Large Language Models (LLMs) with extended context windows promise direct reasoning over long documents, reducing the need for chunking or retrieval. Constructing annotated resources for training and evaluation, however, remains costly. Synthetic data offers a scalable alternative, and we introduce SynClaimEval, a framework for evaluating synthetic data utility in long-context claim verification -- a task central to hallucination detection and fact-checking. Our framework examines three dimensions: (i) input characteristics, by varying context length and testing generalization to out-of-domain benchmarks; (ii) synthesis logic, by controlling claim complexity and error type variation; and (iii) explanation quality, measuring the degree to which model explanations provide evidence consistent with predictions. Experiments across benchmarks show that long-context synthesis can improve verification in base instruction-tuned models, particularly when augmenting existing human-written datasets. Moreover, synthesis enhances explanation quality, even when verification scores do not improve, underscoring its potential to strengthen both performance and explainability.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often produce factoid hallucinations - plausible yet incorrect answers. A common mitigation strategy is model alignment, which improves factual accuracy by training on curated (factual, non-factual) pairs. However, this approach often relies on a stronger model (e.g., GPT-4) or an external knowledge base to assess factual correctness that may not always be accessible. Addressing this, we propose Atomic Consistency Preference Optimization (ACPO), a self-supervised preference-tuning method that enhances factual accuracy without external supervision. ACPO leverages atomic consistency signals (i.e., the agreement of individual facts across multiple stochastic responses) to identify high- and low-quality data pairs for model alignment. Despite being fully self-supervised, ACPO outperforms the strong supervised alignment baseline by 1.95 points averaged across Phi-3 and Llama3 on the LongFact and BioGen datasets, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving factual reliability without relying on external models or knowledge bases.

Traditional dialogue summarization primarily focuses on dialogue content, assuming it comprises adequate information for a clear summary. However, this assumption often fails for discussions grounded in shared background, where participants frequently omit context and use implicit references. This results in summaries that are confusing to readers unfamiliar with the background. To address this, we introduce Knowledge-Grounded Discussion Summarization (KGDS), a novel task that produces a supplementary background summary for context and a clear opinion summary with clarified references. To facilitate research, we construct the first KGDS benchmark, featuring news-discussion pairs and expert-created multi-granularity gold annotations for evaluating sub-summaries. We also propose a novel hierarchical evaluation framework with fine-grained and interpretable metrics. Our extensive evaluation of 12 advanced large language models (LLMs) reveals that KGDS remains a significant challenge. The models frequently miss key facts and retain irrelevant ones in background summarization, and often fail to resolve implicit references in opinion summary integration.

Recent studies on hallucination in large language models (LLMs) have been actively progressing in natural language processing. However, the impact of negated text on hallucination with LLMs remains largely unexplored. In this paper, we set three important yet unanswered research questions and aim to address them. To derive the answers, we investigate whether LLMs can recognize contextual shifts caused by negation and still reliably distinguish hallucinations comparable to affirmative cases. We also design the NegHalu dataset by reconstructing existing hallucination detection datasets with negated expressions. Our experiments demonstrate that LLMs struggle to detect hallucinations in negated text effectively, often producing logically inconsistent or unfaithful judgments. Moreover, we trace the internal state of LLMs as they process negated inputs at the token level and reveal the challenges of mitigating their unintended effects.

We study whether transformers can learn to implicitly reason over parametric knowledge, a skill that even the most capable language models struggle with.

With the rapid development of online medical platforms, consumer health questions (CHQs) are inefficient in diagnosis due to redundant information and frequent non-professional terms. The medical question summary (MQS) task aims to transform CHQs into streamlined doctors' frequently asked questions (FAQs), but existing methods still face challenges such as poor identification of question focus and model hallucination. This paper explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) in the MQS task and finds that direct fine-tuning is prone to focus identification bias and generates unfaithful content. To this end, we propose an optimization framework based on core focus guidance. First, a prompt template is designed to drive the LLMs to extract the core focus from the CHQs that is faithful to the original text. Then, a fine-tuning dataset is constructed in combination with the original CHQ-FAQ pairs to improve the ability to identify the focus of the question. Finally, a multi-dimensional quality evaluation and selection mechanism is proposed to comprehensively improve the quality of the summary from multiple dimensions. We conduct comprehensive experiments on two widely-adopted MQS datasets using three established evaluation metrics. The proposed framework achieves state-of-the-art performance across all measures, demonstrating a significant boost in the model's ability to identify critical focus of questions and a notable mitigation of hallucinations. The source codes are freely available at https://github.com/DUT-LiuChao/FocusMed.

Large language models (LLMs) has become a significant research focus and is utilized in various fields, such as text generation and dialog systems. One of the most essential applications of LLM is Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG), which greatly enhances generated content's reliability and relevance. However, evaluating RAG systems remains a challenging task. Traditional evaluation metrics struggle to effectively capture the key features of modern LLM-generated content that often exhibits high fluency and naturalness. Inspired by the RAGAS tool, a well-known RAG evaluation framework, we extended this framework into a KG-based evaluation paradigm, enabling multi-hop reasoning and semantic community clustering to derive more comprehensive scoring metrics. By incorporating these comprehensive evaluation criteria, we gain a deeper understanding of RAG systems and a more nuanced perspective on their performance. To validate the effectiveness of our approach, we compare its performance with RAGAS scores and construct a human-annotated subset to assess the correlation between human judgments and automated metrics. In addition, we conduct targeted experiments to demonstrate that our KG-based evaluation method is more sensitive to subtle semantic differences in generated outputs. Finally, we discuss the key challenges in evaluating RAG systems and highlight potential directions for future research.

Context-grounded hallucinations are cases where model outputs contain information not verifiable against the source text. We study the applicability of LLMs for localizing such hallucinations, as a more practical alternative to existing complex evaluation pipelines. In the absence of established benchmarks for meta-evaluation of hallucinations localization, we construct one tailored to LLMs, involving a challenging human annotation of over 1,000 examples. We complement the benchmark with an LLM-based evaluation protocol, verifying its quality in a human evaluation. Since existing representations of hallucinations limit the types of errors that can be expressed, we propose a new representation based on free-form textual descriptions, capturing the full range of possible errors. We conduct a comprehensive study, evaluating four large-scale LLMs, which highlights the benchmark's difficulty, as the best model achieves an F1 score of only 0.67. Through careful analysis, we offer insights into optimal prompting strategies for the task and identify the main factors that make it challenging for LLMs: (1) a tendency to incorrectly flag missing details as inconsistent, despite being instructed to check only facts in the output; and (2) difficulty with outputs containing factually correct information absent from the source - and thus not verifiable - due to alignment with the model's parametric knowledge.

Recent works in Natural Language Inference (NLI) and related tasks, such as automated fact-checking, employ atomic fact decomposition to enhance interpretability and robustness. For this, existing methods rely on resource-intensive generative large language models (LLMs) to perform decomposition. We propose JEDI, an encoder-only architecture that jointly performs extractive atomic fact decomposition and interpretable inference without requiring generative models during inference. To facilitate training, we produce a large corpus of synthetic rationales covering multiple NLI benchmarks. Experimental results demonstrate that JEDI achieves competitive accuracy in distribution and significantly improves robustness out of distribution and in adversarial settings over models based solely on extractive rationale supervision. Our findings show that interpretability and robust generalization in NLI can be realized using encoder-only architectures and synthetic rationales. Code and data available at https://jedi.nicpopovic.com