Hallucination, the generation of factually incorrect information, remains a significant challenge for large language models (LLMs), especially in open-domain long-form generation. Existing approaches for detecting hallucination in long-form tasks either focus on limited domains or rely heavily on external fact-checking tools, which may not always be available. In this work, we systematically investigate reference-free hallucination detection in open-domain long-form responses. Our findings reveal that internal states (e.g., model's output probability and entropy) alone are insufficient for reliably (i.e., better than random guessing) distinguishing between factual and hallucinated content. To enhance detection, we explore various existing approaches, including prompting-based methods, probing, and fine-tuning, with fine-tuning proving the most effective. To further improve the accuracy, we introduce a new paradigm, named RATE-FT, that augments fine-tuning with an auxiliary task for the model to jointly learn with the main task of hallucination detection. With extensive experiments and analysis using a variety of model families & datasets, we demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of our method, e.g., +3% over general fine-tuning methods on LongFact.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently generate hallucinated content, posing significant challenges for applications where factuality is crucial. While existing hallucination detection methods typically operate at the sentence level or passage level, we propose FactSelfCheck, a novel black-box sampling-based method that enables fine-grained fact-level detection. Our approach represents text as knowledge graphs consisting of facts in the form of triples. Through analyzing factual consistency across multiple LLM responses, we compute fine-grained hallucination scores without requiring external resources or training data. Our evaluation demonstrates that FactSelfCheck performs competitively with leading sampling-based methods while providing more detailed insights. Most notably, our fact-level approach significantly improves hallucination correction, achieving a 35% increase in factual content compared to the baseline, while sentence-level SelfCheckGPT yields only an 8% improvement. The granular nature of our detection enables more precise identification and correction of hallucinated content.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinations, e.g., factually incorrect information, in their responses. These hallucinations present challenges for LLM-based applications that demand high factual accuracy. Existing hallucination detection methods primarily depend on external resources, which can suffer from issues such as low availability, incomplete coverage, privacy concerns, high latency, low reliability, and poor scalability. There are also methods depending on output probabilities, which are often inaccessible for closed-source LLMs like GPT models. This paper presents MetaQA, a self-contained hallucination detection approach that leverages metamorphic relation and prompt mutation. Unlike existing methods, MetaQA operates without any external resources and is compatible with both open-source and closed-source LLMs. MetaQA is based on the hypothesis that if an LLM's response is a hallucination, the designed metamorphic relations will be violated. We compare MetaQA with the state-of-the-art zero-resource hallucination detection method, SelfCheckGPT, across multiple datasets, and on two open-source and two closed-source LLMs. Our results reveal that MetaQA outperforms SelfCheckGPT in terms of precision, recall, and f1 score. For the four LLMs we study, MetaQA outperforms SelfCheckGPT with a superiority margin ranging from 0.041 - 0.113 (for precision), 0.143 - 0.430 (for recall), and 0.154 - 0.368 (for F1-score). For instance, with Mistral-7B, MetaQA achieves an average F1-score of 0.435, compared to SelfCheckGPT's F1-score of 0.205, representing an improvement rate of 112.2%. MetaQA also demonstrates superiority across all different categories of questions.

LLM hallucination, where LLMs occasionally generate unfaithful text, poses significant challenges for their practical applications. Most existing detection methods rely on external knowledge, LLM fine-tuning, or hallucination-labeled datasets, and they do not distinguish between different types of hallucinations, which are crucial for improving detection performance. We introduce a new task, Hallucination Reasoning, which classifies LLM-generated text into one of three categories: aligned, misaligned, and fabricated. Our novel zero-shot method assesses whether LLM has enough knowledge about a given prompt and text. Our experiments conducted on new datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our method in hallucination reasoning and underscore its importance for enhancing detection performance.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and AI assistants driven by these models are experiencing exponential growth in usage among both expert and amateur users. In this work, we focus on evaluating the reliability of current LLMs as science communicators. Unlike existing benchmarks, our approach emphasizes assessing these models on scientific questionanswering tasks that require a nuanced understanding and awareness of answerability. We introduce a novel dataset, SCiPS-QA, comprising 742 Yes/No queries embedded in complex scientific concepts, along with a benchmarking suite that evaluates LLMs for correctness and consistency across various criteria. We benchmark three proprietary LLMs from the OpenAI GPT family and 13 open-access LLMs from the Meta Llama-2, Llama-3, and Mistral families. While most open-access models significantly underperform compared to GPT-4 Turbo, our experiments identify Llama-3-70B as a strong competitor, often surpassing GPT-4 Turbo in various evaluation aspects. We also find that even the GPT models exhibit a general incompetence in reliably verifying LLM responses. Moreover, we observe an alarming trend where human evaluators are deceived by incorrect responses from GPT-4 Turbo.

