchmarking modern large language models (LLMs) on complex and realistic tasks is critical to advancing their development. In this work, we evaluate the factual accuracy and citation performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on the task of Question Answering (QA) in ambiguous settings with source citations. Using three recently published datasets-DisentQA-DupliCite, DisentQA-ParaCite, and AmbigQA-Cite-featuring a range of real-world ambiguities, we analyze the performance of two leading LLMs, GPT-4o-mini and Claude-3.5. Our results show that larger, recent models consistently predict at least one correct answer in ambiguous contexts but fail to handle cases with multiple valid answers. Additionally, all models perform equally poorly in citation generation, with citation accuracy consistently at 0. However, introducing conflict-aware prompting leads to large improvements, enabling models to better address multiple valid answers and improve citation accuracy, while maintaining their ability to predict correct answers. These findings highlight the challenges and opportunities in developing LLMs that can handle ambiguity and provide reliable source citations. Our benchmarking study provides critical insights and sets a foundation for future improvements in trustworthy and interpretable QA systems.

Related papers

• On the Capacity of Citation Generation by Large Language Models [38.47160164251295]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) appears as a promising method to alleviate the "hallucination" problem in large language models (LLMs)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-15T03:04:26Z)
• Adaptive Question Answering: Enhancing Language Model Proficiency for Addressing Knowledge Conflicts with Source Citations [3.3018718917393297]
  We propose the novel task of Question Answering with source citation in ambiguous settings, where multiple valid answers exist. We create a comprehensive framework consisting of: (1) five novel datasets; (2) the first ambiguous multi-hop QA dataset featuring real-world, naturally occurring contexts; and (3) two new metrics to evaluate models' performances. We hope that this new task, datasets, metrics, and baselines will inspire the community to push the boundaries of QA research and develop more trustworthy and interpretable systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-05T17:37:01Z)
• FaithEval: Can Your Language Model Stay Faithful to Context, Even If "The Moon is Made of Marshmallows" [74.7488607599921]
  FaithEval is a benchmark to evaluate the faithfulness of large language models (LLMs) in contextual scenarios. FaithEval comprises 4.9K high-quality problems in total, validated through a rigorous four-stage context construction and validation framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-30T06:27:53Z)
• What's Wrong with Your Code Generated by Large Language Models? An Extensive Study [80.18342600996601]
  Large language models (LLMs) produce code that is shorter yet more complicated as compared to canonical solutions. We develop a taxonomy of bugs for incorrect codes that includes three categories and 12 sub-categories, and analyze the root cause for common bug types. We propose a novel training-free iterative method that introduces self-critique, enabling LLMs to critique and correct their generated code based on bug types and compiler feedback.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-08T17:27:17Z)
• One Thousand and One Pairs: A "novel" challenge for long-context language models [56.60667988954638]
  NoCha is a dataset of 1,001 pairs of true and false claims about 67 fictional books. Our annotators confirm that the largest share of pairs in NoCha require global reasoning over the entire book to verify. On average, models perform much better on pairs that require only sentence-level retrieval vs. global reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T02:03:57Z)
• Learning to Generate Answers with Citations via Factual Consistency Models [28.716998866121923]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate, impeding their reliability in mission-critical situations. This paper proposes a weakly-supervised fine-tuning method leveraging factual consistency models (FCMs) Focused learning is integrated into the objective, directing the fine-tuning process to emphasise the factual unit tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T00:40:19Z)
• Evaluating Generative Language Models in Information Extraction as Subjective Question Correction [49.729908337372436]
  We propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Inspired by the principles in subjective question correction, we propose a new evaluation method, SQC-Score. Results on three information extraction tasks show that SQC-Score is more preferred by human annotators than the baseline metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T15:36:53Z)
• GRATH: Gradual Self-Truthifying for Large Language Models [63.502835648056305]
  GRAdual self-truTHifying (GRATH) is a novel post-processing method to enhance truthfulness of large language models (LLMs) GRATH iteratively refines truthfulness data and updates the model, leading to a gradual improvement in model truthfulness in a self-supervised manner. GRATH achieves state-of-the-art performance on TruthfulQA, with MC1 accuracy of 54.71% and MC2 accuracy of 69.10%, which even surpass those on 70B-LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-22T19:00:08Z)
• FreshLLMs: Refreshing Large Language Models with Search Engine Augmentation [92.43001160060376]
  We study the factuality of large language models (LLMs) in the context of answering questions that test current world knowledge. We introduce FreshQA, a novel dynamic QA benchmark encompassing a diverse range of question and answer types. We benchmark a diverse array of both closed and open-source LLMs under a two-mode evaluation procedure that allows us to measure both correctness and hallucination. Motivated by these results, we present FreshPrompt, a simple few-shot prompting method that substantially boosts the performance of an LLM on FreshQA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T00:04:12Z)
• Towards Reliable and Fluent Large Language Models: Incorporating Feedback Learning Loops in QA Systems [10.58737969057445]
  We build a dataset to train a critic model capable of evaluating the citation, correctness, and fluency of responses generated by large language models. We propose an automated feedback mechanism that leverages the critic model to offer real-time feedback on heterogeneous aspects of generated text. Experimental results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach, including a 4% precision increase in citation and an approximately 8% enhancement in the MAUVE metric for fluency.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T09:39:53Z)
• Enabling Large Language Models to Generate Text with Citations [37.64884969997378]
  Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a widely-used tool for information seeking. Our aim is to allow LLMs to generate text with citations, improving their factual correctness and verifiability. We propose ALCE, the first benchmark for Automatic LLMs' Citation Evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T01:53:49Z)

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.