The DOI matches its DataCite record; 118 of the 151 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity
Open accessAbstract
This paper proposes a framework for quantitatively evaluating interactive LLMs such as ChatGPT using publicly available data sets. We carry out an extensive technical evaluation of ChatGPT using 23 data sets covering 8 different common NLP application tasks. We evaluate the multitask, multilingual and multi-modal aspects of ChatGPT based on these data sets and a newly designed multimodal dataset. We find that ChatGPT outperforms LLMs with zero-shot learning on most tasks and even outperforms fine-tuned models on some tasks. We find that it is better at understanding non-Latin script languages than generating them. It is able to generate multimodal content from textual prompts, via an intermediate code generation step. Moreover, we find that ChatGPT is 63.41% accurate on average in 10 different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and commonsense reasoning, hence making it an unreliable reasoner. It is, for example, better at deductive than inductive reasoning. ChatGPT suffers from hallucination problems like other LLMs and it generates more extrinsic hallucinations from its parametric memory as it does not have access to an external knowledge base. Finally, the interactive feature of ChatGPT enables human collaboration with the underlying LLM to improve its performance, i.e, 8% ROUGE-1 on summarization and 2% ChrF++ on machine translation, in a multi-turn "prompt engineering" fashion. We also release codebase for evaluation set extraction.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“ChatGPT generally performs poorly on commonsense reasoning tasks, but relatively better than non-text semantic reasoning [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Large language models (LLMs), such as Chat-GPT, are prone to generate hallucinations, i.e., content that conflicts with the source or cannot be verified by the factual knowledge.”
From HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2023
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On symbolic reasoning tasks, ChatGPT is mostly worse than GPT-3.5, which may be because ChatGPT is prone to uncertain responses, leading to poor performance [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“On symbolic reasoning tasks, ChatGPT is mostly worse than GPT-3.5, which may be because ChatGPT is prone to uncertain responses, leading to poor performance [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Fine-tuned models, such as Vícuna and ChatGPT, exhibit exceptional performance with near-perfect scores, surpassing models that lack supervised fine-tuning by a significant margin [5, 6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The results indicated that these LLMs perform poorly when it came to non-Latin languages and languages with limited resources.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“LLMs also achieve satisfying performance across several natural language processing tasks, including machine translation [6, 130, 208], text generation [20], and question answering [102, 114].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“LLMs are prone to hallucination (Bang et al., 2023), where they generate plausible but factually incorrect or unverifiable information (Ji et al., 2023; Huang et al., 2025).”
From MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Bang et al., 2023
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, its proficiency in mathematical reasoning still requires improvement [6, 45, 265].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Specifically, ChatGPT demonstrates comparable zero-shot performance to the text-davinci-002 [6], but performs worse than GPT-3.5 [159].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Meanwhile, ChatGPT also lacks spatial reasoning ability, but exhibits better temporal reasoning.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Research by Bang et al. [6] underscores that fully fine-tuned models tailored for specific tasks surpass ChatGPT in both task-oriented and knowledge-based dialogue contexts.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The findings from Bang et al. [6] indicated that ChatGPT performs X → Eng translation well, but it still lacks the ability to perform Eng → X translation.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In linguistic contexts featuring non-Latin scripts and limited resources, LLMs manifest suboptimal performance [2, 6, 100, 250].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“As the evaluation by Bang et al. (2023) found, ChatGPT is only 63.41% accurate on average in ten different reasoning categories under logical reasoning, non-textual reasoning, and common-sense reasoning, making it an unreliable reasoner.”
From AI and ethics: Investigating the first policy responses of higher education institutions to the challenge of generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as Bang et al. (2023)
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“However, LLMs sometimes suffer from confabulations (or hallucinations), which can result in them making plausible but incorrect statements1,2.”
From Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
In the citing paper
“In low-resource learning environments, LLMs exhibit significant advantages over small language models [251], but the ability of ChatGPT to understand low-resource languages is limited [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, Bang et al. [6] highlighted that ChatGPT still faces a limitation in translating sentences written in non-Latin script languages with rich linguistic resources.”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“they exhibit noteworthy proficiency in temporal reasoning [6].”
From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [6]
In the citing paper
“However, like other LLMs, ChatGPT suffers from hallucination problems. As it does not have access to an external knowledge base, more extrinsic hallucinations are generated [7].”
From Artificial Intelligence in Medical Education: Comparative Analysis of ChatGPT, Bing, and Medical Students in Germany (2023) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
High-Resolution Image Synthesis with Latent Diffusion Models
Rombach, R., Blattmann, A., Lorenz, D., Esser, P., & Ommer, B. (2022) · 2022 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr52688.2022.01042 · Cited by 20,302 · cited 2×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundLearning Transferable Visual Models From Natural Language Supervision
Radford, A., Kim, J. W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J., et al. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2103.00020 · Cited by 15,293 · cited 1×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
BackgroundLewis, M., Liu, Y., Goyal, N., Ghazvininejad, M., Mohamed, A., Levy, O., Stoyanov, V., & Zettlemoyer, L. (2020) · Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics · doi:10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.703 · Cited by 8,821 · cited 4×
“The large version of Bart (Lewis et al., 2020b) model fine-tuned on both datasets is conducted for comparison.”
