CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 1

UHGEval: Benchmarking the Hallucination of Chinese Large Language Models via Unconstrained Generation

Liang, Xun, Song, Shichao, Niu, Simin, Li, Zhiyu, Xiong, Feiyu, Tang, Bo, Wang, Yezhaohui, He, Dawei +3 more·2023·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2311.15296arXiv 2311.15296
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as pivotal contributors in contemporary natural language processing and are increasingly being applied across a diverse range of industries. However, these large-scale probabilistic statistical models cannot currently ensure the requisite quality in professional content generation. These models often produce hallucinated text, compromising their practical utility in professional contexts. To assess the authentic reliability of LLMs in text generation, numerous initiatives have developed benchmark evaluations for hallucination phenomena. Nevertheless, these benchmarks frequently utilize constrained generation techniques due to cost and temporal constraints. These techniques encompass the use of directed hallucination induction and strategies that deliberately alter authentic text to produce hallucinations. These approaches are not congruent with the unrestricted text generation demanded by real-world applications. Furthermore, a well-established Chinese-language dataset dedicated to the evaluation of hallucinations in text generation is presently lacking. Consequently, we have developed an Unconstrained Hallucination Generation Evaluation (UHGEval) benchmark, designed to compile outputs produced with minimal restrictions by LLMs. Concurrently, we have established a comprehensive benchmark evaluation framework to aid subsequent researchers in undertaking scalable and reproducible experiments. We have also executed extensive experiments, evaluating prominent Chinese language models and the GPT series models to derive professional performance insights regarding hallucination challenges.

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.2311.15296

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?

  • UHGEval is a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate performance of Chinese LLMs in text generation without being constrained by hallucination-related limitations.

    “[116] has developed UHGEval, a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the performance of Chinese LLMs in text generation without being constrained by hallucination-related limitations.”

    From A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as [116]

