PreprintCited by 4Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

Quantifying and Attributing the Hallucination of Large Language Models via Association Analysis

Open access
Du, Li, Wang, Yequan, Xing, Xingrun, Ya, Yiqun, Li, Xiang, Jiang, Xin, Fang, Xuezhi·2023·arXiv

Abstract

Although demonstrating superb performance on various NLP tasks, large language models (LLMs) still suffer from the hallucination problem, which threatens the reliability of LLMs. To measure the level of hallucination of LLMs, previous works first categorize the hallucination according to the phenomenon similarity, then quantify the proportion that model outputs contain hallucinatory contents. However, such hallucination rates could easily be distorted by confounders. Moreover, such hallucination rates could not reflect the reasons for the hallucination, as similar hallucinatory phenomena may originate from different sources. To address these issues, we propose to combine the hallucination level quantification and hallucination reason investigation through an association analysis, which builds the relationship between the hallucination rate of LLMs with a set of risk factors. In this way, we are able to observe the hallucination level under each value of each risk factor, examining the contribution and statistical significance of each risk factor, meanwhile excluding the confounding effect of other factors. Additionally, by recognizing the risk factors according to a taxonomy of model capability, we reveal a set of potential deficiencies in commonsense memorization, relational reasoning, and instruction following, which may further provide guidance for the pretraining and supervised fine-tuning process of LLMs to mitigate the hallucination.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2309.05217

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Real citations deployed to support claims the cited references do not actually make are more prevalent and harder to detect than hallucinated titles.

    “The more prevalent and harder-to-detect variant-real citations deployed to support claims the cited references do not actually make [35], [36], [37], [38]-remains an open challenge for which reliable detection methods remain under active development.”

    From LLM hallucinations in the wild: Large-scale evidence from non-existent citations (2026) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Related Work section mentions fabricated, nonexistent references as an example from another study, but does not discuss real citations used to support claims their sources do not make. The Conclusion discusses LLM hallucination generally; neither section compares the prevalence or detectability of those citation errors with hallucinated titles. Searches for unsupported real citations and fabricated references found no passage establishing the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Reliable detection methods for misrepresenting citations remain under active development.

    “remains an open challenge for which reliable detection methods remain under active development.”

