PreprintCited by 124Natural Language Processing TechniquesTopic ModelingTranslation Studies and Practices

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Hallucinations in Large Multilingual Translation Models

Open access

Abstract

Large-scale multilingual machine translation systems have demonstrated remarkable ability to translate directly between numerous languages, making them increasingly appealing for real-world applications. However, when deployed in the wild, these models may generate hallucinated translations which have the potential to severely undermine user trust and raise safety concerns. Existing research on hallucinations has primarily focused on small bilingual models trained on high-resource languages, leaving a gap in our understanding of hallucinations in massively multilingual models across diverse translation scenarios. In this work, we fill this gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis on both the M2M family of conventional neural machine translation models and ChatGPT, a general-purpose large language model~(LLM) that can be prompted for translation. Our investigation covers a broad spectrum of conditions, spanning over 100 translation directions across various resource levels and going beyond English-centric language pairs. We provide key insights regarding the prevalence, properties, and mitigation of hallucinations, paving the way towards more responsible and reliable machine translation systems.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2303.16104

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • LLM results are impressive but highlight inherent limitations, particularly flexibility in transferring knowledge from one set of data to another, which brings about artificial hallucinations.

    “Results are impressive, but they also highlight inherent limitations, particularly the flexibility in transferring knowledge from one set of data to another, which also bring about states of ‘artificial hallucinations’”

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Guerreiro, N. M., Alves, D., Waldendorf, J., Haddow, B., Birch, A., Colombo, P., & Martins, A. F. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • University of Edinburgh (GB)
  • Université Paris-Saclay (FR)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
Volume
11
Pages
1500-1517
ISSN
2307-387X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4389777735
Cited by
124
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 20
FWCI
11.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Government of the United Kingdom
  • UK Research and Innovation
  • European Commission (101070631)
  • Grand Équipement National De Calcul Intensif
  • HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
  • Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (UIDB/50008, UIDB/50008/2020, -01-0247-, 50008, LISBOA - 01-0247)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Translation Studies and Practices
Keywords
hallucinations, multilingual machine translation, neural machine translation, large language models, low-resource languages, hallucination mitigation, model diversity

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