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: 32

  1. Jinze Bai, Shuai Bai, Yunfei Chu, Zeyu Cui, Kai Dang, Xiaodong Deng, Yang Fan, Wenbin Ge, Yu Han, Fei Huang, Binyuan Hui, Luo Ji, Mei Li, Junyang Lin, Runji Lin, Dayiheng Liu, Gao Liu, Chengqiang Lu, Keming Lu, Jianxin Ma, Rui Men, Xingzhang Ren, Xuancheng Ren, Chuanqi Tan, Sinan Tan, 5 https://github.com/vllm-project/vllm et al. 2023. Qwen technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.16609. · arXiv
  2. Yupeng Chang, Xu Wang, Jindong Wang, Yuan Wu, Linyi Yang, Kaijie Zhu, Hao Chen, Xiaoyuan Yi, Cunxiang Wang, Yidong Wang, Wei Ye, Yue Zhang, Yi Chang, Philip S. Yu, Qiang Yang, and Xing Xie. 2024. A survey on evaluation of large language mod- els. ACM Trans. Intell. Syst. Technol. Just Accepted. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Ding Chen, Shichao Song, Qingchen Yu, Zhiyu Li, Wen- jin Wang, Feiyu Xiong, and Bo Tang. 2024. Grimoire is all you need for enhancing large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.03385. · arXiv
  4. Jiangjie Chen, Wei Shi, Ziquan Fu, Sijie Cheng, Lei Li, and Yanghua Xiao. 2023. Say what you mean! large language models speak too positively about negative commonsense knowledge. In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 9890-9908, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  5. Qinyuan Cheng, Tianxiang Sun, Wenwei Zhang, Siyin Wang, Xiangyang Liu, Mozhi Zhang, Junliang He, Mianqiu Huang, Zhangyue Yin, Kai Chen, and Xipeng Qiu. 2023. Evaluating hallucinations in chinese large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03368. · arXiv
  6. Marie-Catherine de Marneffe and Joakim Nivre. 2019. Dependency grammar. Annual Review of Linguistics, 5(1):197-218. · DOI
  7. Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregres- sive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320-335.
  8. Mohamed Elaraby, Mengyin Lu, Jacob Dunn, Xuey- ing Zhang, Yu Wang, and Shizhu Liu. 2023. Halo: Estimation and reduction of hallucinations in open- source weak large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.11764. · arXiv
  9. Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.04166. · arXiv
  10. Nayeon Lee, Wei Ping, Peng Xu, Mostofa Patwary, Pas- cale Fung, Mohammad Shoeybi, and Bryan Catan- zaro. 2022. Factuality enhanced language models for open-ended text generation. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  11. Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Halueval: A large-scale hal- lucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Meth- ods in Natural Language Processing.
  12. Xun Liang, Hanyu Wang, Shichao Song, Mengting Hu, Xunzhi Wang, Zhiyu Li, Feiyu Xiong, and Bo Tang. 2024. Controlled text generation for large language model with dynamic attribute graphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.11218. · arXiv
  13. Chin-Yew Lin. 2004. ROUGE: A package for auto- matic evaluation of summaries. In Text Summariza- tion Branches Out, pages 74-81, Barcelona, Spain. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  14. Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Tianyu Liu, Yizhe Zhang, Chris Brockett, Yi Mao, Zhifang Sui, Weizhu Chen, and Bill Dolan. 2022. A token-level reference-free hallucination detection benchmark for free-form text generation. In Proceed- ings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pa- pers), pages 6723-6737, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020. On faithfulness and factu- ality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1906-1919, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  17. Sewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Pang Koh, Mohit Iyyer, Luke Zettle- moyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. FActScore: Fine-grained atomic evaluation of factual precision in long form text generation. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 12076-12100, Singa- pore. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Niklas Muennighoff, Thomas Wang, Lintang Sutawika, Adam Roberts, Stella Biderman, Teven Le Scao, M Saiful Bari, Sheng Shen, Zheng-Xin Yong, Hailey Schoelkopf, Xiangru Tang, Dragomir R. Radev, Al- ham Fikri Aji, Khalid Almubarak, Samuel Albanie, Zaid Alyafeai, et al. 2023. Crosslingual generaliza- tion through multitask finetuning. In Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics.
  19. Dor Muhlgay, Ori Ram, Inbal Magar, et al. 2024. Gen- erating benchmarks for factuality evaluation of lan- guage models. In Proceedings of the 18th Confer- ence of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pa- pers), pages 49-66, St. Julian's, Malta. Association for Computational Linguistics.
  20. Jekaterina Novikova, Ondřej Dušek, Amanda Cer- cas Curry, and Verena Rieser. 2017. Why we need new evaluation metrics for NLG. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 2241-2252, Copen- hagen, Denmark. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. OpenAI. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Long Ouyang, Jeffrey Wu, Xu Jiang, Diogo Almeida, Carroll Wainwright, Pamela Mishkin, Chong Zhang, Sandhini Agarwal, Katarina Slama, Alex Ray, John Schulman, Jacob Hilton, Fraser Kelton, Luke Miller, Maddie Simens, Amanda Askell, Peter Welinder, Paul F Christiano, Jan Leike, and Ryan Lowe. 2022. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 35, pages 27730-27744.