MethodInfluentialChain-Of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models
Wei, J., Wang, X., Schuurmans, D., Bosma, M., Ichter, B., Xia, F., Chi, E., Le, Q. V., & Zhou, D. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-1800 · Cited by 4,505
GLUE: A Multi-Task Benchmark and Analysis Platform for Natural Language Understanding
Wang, A., Singh, A., Michael, J., Hill, F., Levy, O., & Bowman, S. (2018) · Proceedings of the 2018 EMNLP Workshop BlackboxNLP: Analyzing and Interpreting Neural Networks for NLP · doi:10.18653/v1/w18-5446 · Cited by 4,222
Training Language Models to Follow Instructions with Human Feedback
Ouyang, L., Wu, J., Jiang, X., Almeida, D., Wainwright, C., Mishkin, P., Zhang, C., Agarwal, S., Slama, K., Ray, A., et al. (2022) · Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 · doi:10.52202/068431-2011 · Cited by 3,117
BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERT
Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K. Q., & Artzi, Y. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.09675 · Cited by 2,865
Teaching Machines to Read and ComprehendPreprint
Hermann, K. M., Kočiský, T., Grefenstette, E., Espeholt, L., Kay, W., Suleyman, M., & Blunsom, P. (2015) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.03340 · Cited by 2,855 · cited 1×
“We test on 100 samples from two common summarization datasets: half from SAMSum (Gliwa et al., 2019), a dialogue summarization dataset, and another half from CNN/DM (Hermann et al., 2015; Nallapati et al., 2016), news summarization datasets.”
MethodPaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathways
Chowdhery, A., Narang, S., Devlin, J., Bosma, M., Mishra, G., Roberts, A., Barham, P., Chung, H. W., Sutton, C., Gehrmann, S., et al. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.02311 · Cited by 2,590 · cited 2×
“Training data size affects language understanding and generation ability of LMs (Raffel et al., 2022; Cahyawijaya et al., 2021; Rae et al., 2021; Work-shop et al., 2022; Chowdhery et al., 2022; Hoff-mann et al., 2022).”
BackgroundResultZero-shot text-to-image generation
Ramesh, A., Pavlov, M., Goh, G., Gray, S., Voss, C., Radford, A., Chen, M., & Sutskever, I. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.12092 · Cited by 2,417 · cited 2×
“…is a purely text-prompted language model, it is unlikely to explore its multimodal capabilities with visual inputs like contemporary vision-language works (Rombach et al., 2022; Ramesh et al., 2021; Yu et al., 2021a; Radford et al., 2021; Dai et al., 2022; Lovenia et al., 2022; Dai et al., 2023a).”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 22
- Li Du, Xiao Ding, Kai Xiong, Ting Liu, and Bing Qin. 2022. e-CARE: a new dataset for exploring explain- able causal reasoning. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 432-446, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Simon Frieder, Luca Pinchetti, Ryan-Rhys Grif- fiths, Tommaso Salvatori, Thomas Lukasiewicz, Philipp Christian Petersen, Alexis Chevalier, and Julius Berner. 2023. Mathematical capabilities of chatgpt. · DOI · Paper page
- Aidan Gilson, Conrad Safranek, Thomas Huang, Vimig Socrates, Ling Chi, Richard Andrew Taylor, and David Chartash. 2022. How well does chatgpt do when taking the medical licensing exams? the im- plications of large language models for medical edu- cation and knowledge assessment. medRxiv, pages 2022-12.
- James Hawthorne. 2021. Inductive Logic. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso- phy, Spring 2021 edition. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
- Jordan Hoffmann, Sebastian Borgeaud, Arthur Mensch, Elena Buchatskaya, Trevor Cai, Eliza Rutherford, Diego de Las Casas, Lisa Anne Hendricks, Johannes Welbl, Aidan Clark, Tom Hennigan, Eric Noland, Katie Millican, George van den Driessche, Bogdan Damoc, Aurelia Guy, Simon Osindero, Karen Si- monyan, Erich Elsen, Jack W. Rae, Oriol Vinyals, and Laurent Sifre. 2022. Training compute-optimal large language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Yejin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2022a. Survey of halluci- nation in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv. Just Accepted. · DOI · Paper page
- Wenxiang Jiao, Wenxuan Wang, Jen-tse Huang, Xing Wang, and Zhaopeng Tu. 2023. Is chatgpt a good translator? a preliminary study. · DOI · Paper page
- Md Tahmid Rahman Laskar, M Saiful Bari, Mizanur Rahman, Md Amran Hossen Bhuiyan, Shafiq Joty, and Jimmy Huang. 2023a. A systematic study and comprehensive evaluation of ChatGPT on benchmark datasets. In Findings of the Association for Com- putational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 431-469, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Mike Lewis, Yinhan Liu, Naman Goyal, Marjan Ghazvininejad, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Omer Levy, Veselin Stoyanov, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2020b. Bart: Denoising sequence-to-sequence pre-training for natural language generation, translation, and com- prehension. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 7871-7880.
