CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.05243v1
• Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2025 17:02:52 GMT
• Title: CLATTER: Comprehensive Entailment Reasoning for Hallucination Detection
• Authors: Ron Eliav, Arie Cattan, Eran Hirsch, Shahaf Bassan, Elias Stengel-Eskin, Mohit Bansal, Ido Dagan,
• Abstract summary: We propose that guiding models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions.<n>We define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection.
• Score: 60.98964268961243
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: A common approach to hallucination detection casts it as a natural language inference (NLI) task, often using LLMs to classify whether the generated text is entailed by corresponding reference texts. Since entailment classification is a complex reasoning task, one would expect that LLMs could benefit from generating an explicit reasoning process, as in CoT reasoning or the explicit ``thinking'' of recent reasoning models. In this work, we propose that guiding such models to perform a systematic and comprehensive reasoning process -- one that both decomposes the text into smaller facts and also finds evidence in the source for each fact -- allows models to execute much finer-grained and accurate entailment decisions, leading to increased performance. To that end, we define a 3-step reasoning process, consisting of (i) claim decomposition, (ii) sub-claim attribution and entailment classification, and (iii) aggregated classification, showing that such guided reasoning indeed yields improved hallucination detection. Following this reasoning framework, we introduce an analysis scheme, consisting of several metrics that measure the quality of the intermediate reasoning steps, which provided additional empirical evidence for the improved quality of our guided reasoning scheme.

Related papers

• Dissecting Logical Reasoning in LLMs: A Fine-Grained Evaluation and Supervision Study [34.29839553042609]
  We propose FineLogic, a fine-grained evaluation framework that assesses logical reasoning across three dimensions.<n>We conduct a study on the effects of supervision format during fine-tuning.<n>Our findings reveal that natural language supervision yields strong generalization even on out-of-distribution and long-context tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-05T09:34:12Z)
• The Curse of CoT: On the Limitations of Chain-of-Thought in In-Context Learning [39.613595533503144]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has been widely recognized for its ability to enhance reasoning capabilities in large language models.<n>We show that CoT consistently underperforms direct answering across varying model scales and benchmark complexities.<n>Our analysis uncovers a fundamental explicit-implicit duality driving CoT's performance in pattern-based ICL.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-07T13:51:06Z)
• Critical-Questions-of-Thought: Steering LLM reasoning with Argumentative Querying [0.3659498819753633]
  State-of-the-art Large Language models (LLMs) continue to struggle when performing logical and mathematical reasoning.<n>This paper makes use of the notion of critical questions from the literature on argumentation theory, focusing in particular on Toulmin's model of argumentation.<n>We show that employing these critical questions can improve the reasoning capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T18:51:30Z)
• P-FOLIO: Evaluating and Improving Logical Reasoning with Abundant Human-Written Reasoning Chains [97.25943550933829]
  We present P-FOLIO, a human-annotated dataset consisting of diverse and complex reasoning chains. We use P-FOLIO to evaluate and improve large-language-model (LLM) reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T19:22:57Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• DetermLR: Augmenting LLM-based Logical Reasoning from Indeterminacy to Determinacy [76.58614128865652]
  We propose DetermLR, a novel perspective that rethinks the reasoning process as an evolution from indeterminacy to determinacy. First, we categorize known conditions into two types: determinate and indeterminate premises This provides an oveall direction for the reasoning process and guides LLMs in converting indeterminate data into progressively determinate insights. We automate the storage and extraction of available premises and reasoning paths with reasoning memory, preserving historical reasoning details for subsequent reasoning steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-28T10:05:51Z)
• Phenomenal Yet Puzzling: Testing Inductive Reasoning Capabilities of Language Models with Hypothesis Refinement [92.61557711360652]
  Language models (LMs) often fall short on inductive reasoning, despite achieving impressive success on research benchmarks. We conduct a systematic study of the inductive reasoning capabilities of LMs through iterative hypothesis refinement. We reveal several discrepancies between the inductive reasoning processes of LMs and humans, shedding light on both the potentials and limitations of using LMs in inductive reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-12T17:51:10Z)
• Concise and Organized Perception Facilitates Reasoning in Large Language Models [31.238220405009617]
  Exploiting large language models (LLMs) to tackle reasoning has garnered growing attention.<n>It still remains highly challenging to achieve satisfactory results in complex logical problems, characterized by plenty of premises within the context and requiring multi-hop reasoning.<n>In this work, we first examine the mechanism from the perspective of information flow and reveal that LLMs confront difficulties akin to human-like cognitive biases when dealing with disordered and irrelevant content in reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T04:47:49Z)
• Rationale-Augmented Ensembles in Language Models [53.45015291520658]
  We reconsider rationale-augmented prompting for few-shot in-context learning. We identify rationale sampling in the output space as the key component to robustly improve performance. We demonstrate that rationale-augmented ensembles achieve more accurate and interpretable results than existing prompting approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-02T06:20:57Z)
• EviDR: Evidence-Emphasized Discrete Reasoning for Reasoning Machine Reading Comprehension [39.970232108247394]
  Reasoning machine reading comprehension (R-MRC) aims to answer complex questions that require discrete reasoning based on text. Previous end-to-end methods that achieve state-of-the-art performance rarely solve the problem by paying enough emphasis on the modeling of evidence. We propose an evidence-emphasized discrete reasoning approach (EviDR), in which sentence and clause level evidence is first detected based on distant supervision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-18T06:49:58Z)

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.