Large language models are extensively applied across a wide range of tasks, such as customer support, content creation, educational tutoring, and providing financial guidance. However, a well-known drawback is their predisposition to generate hallucinations. This damages the trustworthiness of the information these models provide, impacting decision-making and user confidence. We propose a method to detect hallucinations by looking at the structure of the latent space and finding associations within hallucinated and non-hallucinated generations. We create a graph structure that connects generations that lie closely in the embedding space. Moreover, we employ a Graph Attention Network which utilizes message passing to aggregate information from neighboring nodes and assigns varying degrees of importance to each neighbor based on their relevance. Our findings show that 1) there exists a structure in the latent space that differentiates between hallucinated and non-hallucinated generations, 2) Graph Attention Networks can learn this structure and generalize it to unseen generations, and 3) the robustness of our method is enhanced when incorporating contrastive learning. When evaluated against evidence-based benchmarks, our model performs similarly without access to search-based methods.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are revolutionizing various domains, yet verifying their answers remains a significant challenge, especially for intricate open-ended tasks such as consolidation, summarization, and extraction of knowledge. In this work, we propose CheckEmbed: an accurate, scalable, and simple LLM verification approach. CheckEmbed is driven by a straightforward yet powerful idea: in order to compare LLM solutions to one another or to the ground-truth, compare their corresponding answer-level embeddings obtained with a model such as GPT Text Embedding Large. This reduces a complex textual answer to a single embedding, facilitating straightforward, fast, and meaningful verification. We develop a comprehensive verification pipeline implementing the CheckEmbed methodology. The CheckEmbed pipeline also comes with metrics for assessing the truthfulness of the LLM answers, such as embedding heatmaps and their summaries. We show how to use these metrics for deploying practical engines that decide whether an LLM answer is satisfactory or not. We apply the pipeline to real-world document analysis tasks, including term extraction and document summarization, showcasing significant improvements in accuracy, cost-effectiveness, and runtime performance compared to existing token-, sentence-, and fact-level schemes such as BERTScore or SelfCheckGPT.

Self-consistency has emerged as a powerful method for improving the accuracy of short answers generated by large language models. As previously defined, it only concerns the accuracy of a final answer parsed from generated text. In this work, we extend the idea to open response generation, by integrating voting into the decoding method. Each output sentence is selected from among multiple samples, conditioning on the previous selections, based on a simple token overlap score. We compare this "Sample & Select" method to greedy decoding, beam search, nucleus sampling, and the recently introduced hallucination avoiding decoders of DoLA, P-CRR, and S-CRR. We show that Sample & Select improves factuality by a 30% relative margin against these decoders in NLI-based evaluation on the subsets of CNN/DM and XSum used in the FRANK benchmark, while maintaining comparable ROUGE-1 F1 scores against reference summaries. We collect human verifications of the generated summaries, confirming the factual superiority of our method.

Large Language Models (LLMs), including ChatGPT and LLaMA, are susceptible to generating hallucinated answers in a confident tone. While efforts to elicit and calibrate confidence scores have proven useful, recent findings show that controlling uncertainty must go beyond calibration: predicted scores may deviate significantly from the actual posterior probabilities due to the impact of grouping loss. In this work, we construct a new evaluation dataset derived from a knowledge base to assess confidence scores given to answers of Mistral and LLaMA. Experiments show that they tend to be overconfident. Further, we show that they are more overconfident on some answers than others, \emph{eg} depending on the nationality of the person in the query. In uncertainty-quantification theory, this is grouping loss. To address this, we propose a solution to reconfidence LLMs, canceling not only calibration but also grouping loss. The LLMs, after the reconfidencing process, indicate improved confidence alignment with the accuracy of their responses.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown their ability to collaborate effectively with humans in real-world scenarios. However, LLMs are apt to generate hallucinations, i.e., makeup incorrect text and unverified information, which can cause significant damage when deployed for mission-critical tasks. In this paper, we propose a self-check approach based on reverse validation to detect factual errors automatically in a zero-resource fashion. To facilitate future studies and assess different methods, we construct a hallucination detection benchmark named PHD, which is generated by ChatGPT and annotated by human annotators. Contrasting previous studies of zero-resource hallucination detection, our method and benchmark concentrate on passage-level detection instead of sentence-level. We empirically evaluate our method and existing zero-resource detection methods on two datasets. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed method considerably outperforms the baselines while costing fewer tokens and less time. Furthermore, we manually analyze some hallucination cases that LLM failed to capture, revealing the shared limitation of zero-resource methods.