- Percy Liang, Rishi Bommasani, Tony Lee, Dimitris Tsipras, Dilara Soylu, Michihiro Yasunaga, Yian Zhang, Deepak Narayanan, Yuhuai Wu, Ananya Ku- mar, Benjamin Newman, Binhang Yuan, Bobby Yan, Ce Zhang, Christian Cosgrove, Christopher D. Man- ning, Christopher Ré, Diana Acosta-Navas, Drew A. Hudson, Eric Zelikman, Esin Durmus, Faisal Lad- hak, Frieda Rong, Hongyu Ren, Huaxiu Yao, Jue Wang, Keshav Santhanam, Laurel Orr, Lucia Zheng, Mert Yuksekgonul, Mirac Suzgun, Nathan Kim, Neel Guha, Niladri Chatterji, Omar Khattab, Peter Henderson, Qian Huang, Ryan Chi, Sang Michael Xie, Shibani Santurkar, Surya Ganguli, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Thomas Icard, Tianyi Zhang, Vishrav Chaudhary, William Wang, Xuechen Li, Yifan Mai, Yuhui Zhang, and Yuta Koreeda. 2022. Holistic eval- uation of language models. · DOI · Paper page
- Hongyuan Lu, Haoyang Huang, Shuming Ma, Dong- dong Zhang, Wai Lam, and Furu Wei. 2022. Trip: Triangular document-level pre-training for multilingual language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.07752. · arXiv
- Pasquale Minervini, Sebastian Riedel, Pontus Stenetorp, Edward Grefenstette, and Tim Rocktäschel. 2020. Learning reasoning strategies in end-to-end differen- tiable proving. In Proceedings of the 37th Interna- tional Conference on Machine Learning, ICML'20. JMLR.org.
- Alec Radford, Jeffrey Wu, Rewon Child, David Luan, Dario Amodei, Ilya Sutskever, et al. 2019. Language models are unsupervised multitask learners. OpenAI blog, 1(8):9.
- Partha Pratim Ray. 2023. Chatgpt: A comprehensive review on background, applications, key challenges, bias, ethics, limitations and future scope. Internet of Things and Cyber-Physical Systems.
- Zhengxiang Shi, Qiang Zhang, and Aldo Lipani. 2022b. StepGame: A new benchmark for robust multi-hop spatial reasoning in texts. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(10):11321- 11329. · DOI
- Kurt Shuster, Jing Xu, Mojtaba Komeili, Da Ju, Eric Michael Smith, Stephen Roller, Megan Ung, Moya Chen, Kushal Arora, Joshua Lane, Morteza Behrooz, William Ngan, Spencer Poff, Naman Goyal, Arthur Szlam, Y-Lan Boureau, Melanie Kambadur, and Jason Weston. 2022. Blenderbot 3: a deployed conversational agent that continually learns to respon- sibly engage. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhiqing Sun, Xuezhi Wang, Yi Tay, Yiming Yang, and Denny Zhou. 2022. Recitation-augmented language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Ada Wan. 2022. Fairness in representation for multi- lingual NLP: Insights from controlled experiments on conditional language modeling. In International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Peter Cathcart Wason and Philip Nicholas Johnson- Laird. 1972. Psychology of reasoning: Structure and content, volume 86. Harvard University Press.
- Jason Weston, Antoine Bordes, Sumit Chopra, and Tomás Mikolov. 2016a. Towards ai-complete ques- tion answering: A set of prerequisite toy tasks. In 4th International Conference on Learning Represen- tations, ICLR 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, May 2-4, 2016, Conference Track Proceedings.
- PMLR.
- Eric Zelikman, Yuhuai Wu, Jesse Mu, and Noah Good- man. 2022. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with rea- soning. In Advances in Neural Information Process- ing Systems.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 4,254
“, 2023) ✓ ✓ (Bang et al., 2023) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (Bai et al.”
BackgroundInfluentialHuang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 4,688
Unifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A Roadmap
Pan, S., Luo, L., Wang, Y., Chen, C., Wang, J., & Wu, X. (2024) · IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering · doi:10.1109/tkde.2024.3352100 · Cited by 1,376
Practical and ethical challenges of large language models in education: A systematic scoping review
Yan, L., Sha, L., Zhao, L., Li, Y., Martinez‐Maldonado, R., Chen, G., Li, X., Jin, Y., & Gašević, D. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13370 · Cited by 1,435
How is ChatGPT's behavior changing over time?
Chen, L., Zaharia, M., & Zou, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.09009 · Cited by 507
Can Large Language Models Transform Computational Social Science?
