A review of faithfulness metrics for hallucination assessment in Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.00269v1
• Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 04:41:13 GMT
• Title: A review of faithfulness metrics for hallucination assessment in Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: This review examines the means with which faithfulness has been evaluated across open-ended summarization, question-answering and machine translation tasks.<n>We find that the use of LLMs as a faithfulness evaluator is commonly the metric that is most highly correlated with human judgement.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: This review examines the means with which faithfulness has been evaluated across open-ended summarization, question-answering and machine translation tasks. We find that the use of LLMs as a faithfulness evaluator is commonly the metric that is most highly correlated with human judgement. The means with which other studies have mitigated hallucinations is discussed, with both retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and prompting framework approaches having been linked with superior faithfulness, whilst other recommendations for mitigation are provided. Research into faithfulness is integral to the continued widespread use of LLMs, as unfaithful responses can pose major risks to many areas whereby LLMs would otherwise be suitable. Furthermore, evaluating open-ended generation provides a more comprehensive measure of LLM performance than commonly used multiple-choice benchmarking, which can help in advancing the trust that can be placed within LLMs.

Related papers

• Summarization is Not Dead Yet [28.302567995407532]
  The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references.<n>We re-examine this narrative through a multi-track evaluation covering five diverse datasets and five state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>Our findings reveal a more nuanced landscape in which human reference summaries continue to demonstrate advantages in informativeness and faithfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-06T06:38:35Z)
• When LLM Judges Inflate Scores: Exploring Overrating in Relevance Assessment [29.603396943658428]
  Large language models (LLMs) can be used as proxies for human judges.<n>We show that models consistently assign inflated relevance scores to passages that do not genuinely satisfy the underlying information need.<n>Experiments show that LLM-based relevance judgments can be highly sensitive to passage length and surface-level lexical cues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-19T08:37:21Z)
• On Evaluating LLM Alignment by Evaluating LLMs as Judges [68.15541137648721]
  evaluating large language models' (LLMs) alignment requires them to be helpful, honest, safe, and to precisely follow human instructions.<n>We examine the relationship between LLMs' generation and evaluation capabilities in aligning with human preferences.<n>We propose a benchmark that assesses alignment without directly evaluating model outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-25T18:33:24Z)
• LLM-Specific Utility: A New Perspective for Retrieval-Augmented Generation [110.610512800947]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) enhances large language models (LLMs) by incorporating external knowledge.<n>Existing studies often treat utility as a generic attribute, ignoring the fact that different LLMs may benefit differently from the same passage.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T12:57:45Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models for Faithful Integrity Against Opposing Argument [71.33552795870544]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in complex reasoning tasks. They can be easily misled by unfaithful arguments during conversations, even when their original statements are correct. We propose a novel framework, named Alignment for Faithful Integrity with Confidence Estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T16:38:21Z)
• Information Anxiety in Large Language Models [21.574677910096735]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance as knowledge repositories. We take the investigation further by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the internal reasoning and retrieval mechanisms of LLMs. Our work focuses on three critical dimensions - the impact of entity popularity, the models' sensitivity to lexical variations in query formulation, and the progression of hidden state representations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-16T14:28:33Z)
• Justice or Prejudice? Quantifying Biases in LLM-as-a-Judge [84.34545223897578]
  Despite their excellence in many domains, potential issues are under-explored, undermining their reliability and the scope of their utility. We identify 12 key potential biases and propose a new automated bias quantification framework-CALM- which quantifies and analyzes each type of bias in LLM-as-a-Judge. Our work highlights the need for stakeholders to address these issues and remind users to exercise caution in LLM-as-a-Judge applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-03T17:53:30Z)
• DnA-Eval: Enhancing Large Language Model Evaluation through Decomposition and Aggregation [75.81096662788254]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are scalable and economical evaluators.<n>The question of how reliable these evaluators are has emerged as a crucial research question.<n>We propose Decompose and Aggregate, which breaks down the evaluation process into different stages based on pedagogical practices.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T08:12:30Z)
• Large Language Models are Inconsistent and Biased Evaluators [2.136983452580014]
  We show that Large Language Models (LLMs) are biased evaluators as they exhibit familiarity bias and show skewed distributions of ratings. We also found that LLMs are inconsistent evaluators, showing low "inter-sample" agreement and sensitivity to prompt differences that are insignificant to human understanding of text quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-02T20:42:28Z)
• Is LLM-as-a-Judge Robust? Investigating Universal Adversarial Attacks on Zero-shot LLM Assessment [8.948475969696075]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are powerful zero-shot assessors used in real-world situations such as assessing written exams and benchmarking systems. We show that short universal adversarial phrases can be deceived to judge LLMs to predict inflated scores. It is found that judge-LLMs are significantly more susceptible to these adversarial attacks when used for absolute scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-21T18:55:20Z)
• TrustScore: Reference-Free Evaluation of LLM Response Trustworthiness [58.721012475577716]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities across various domains, prompting a surge in their practical applications. This paper introduces TrustScore, a framework based on the concept of Behavioral Consistency, which evaluates whether an LLMs response aligns with its intrinsic knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T21:12:14Z)
• INSIDE: LLMs' Internal States Retain the Power of Hallucination Detection [39.52923659121416]
  We propose to explore the dense semantic information retained within textbfINternal textbfStates for halluctextbfInation textbfDEtection. A simple yet effective textbfEigenScore metric is proposed to better evaluate responses' self-consistency. A test time feature clipping approach is explored to truncate extreme activations in the internal states.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T06:23:12Z)
• Can Large Language Models be Trusted for Evaluation? Scalable Meta-Evaluation of LLMs as Evaluators via Agent Debate [74.06294042304415]
  We propose ScaleEval, an agent-debate-assisted meta-evaluation framework. We release the code for our framework, which is publicly available on GitHub.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-30T07:03:32Z)
• Trustworthy LLMs: a Survey and Guideline for Evaluating Large Language Models' Alignment [35.42539816648068]
  This paper presents a comprehensive survey of key dimensions that are crucial to consider when assessing large language models (LLMs) The survey covers seven major categories of LLM trustworthiness: reliability, safety, fairness, resistance to misuse, explainability and reasoning, adherence to social norms, and robustness. Results indicate that, in general, more aligned models tend to perform better in terms of overall trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-10T06:43:44Z)
• Large Language Models are Not Yet Human-Level Evaluators for Abstractive Summarization [66.08074487429477]
  We investigate the stability and reliability of large language models (LLMs) as automatic evaluators for abstractive summarization. We find that while ChatGPT and GPT-4 outperform the commonly used automatic metrics, they are not ready as human replacements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-22T14:58:13Z)

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.