    From LLM hallucinations in the wild: Large-scale evidence from non-existent citations (2026) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Related Work section mentions fabricated references, while the Introduction discusses the difficulty of quantifying LLM hallucinations generally. Neither passage addresses whether reliable methods for detecting misrepresented citations remain under development; searches for citation misrepresentation, fabricated-reference detection, and detection methods found no such passage. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Agrawal, A.; Mackey, L.; and Kalai, A. T. 2023. Do Lan- guage Models Know When They're Hallucinating Refer- ences? arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.18248. · arXiv
  2. Alexander, P. A. 2016. Relational thinking and relational reasoning: harnessing the power of patterning. NPJ science of learning, 1(1): 1-7.
  3. Anil, R.; Dai, A. M.; Firat, O.; Johnson, M.; Lepikhin, D.; Passos, A.; Shakeri, S.; Taropa, E.; Bailey, P.; Chen, Z.; et al. 2023. Palm 2 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.10403. · arXiv
  4. Bang, Y.; Cahyawijaya, S.; Lee, N.; Dai, W.; Su, D.; Wilie, B.; Lovenia, H.; Ji, Z.; Yu, T.; Chung, W.; et al. 2023. A multitask, multilingual, multimodal evaluation of chatgpt on reasoning, hallucination, and interactivity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04023. · arXiv
  5. Brown, T.; Mann, B.; Ryder, N.; Subbiah, M.; Kaplan, J. D.; Dhariwal, P.; Neelakantan, A.; Shyam, P.; Sastry, G.; Askell, A.; et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. NeurIPS, 33: 1877-1901.
  6. Bubeck, S.; Chandrasekaran, V.; Eldan, R.; Gehrke, J.; Horvitz, E.; Kamar, E.; Lee, P.; Lee, Y. T.; Li, Y.; Lundberg, S.; et al. 2023. Sparks of artificial general intelligence: Early experiments with gpt-4. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.12712. · arXiv
  7. Cao, M.; Dong, Y.; and Cheung, J. C. K. 2022. Hallucinated but Factual! Inspecting the Factuality of Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarization. In Proceedings of the 60thACL (Volume 1: Long Papers), 3340-3354.
  8. Cattell, R. B. 1963. Theory of fluid and crystallized in- telligence: A critical experiment. Journal of educational psychology, 54(1): 1.
  9. Clark, C.; Yatskar, M.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2019. Don't Take the Easy Way Out: Ensemble Based Methods for Avoiding Known Dataset Biases. In Proceedings of the 2019 EMNLP- IJCNLP, 4069-4082.
  10. Edelman, B. L.; Goel, S.; Kakade, S.; and Zhang, C. 2022. Inductive biases and variable creation in self-attention mech- anisms. In International Conference on Machine Learning, 5793-5831.
  11. PMLR.
  12. Filippova, K. 2020. Controlled Hallucinations: Learning to Generate Faithfully from Noisy Data. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, 864-870.
  13. Grohe, M. 2017. Descriptive complexity, canonisation, and definable graph structure theory, volume 47. Cambridge University Press.
  14. Immerman, N. 2012. Descriptive complexity. Springer Sci- ence & Business Media.
  15. Jhamtani, H.; and Clark, P. 2020. Learning to ex- plain: Datasets and models for identifying valid reason- ing chains in multihop question-answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.03274. · arXiv
  16. Ji, Z.; Lee, N.; Frieske, R.; Yu, T.; Su, D.; Xu, Y.; Ishii, E.; Bang, Y. J.; Madotto, A.; and Fung, P. 2023. Survey of hal- lucination in natural language generation. ACM Computing Surveys, 55(12): 1-38.
  17. Jones, E.; and Steinhardt, J. 2022. Capturing failures of large language models via human cognitive biases. NeurIPS, 35: 11785-11799.
  18. Joshi, M.; Choi, E.; Weld, D. S.; and Zettlemoyer, L. 2017. TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension. In Proceedings of the 55thACL (Volume 1: Long Papers), 1601-1611.
  19. Li, Y.; Yao, K.; Qin, L.; Che, W.; Li, X.; and Liu, T. 2020. Slot-consistent NLG for task-oriented dialogue systems with iterative rectification network. In Proceedings of the 58thACL, 97-106.
  20. Lin, S.; Hilton, J.; and Evans, O. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measur- ing How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60thACL (Volume 1: Long Papers), 3214-3252.
  21. McKenna, N.; Li, T.; Cheng, L.; Hosseini, M. J.; Johnson, M.; and Steedman, M. 2023. Sources of Hallucination by Large Language Models on Inference Tasks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14552. · arXiv
  22. McKenzie, I. R.; Lyzhov, A.; Pieler, M.; Parrish, A.; Mueller, A.; Prabhu, A.; McLean, E.; Kirtland, A.; Ross, A.; Liu, A.; et al. 2023. Inverse Scaling: When Bigger Isn't Better. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.09479. · arXiv
  23. Ouyang, L.; Wu, J.; Jiang, X.; Almeida, D.; Wainwright, C.; Mishkin, P.; Zhang, C.; Agarwal, S.; Slama, K.; Ray, A.; et al. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. NeurIPS, 35: 27730-27744.
  24. Pagnoni, A.; Balachandran, V.; and Tsvetkov, Y. 2021. Un- derstanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics. In Proceed- ings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 4812-4829.
  25. Rajpurkar, P.; Jia, R.; and Liang, P. 2018. Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuAD. In Proceedings of the 56thACL (Volume 2: Short Papers), 784- 789.
  26. Richardson, K.; and Sabharwal, A. 2022. Pushing the limits of rule reasoning in transformers through natural language satisfiability. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, 11209-11219.
  27. Shuster, K.; Komeili, M.; Adolphs, L.; Roller, S.; Szlam, A.; and Weston, J. 2022. Language Models that Seek for Knowledge: Modular Search & Generation for Dialogue and Prompt Completion. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2022, 373-393.
  28. Thomson, C.; and Reiter, E. 2020. A Gold Standard Method- ology for Evaluating Accuracy in Data-To-Text Systems. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Natural Language Generation, 158-168.
  29. Tirumala, K.; Markosyan, A.; Zettlemoyer, L.; and Agha- janyan, A. 2022. Memorization without overfitting: Analyz- ing the training dynamics of large language models. NeurIPS, 35: 38274-38290.
  30. Wang, A.; Pruksachatkun, Y.; Nangia, N.; Singh, A.; Michael, J.; Hill, F.; Levy, O.; and Bowman, S. 2019. Superglue: A stickier benchmark for general-purpose language understand- ing systems. NeurIPS, 32.
  31. Wang, Y.; Zhong, W.; Li, L.; Mi, F.; Zeng, X.; Huang, W.; Shang, L.; Jiang, X.; and Liu, Q. 2023. Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.12966. · arXiv
  32. Wimsatt, W. C. 1972. Complexity and organization. In PSA: Proceedings of the biennial meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, volume 1972, 67-86. Cambridge University Press.
  33. Wu, M.; Moosavi, N. S.; Rücklé, A.; and Gurevych, I. 2020. Improving QA Generalization by Concurrent Modeling of Multiple Biases. In Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, 839-853.
  34. Zhao, W. X.; Zhou, K.; Li, J.; Tang, T.; Wang, X.; Hou, Y.; Min, Y.; Zhang, B.; Zhang, J.; Dong, Z.; et al. 2023. A survey of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.18223. · arXiv
  35. Zheng, S.; Huang, J.; and Chang, K. C.-C. 2023. Why does chatgpt fall short in providing truthful answers. ArXiv preprint, abs/2304.10513. · arXiv
  36. Zhong, Q.; Ding, L.; Liu, J.; Du, B.; and Tao, D. 2023. Can chatgpt understand too? a comparative study on chatgpt and fine-tuned bert. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.10198. · arXiv
  37. Ziegler, M.; Danay, E.; Heene, M.; Asendorpf, J.; and Bühner, M. 2012. Openness, fluid intelligence, and crystallized intel- ligence: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2): 173-183.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Du, L., Wang, Y., Xing, X., Ya, Y., Li, X., Jiang, X., & Fang, X.
Affiliations
Beijing Academy of Artificial Intelligence (CN)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386651465
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • 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
hallucinations, large language models, risk factors, confounding, association analysis, relational reasoning, instruction following, hallucination mitigation

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