Ziems, C., Held, W., Shaikh, O., Chen, J., Zhang, Z., & Yang, D. (2024) · Computational Linguistics · doi:10.1162/coli_a_00502 · Cited by 585
Evaluating Object Hallucination in Large Vision-Language Models
Li, Y., Du, Y., Zhou, K., Wang, J., Xin, Z., & Wen, J.-R. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.20 · Cited by 1,862
Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models
Romera-Paredes, B., Barekatain, M., Novikov, A., Balog, M., Kumar, M. P., Dupont, E., Ruiz, F. J. R., Ellenberg, J. S., Wang, P., Fawzi, O., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06924-6 · Cited by 544
The impact of ChatGPT on higher education
Dempere, J., Modugu, K., Hesham, A., & Ramasamy, L. K. (2023) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2023.1206936 · Cited by 519
Towards Reasoning in Large Language Models: A Survey
Huang, J., & Chang, K. C.-C. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.67 · Cited by 428
ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study
Urban, M., Děchtěrenko, F., Lukavský, J., Hrabalová, V., Svacha, F., Brom, C., & Urban, K. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105031 · Cited by 396
Benchmarking Large Language Models in Retrieval-Augmented Generation
Chen, J., Lin, H., Han, X., & Sun, L. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29728 · Cited by 454
Use chat gpt to solve programming bugs
Surameery, N. M. S., & Shakor, M. Y. (2023) · International Journal of Information technology and Computer Engineering · doi:10.55529/ijitc.31.17.22 · Cited by 382
“A novel ramework for evaluating interactive language models like ChatGPT using publicly available datasets is proposed in [8] .”
MethodGender bias and stereotypes in Large Language Models
Kotek, H., Dockum, R., & Sun, D. (2023) · Proceedings of The ACM Collective Intelligence Conference · doi:10.1145/3582269.3615599 · Cited by 381
Improving large language models for clinical named entity recognition via prompt engineering
Hu, Y., Chen, Q., Du, J., Peng, X., Keloth, V. K., Zuo, X., Zhou, Y., Li, Z., Jiang, X., Lu, Z., et al. (2024) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocad259 · Cited by 314
HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models
Li, J., Cheng, X., Zhao, X., Nie, J.-Y., & Wen, J.-R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.397 · Cited by 343
Query Rewriting in Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Models
Ma, X., Gong, Y., He, P., Zhao, H., & Duan, N. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.322 · Cited by 602
The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.07864 · Cited by 972
Towards Mitigating LLM Hallucination via Self Reflection
Ji, Z., Yu, T., Xu, Y., Lee, N., Ishii, E., & Fung, P. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.123 · Cited by 362
Self-citationThe Challenges and Opportunities of AI-Assisted Writing: Developing AI Literacy for the AI Age
Cardon, P. W., Fleischmann, C., Aritz, J., Logemann, M., & Heidewald, J. (2023) · Business and Professional Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/23294906231176517 · Cited by 380
“Bang et al. (2023) explored the ability of ChatGPT to engage in 10 different reasoning categories.”
BackgroundIs chatGPT a good nlg evaluator? A preliminary study
Wang, J., Liang, Y., Meng, F., Sun, Z., Shi, H., Li, Z., Xu, J., Qu, J., & Zhou, J. (2023) · Proceedings of the 4th New Frontiers in Summarization Workshop · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.newsum-1.1 · Cited by 235
Shen, X., Chen, Z., Backes, M., Shen, Y., & Zhang, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 on ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security · doi:10.1145/3658644.3670388 · Cited by 441
Lai, V. D., Ngo, N. T., Veyseh, A. P. B., Man, H., Dernoncourt, F., Bui, T., & Nguyen, T. H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.05613 · Cited by 233
Korzynski, P., Mazurek, G., Krzypkowska, P., & Kurasinski, A. (2023) · Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review · doi:10.15678/eber.2023.110302 · Cited by 235
“Bang et al. (2023) found that similarly to other LLMs, ChatGPT suffers from hallucination problems that refer to the phenomenon of LLMs generating plausible‐sounding but incorrect or unsupported information in their responses.”
BackgroundInfluentialLee, U., Jung, H., Jeon, Y., Sohn, Y., Hwang, W., Moon, J., & Kim, H. (2024) · Education and Information Technologies · doi:10.1007/s10639-023-12249-8 · Cited by 217
“ChatGPT, as identified in several studies (Bang et al., 2023; Alkaissi & McFarlane, 2023; Rudolph et al., 2023; Ali et al., 2022), can produce a ’hallucination’ effect or plausible but incorrect answers, particularly for complex tasks.”
Lai, V., Ngo, N., Pouran Ben Veyseh, A., Man, H., Dernoncourt, F., Bui, T., & Nguyen, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.878 · Cited by 233
Dabis, A., & Csáki, C. (2024) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-024-03526-z · Cited by 318
Let’s Have a Chat! A Conversation with ChatGPT: Technology, Applications, and Limitations
Shahriar, S., & Hayawi, K. (2023) · Artificial Intelligence and Applications · doi:10.47852/bonviewaia3202939 · Cited by 167
“ChatGPT can produce code representations of visual images based on text prompts, but its drawing skills are somewhat limited currently [38].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLet's have a chat! A Conversation with ChatGPT: Technology, Applications, and Limitations
Shahriar, S., & Hayawi, K. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2302.13817 · Cited by 167
Evaluating Large Language Models in Class-Level Code Generation
Du, X., Liu, M., Wang, K., Wang, H., Jun-wei, L., Chen, Y., Feng, J., Sha, C., Peng, X., & Lou, Y. (2024) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering: Companion Proceedings (ICSE-Companion) · doi:10.1145/3597503.3639219 · Cited by 271
“To date, the evaluation for LLMs has covered a wide range [20], encompassing not only traditional NLP tasks ( e.g., sentiment analysis [17], question answering [16], and reasoning [19]) but also some specific downstream domains ( e.g., medicine [23], agent [34] and recommendation system [28]).”
BackgroundHolderried, F., Stegemann–Philipps, C., Herschbach, L., Moldt, J.-A., Nevins, A., Griewatz, J., Holderried, M., Herrmann-Werner, A., Festl-Wietek, T., & Mahling, M. (2024) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/53961 · Cited by 156
“5 is known to perform reasonably well in both abductive and commonsense reasoning tasks [46,47]; our data confirmed these observations.”
ResultTowards Interpretable Mental Health Analysis with Large Language Models
Yang, K., Ji, S., Zhang, T., Xie, Q., Kuang, Z., & Ananiadou, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.370 · Cited by 155
“Most recently, many efforts have evaluated the performance of LLMs such as ChatGPT and GPT-4 on various NLP tasks (Bang et al., 2023; Qin et al., 2023), such as machine translation (Jiao et al., 2023), text generation and evaluation (Benoit, 2023; Luo et al., 2023), language inference (Zhong et…”
BackgroundAlkhalaf, M., Yu, P., Yin, M., & Deng, C. (2024) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2024.104662 · Cited by 156
Toxicity in chatgpt: Analyzing persona-assigned language models
Deshpande, A., Murahari, V., Rajpurohit, T., Kalyan, A., & Narasimhan, K. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023 · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.88 · Cited by 178
Detecting and Preventing Hallucinations in Large Vision Language Models
Gunjal, A., Yin, J., & Bas, E. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i16.29771 · Cited by 161
Trust in Generative AI among students: An Exploratory Study
Amoozadeh, M., Daniels, D., Nam, D., Kumar, A., Chen, S., Hilton, M., Ragavan, S. S., & Alipour, M. A. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2310.04631 · Cited by 143
Assessing Cross-Cultural Alignment between ChatGPT and Human Societies: An Empirical Study
Cao, Y., Zhou, L., Lee, S., Cabello, L., Chen, M., & Hershcovich, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the First Workshop on Cross-Cultural Considerations in NLP (C3NLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.c3nlp-1.7 · Cited by 163
Oniani, D., Hilsman, J., Peng, Y., Poropatich, R. K., Pamplin, J. C., Legault, G. L., & Wang, Y. (2023) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-023-00965-x · Cited by 143
Med-HALT: Medical Domain Hallucination Test for Large Language Models
Pal, A., Umapathi, L. K., & Sankarasubbu, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.conll-1.21 · Cited by 152
Exintaris, B., Karunaratne, N., & Yuriev, E. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Education · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.3c00481 · Cited by 123
Summary of ChatGPT-Related Research and Perspective Towards the Future of Large Language Models
Liu, Y., Han, T., Ma, S., Zhang, J., Yang, Y., Tian, J., He, H., Li, A., He, M., Liu, Z., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2304.01852 · Cited by 1,172
“Reference [3] evaluates the technical performance of ChatGPT in multitask, multilingual, and multimodal aspects based on 23 standard public datasets and newly designed multimodal datasets, including eight different common natural language processing application tasks.”
BackgroundInfluentialPerils and opportunities in using large language models in psychological research
Abdurahman, S., Atari, M., Karimi-Malekabadi, F., Xue, M. J., Trager, J., Park, P. S., Golazizian, P., Omrani, A., & Dehghani, M. (2024) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgae245 · Cited by 111
“Many studies of state-of-the-art LLMs have concluded that their outputs are highly “human-like” (24 – 26).”
The impact of Artificial Intelligence in academia: Views of Turkish academics on ChatGPT
Livberber, T., & Ayvaz, S. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19688 · Cited by 103
A Survey of Generative AI Applications
Gozalo-Brizuela, R., & Merchan, E. E. G. (2024) · Journal of Computer Science · doi:10.3844/jcssp.2024.801.818 · Cited by 101
Roos, J., Kasapovic, A., Jansen, T., & Kaczmarczyk, R. (2023) · JMIR Medical Education · doi:10.2196/46482 · Cited by 98
“As it does not have access to an external knowledge base, more extrinsic hallucinations are generated [7].”
BackgroundUnifying Large Language Models and Knowledge Graphs: A RoadmapPreprint
Pan, S., Luo, L., Wang, Y., et al. (2023) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2306.08302 · Cited by 97
“However, further studies reveal that LLMs are not able to recall facts and often experience hallucinations by generating statements that are factually incorrect [15], [28].”
BackgroundZhaı, X., Nyaaba, M., & Ma, W. (2024) · Science & Education · doi:10.1007/s11191-024-00496-1 · Cited by 133
A Systematic Study and Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Benchmark Datasets
Laskar, M. T. R., Bari, M. S., Rahman, M., Bhuiyan, M. A. H., Joty, S., & Huang, J. X. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-acl.29 · Cited by 160
Rethinking the Evaluation for Conversational Recommendation in the Era of Large Language Models
Wang, X., Tang, X., Zhao, X., Wang, J., & Wen, J.-R. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.621 · Cited by 175
Performance of two large language models for data extraction in evidence synthesis
Konet, A., Thomas, I., Gartlehner, G., Kahwati, L., Hilscher, R., Kugley, S., Crotty, K., Viswanathan, M., & Chew, R. (2024) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1732 · Cited by 79
Human-AI Collaboration in Thematic Analysis using ChatGPT: A User Study and Design Recommendations
Yan, L., Echeverría, V., Fernandez-Nieto, G. M., Jin, Y., Swiecki, Z., Zhao, L., Gašević, D., & Martínez‐Maldonado, R. (2024) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3613905.3650732 · Cited by 124
“P8 cautioned: "First of all is that, for instance, it might be inaccurate in the sense that the codes might be made up.”
BackgroundDr ChatGPT tell me what I want to hear: How different prompts impact health answer correctness
Koopman, B., & Zuccon, G. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.928 · Cited by 73
“Besides the decision to treat Unsure as Incorrect, we did not perform an in depth analysis of these explanations (e.g., to verify whether the claims made in the explanation were true or were hallucinations (Ji et al., 2022; Bang et al., 2023)), because we lack the required medical expertise.”
Li, X., Chan, S., Zhu, X., Pei, Y., Ma, Z., Liu, X., & Shah, S. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-industry.39 · Cited by 158
“…(Christiano et al., 2023) and masked language model objectives, the most recent models such as ChatGPT 1 and GPT-4 2 have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in a wide range of natural language processing (NLP) tasks (Bang et al., 2023a; Liu et al., 2023; Omar et al., 2023; Khoury et al., 2023).”
Ha, J., Jeon, H., Han, D. S., Seo, J., & Oh, C. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642472 · Cited by 96
Huang, H., Tang, T., Zhang, D., Zhao, X., Song, T., Xia, Y., & Wei, F. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.826 · Cited by 198
ChatGPT and assistive AI in structured radiology reporting: A systematic review
Sacoransky, E., Kwan, B. Y. M., & Soboleski, D. (2024) · Current Problems in Diagnostic Radiology · doi:10.1067/j.cpradiol.2024.07.007 · Cited by 68
Rethinking homework in the age of artificial intelligence
Ibrahim, H., Asim, R., Zaffar, F., Rahwan, T., & Zaki, Y. (2023) · IEEE Intelligent Systems · doi:10.1109/mis.2023.3255599 · Cited by 65
The perils and promises of fact-checking with large language models
Quelle, D., & Bovet, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2024.1341697 · Cited by 106
Retrieving Supporting Evidence for Generative Question Answering
Huo, S., Arabzadeh, N., & Clarke, C. L. A. (2023) · Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region (SIGIR-AP) · doi:10.1145/3624918.3625336 · Cited by 75
“However, despite the excitement created by these improvements, the LLMs may confidently and convincingly generate hallucinated results [3, 17].”
BackgroundExploring the future of mathematics teaching: Insight with ChatGPT
Supriyadi, E., & Kuncoro, K. S. (2023) · UNION Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Matematika · doi:10.30738/union.v11i2.14898 · Cited by 60
“, 2023), assessing its efficacy in various natural language processing tasks (Bang et al., 2023), and discussing its ethical implications (Mattas, 2023).”
BackgroundResultGraph Neural Prompting with Large Language Models
Tian, Y., Song, H., Wang, Z., Wang, H., Hu, Z., Wang, F., Chawla, N. V., & Xu, P. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i17.29875 · Cited by 105
Rane, N. L. (2023) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31219/osf.io/npm3d · Cited by 65
Nayak, A., Alkaitis, M. S., Nayak, K., Nikolov, M. C., Weinfurt, K. P., & Schulman, K. A. (2023) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.2561 · Cited by 58
ChatGPT Informed Graph Neural Network for Stock Movement PredictionPreprint
Chen, Z., Zheng, L., Cheng, L., Yuan, J., & Zhu, D. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4464002 · Cited by 105
“While not initially designed for financial data processing, LLMs have demonstrated their capability to excel in a broad spectrum of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, ranging from language translation to text summarization, question answering, sentiment analysis, and text generation [12].”
BackgroundZero-shot Temporal Relation Extraction with ChatGPT
Yuan, C., Xie, Q., & Ananiadou, S. (2023) · Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing (BioNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.bionlp-1.7 · Cited by 94
GPTAraEval: A Comprehensive Evaluation of ChatGPT on Arabic NLP
Khondaker, M. T. I., Waheed, A., Nagoudi, E. M. B., & Abdul-Mageed, M. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.16 · Cited by 89
Towards LLM-based Fact Verification on News Claims with a Hierarchical Step-by-Step Prompting Method
Zhang, X., & Gao, W. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (IJCNLP-AACL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.ijcnlp-main.64 · Cited by 130
Battle of the Wordsmiths: Comparing ChatGPT, GPT-4, Claude, and BardPreprint
Borji, A., & Mohammadian, M. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4476855 · Cited by 58
Towards a Catalog of Prompt Patterns to Enhance the Discipline of Prompt Engineering
Schmidt, D. C., Spencer-Smith, J. B., Fu, Q., & White, J. (2024) · ACM SIGAda Ada Letters · doi:10.1145/3672359.3672364 · Cited by 59
“Large language models (LLMs) [1,2] with conversational interfaces, such as ChatGPT [3], are generating and reasoning about art, music, essays and computer programs.”
BackgroundChatgpt: Jack of All Trades, Master of NonePreprint
Kocoń, J., Cichecki, I., Kaszyca, O., et al. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4372889 · Cited by 52
Exploring ChatGPT Capabilities and Limitations: A Critical Review of the NLP Game ChangerPreprint
Koubâa, A., Boulila, W., Ghouti, L., Alzahem, A., & Latif, S. (2023) · Preprints.org · doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0438.v1 · Cited by 52
Liu, X., Wu, J., Shao, A., Shen, W., Ye, P., Wang, Y., Ye, J., Jin, K., & Yang, J. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/51926 · Cited by 52
Deng, Y., Liao, L., Chen, L., Wang, H., Lei, W., & Chua, T. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.711 · Cited by 113
The imitation game: Detecting human and AI-generated texts in the era of ChatGPT and BARD
Hayawi, K., Shahriar, S., & Mathew, S. S. (2024) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/01655515241227531 · Cited by 77
“They can occasionally generate nonsensical or inappropriate content and are highly sensitive to input phrasing [10–12].”
Natural Language Reasoning, A Survey
Yu, F., Zhang, H., Tiwari, P., & Wang, B. (2024) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3664194 · Cited by 131
“Such knowledge may be obvious to people but non-trivial to machines since they are difficult to retrieve from the web due to reporting bias—e.g., “when people are hungry, they would like to eat something,” 304:24 F. Yu et al.”
Gubelmann, R. (2023) · Grazer Philosophische Studien · doi:10.1163/18756735-00000182 · Cited by 47
“27 For an early pre-print (without peer-review) of a comprehensive study of ChatGPT’s abilities, see Bang et al. (2023).”
BackgroundSynergi: A Mixed-Initiative System for Scholarly Synthesis and Sensemaking
Kang, H. B., Wu, T., Chang, J. C., & Kittur, A. (2023) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/3586183.3606759 · Cited by 69
“Synergi uses Loopy Belief Propagation (LBP) and a novel message weighting scheme on a local citation graph to fnd papers most likely to be important in reviewing related literature, exploring new grounds beyond prior application of LBP in sensemaking over citation graphs [11].”
BackgroundMethodLi, M., Shi, T., Ziems, C., Kan, M., Chen, N. F., Liu, Z., & Yang, D. (2023) · Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.92 · Cited by 92
“LLMs struggle with named entity recognition (Ding et al., 2022; Qin et al., 2023), relational reasoning (Bang et al., 2023), affective tasks (Koco´n et al., 2023; Amin et al., 2023) and semantic similarity tasks (Kocmi and Federmann, 2023; Wang et al., 2023).”
BackgroundChatGPT MT: Competitive for High- (but Not Low-) Resource Languages
Robinson, N., Ogayo, P., Mortensen, D. R., & Neubig, G. (2023) · Conference on Machine Translation (WMT) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.wmt-1.40 · Cited by 112
Dubinski, D., Won, S.-Y., Trnovec, S., Behmanesh, B., Baumgarten, P., Dinc, N., Konczalla, J., Chan, A., Bernstock, J. D., Freiman, T. M., et al. (2024) · Acta Neurochirurgica · doi:10.1007/s00701-024-05908-3 · Cited by 45
“ChatGPT and other large language models are prone to hallucination, generating fac-tually incorrect but grammatically fluent content underscoring the need for safeguard in critical use cases [2].”
BackgroundStrengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats of Using ChatGPT in Scientific Research
Giray, L., Jacob, J., & Gumalin, D. L. (2024) · International Journal of Technology in Education · doi:10.46328/ijte.618 · Cited by 67
“Studies, such as the research conducted by Bang et al. (2023), have demonstrated the effectiveness of ChatGPT in translating simple text, including non-Latin script languages.”
MethodLiu, M. X., Wu, T., Chen, T., Li, F. M., Kittur, A., & Myers, B. A. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642149 · Cited by 83
“However, LLMs face well-known challenges like hallucination and falsehood [7, 97], which could make their outputs uncertain and less trustworthy, often requiring manual inspection and verification before use [71].”
Exploring prompt pattern for generative artificial intelligence in automatic question generation
Wang, L., Song, R., Guo, W.-T., & Yang, H.-W. (2024) · Interactive Learning Environments · doi:10.1080/10494820.2024.2412082 · Cited by 56
“” This is primarily attributed to ChatGPT ’ s tendency to generate “ hal-lucination ” effects or seemingly plausible but incorrect answers, especially for complex tasks (Bang et al., 2023).”
Towards Autonomous Testing Agents via Conversational Large Language Models
Feldt, R., Kang, S., Yoon, J., & Yoo, S. (2023) · 2023 38th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Automated Software Engineering (ASE) · doi:10.1109/ase56229.2023.00148 · Cited by 49
LLMs for Financial Advisement: A Fairness and Efficacy Study in Personal Decision Making
Lakkaraju, K., Jones, S. E., Vuruma, S. K. R., Pallagani, V., Muppasani, B. C., & Srivastava, B. (2023) · 4th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance · doi:10.1145/3604237.3626867 · Cited by 42
Semnani, S. J., Yao, V., Zhang, H., & Lam, M. S. (2023) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.findings-emnlp.157 · Cited by 78
Large language models meet text-centric multimodal sentiment analysis: a survey
Yang, H., Zhao, Y., Wu, Y., Wang, S., Zheng, T., Zhang, H., Ma, Z., Che, W., Wang, S., Wei, S., et al. (2025) · Science China Information Sciences · doi:10.1007/s11432-024-4593-8 · Cited by 104
“While there have been some attempts to apply LLMs in text-based sentiment analysis [6, 10–13], there is a lack of systematic and comprehensive analysis regarding the application of LLMs and LMMs in multimodal sentiment analysis.”
Professional Certification Benchmark Dataset: The First 500 Jobs for Large Language Models
Noever, D. A., & Ciolino, M. (2023) · doi:10.5121/csit.2023.131211 · Cited by 41
AI and narrative embeddings detect PTSD following childbirth via birth stories
Bartal, A., Jagodnik, K. M., Chan, S. J., & Dekel, S. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-54242-2 · Cited by 45
“In addition to its conversational abilities, ChatGPT has demonstrated remarkable performance on various other NLP tasks, including question-answering 14 , even in zero-or few-shot learning scenarios 4 .”
A Primer for Evaluating Large Language Models in Social-Science Research
Abdurahman, S., Ziabari, A. S., Moore, A. K., Bartels, D. M., & Dehghani, M. (2025) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459251325174 · Cited by 66
“…LLMs to solve a set of tasks and reporting average performance or comparing their responses with human samples can lead to conclusions about general and “human-like” capabilities (e.g., see Bang et al., 2023; Coda-Forno et al., 2023; Dillion et al., 2023; Horton, 2023; H. Liu et al., 2023).”
Zero-Shot Cross-Lingual Summarization via Large Language Models
Wang, J., Liang, Y., Meng, F., Zou, B., Li, Z., Qu, J., & Zhou, J. (2023) · Workshop on New Frontiers in Summarization (NewSum) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.newsum-1.2 · Cited by 81
“To further exploit the potentiality of conversational LLMs, inspired by Bang et al. (2023), after prompting with Dir, TS or ST prompt, we adopt an interactive ( Inta ) prompt to make the preliminarily generated summary more concise: Please make the Chinese summary shorter. and the whole process is…”
BackgroundMethodFighting Fire with Fire: The Dual Role of LLMs in Crafting and Detecting Elusive Disinformation
Lucas, J., Uchendu, A., Yamashita, M., Lee, J., Rohatgi, S., & Lee, D. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.883 · Cited by 37
Jahan, I., Laskar, M. T. R., Peng, C., & Huang, J. X. (2023) · Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing (BioNLP) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.bionlp-1.30 · Cited by 58
Artificial Intelligence Co-Piloted AuditingPreprint
Gu, H., Schreyer, M., Moffitt, K. C., et al. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4444763 · Cited by 36
Hamed, E. S., Eid, A. M., & Alberry, M. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.38784 · Cited by 38
“However, it is important to note that ChatGPT may generate incomplete, inconsistent, or irrelevant information that does not match user intentions or expectations [5,6].”
BackgroundUnveiling the New Frontier: ChatGPT-3 Powered Translation for Arabic-English Language Pairs
Alkhawaja, L. A. (2024) · Theory and Practice in Language Studies · doi:10.17507/tpls.1402.05 · Cited by 46
Huang, T. Y., Safranek, C. W., Socrates, V., Chartash, D., Wright, D., Dilip, M., Sangal, R. B., & Taylor, R. A. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/60336 · Cited by 37
“…could look toward expanding the scope of the use of LLMs in discharge instructions, such as integrating multicultural and multilingual personalization into discharge instructions as well as expanding the amount of teaching and patient education embedded into the discharge instructions [41,42].”
Proposed Framework for Human-like Language Processing of ChatGPT in Academic Writing
Mahyoob, M., Algaraady, J., & Alblwi, A. (2023) · International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET) · doi:10.3991/ijet.v18i14.41725 · Cited by 48
Juhász, L., Mooney, P., Hochmair, H. H., & Guan, B. (2023) · doi:10.31223/x5hq1p · Cited by 52
Qian, X., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhou, B., Sui, X., Zhang, L., & Song, K. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.394 · Cited by 35
Metadata
- Authors
- Bang, Y., Cahyawijaya, S., Lee, N., Dai, W., Su, D., Wilie, B., Lovenia, H., Ji, Z., Yu, T., Chung, W., Do, Q. V., Xu, Y., & Fung, P.
- Affiliations
- Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HK)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2302.04023
- OpenAlex
- W4319793302
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 151
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 101 · 2023: 184
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Keywords
- ChatGPT, LLM evaluation, hallucinations, reasoning, multilingual NLP, multimodal generation, zero-shot learning, commonsense reasoning, deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning, human-AI collaboration, prompt engineering, summarization, machine translation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