  22. Ankit Pal, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. 2023. Med-halt: Medical domain hallucination test for large language models. In Pro- ceedings of the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL). Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  23. Kishore Papineni, Salim Roukos, Todd Ward, and Wei- Jing Zhu. 2002. Bleu: a method for automatic evalu- ation of machine translation. In Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting of the Association for Compu- tational Linguistics, pages 311-318, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Vipula Rawte, Swagata Chakraborty, Agnibh Pathak, Anubhav Sarkar, S.M Towhidul Islam Tonmoy, Aman Chadha, Amit Sheth, and Amitava Das. 2023. The troubling emergence of hallucination in large lan- guage models -an extensive definition, quantification, and prescriptive remediations. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2541-2573, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  25. Yu Sun, Shuohuan Wang, Shikun Feng, Siyu Ding, Chao Pang, Junyuan Shang, Jiaxiang Liu, Xuyi Chen, Yanbin Zhao, Yuxiang Lu, Weixin Liu, Zhihua Wu, Weibao Gong, Jianzhong Liang, Zhizhou Shang, Peng Sun, Wei Liu, Xuan Ouyang, Dianhai Yu, Hao Tian, Hua Wu, and Haifeng Wang. 2021. Ernie 3.0: Large-scale knowledge enhanced pre-training for lan- guage understanding and generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.02137. · arXiv
  26. Hugo Touvron, Louis Martin, Kevin Stone, Peter Al- bert, Amjad Almahairi, Yasmine Babaei, Nikolay Bashlykov, Soumya Batra, Prajjwal Bhargava, Shruti Bhosale, Dan Bikel, Lukas Blecher, Cristian Canton Ferrer, Moya Chen, Guillem Cucurull, David Esiobu, Jude Fernandes, Jeremy Fu, Wenyin Fu, Brian Fuller, et al. 2023. Llama 2: Open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.09288. · arXiv
  27. Neeraj Varshney, Wenlin Yao, Hongming Zhang, Jian- shu Chen, and Dong Yu. 2023. A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of llms by validating low-confidence generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987. · arXiv
  28. Cunxiang Wang, Xiaoze Liu, Yuanhao Yue, Xiangru Tang, Tianhang Zhang, Cheng Jiayang, Yunzhi Yao, Wenyang Gao, Xuming Hu, Zehan Qi, Yidong Wang, Linyi Yang, Jindong Wang, Xing Xie, Zheng Zhang, and Yue Zhang. 2023b. Survey on factuality in large language models: Knowledge, retrieval and domain- specificity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.07521. · arXiv
  29. Yidong Wang, Zhuohao Yu, Zhengran Zeng, Linyi Yang, Wenjin Yao, Cunxiang Wang, Hao Chen, Chaoya Jiang, Rui Xie, Jindong Wang, Xing Xie, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, and Yue Zhang. 2024. PandaLM: An automatic evaluation benchmark for LLM instruction tuning optimization. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations.
  30. Aiyuan Yang, Bin Xiao, Bingning Wang, Borong Zhang, Ce Bian, Chao Yin, Chenxu Lv, Da Pan, Dian Wang, Dong Yan, Fan Yang, Fei Deng, Feng Wang, Feng Liu, Guangwei Ai, Guosheng Dong, Haizhou Zhao, Hang Xu, Haoze Sun, Hongda Zhang, Hui Liu, Ji- aming Ji, Jian Xie, JunTao Dai, Kun Fang, Lei Su, et al. 2023a. Baichuan 2: Open large-scale language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10305. · arXiv
  31. Shiping Yang, Renliang Sun, and Xiaojun Wan. 2023b. A new benchmark and reverse validation method for passage-level hallucination detection. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
  32. Zhangyue Yin, Qiushi Sun, Qipeng Guo, Jiawen Wu, Xipeng Qiu, and Xuanjing Huang. 2023. Do large language models know what they don't know? In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: ACL 2023, pages 8653-8665, Toronto, Canada. Association for Computational Linguistics. Discriminative-Keyword Discriminative-Sentence Selective avg.acc. avg.#kws #valid avg.acc. #valid acc. #valid Aquila-34B 53.62% 3.00 3719 49.86% 5009 54.29% 4319 Baichuan2-13B 51.63% 3.13 4478 46.88% 5047 50.23% 5130 Baichuan2-53B 52.13% 2.98 1656 50.81% 1478 54.67% 4443 ChatGLM2-6B 50.80% 3.10 4289 43.87% 5130 43.59% 5130 GPT3.5-Turbo 53.72% 3.08 4183 50.02% 5039 49.03% 5103 GPT4-0613 70.04% 3.07 4100 57.42% 5024 55.20% 5047 GPT4-1106 69.48% 3.10 4189 57.38% 4903 60.35% 4752 InternLM-20B 50.92% 3.10 4388 51.01% 5130 49.43% 5130 Qwen-14B 52.86% 3.13 4478 50.58% 5130 54.74% 5130 Xinyu-7B 49.58% 3.12 4451 48.66% 5014 50.58% 5130 Xinyu2-70B 52.94% 3.12 4482 55.04% 5128 57.93% 5129 Table 8: Original Results Discriminative-Keyword Discriminative-Sentence Selective avg.acc. avg.#kws #valid avg.acc. #valid acc. #valid Aquila-34B 54.17% 3.18 1178 50.98% 1582 57.34% 1362 Baichuan2-13B 51.61% 3.29 1398 50.34% 1608 51.93% 1629 Baichuan2-53B 52.68% 3.06 525 51.46% 479 56.70% 1432 ChatGLM2-6B 51.27% 3.27 1357 47.02% 1629 46.04% 1629 GPT3.5-Turbo 54.38% 3.23 1291 51.87% 1601 50.06% 1620 GPT4-0613 70.03% 3.23 1277 59.73% 1593 58.79% 1582 GPT4-1106 68.24% 3.25 1305 61.28% 1547 65.34% 1503 InternLM-20B 51.06% 3.23 1348 52.42% 1629 53.53% 1629 Qwen-14B 53.84% 3.29 1404 51.20% 1629 53.96% 1629 Xinyu-7B 49.51% 3.29 1389 48.74% 1582 50.58% 1629 Xinyu2-70B 54.30% 3.29 1402 58.24% 1627 59.28% 1628 Table 9: New Results Discriminative-Keyword Discriminative-Sentence Selective avg. acc. avg. #kws #valid avg. acc. #valid acc. #valid Aquila-34B -0.55% -0.18 2541 -1.12% 3427 -3.05% 2957 Baichuan2-13B 0.02% -0.16 3080 -3.46% 3439 -1.70% 3501 Baichuan2-53B -0.55% -0.08 1131 -0.65% 999 -2.03% 3011 ChatGLM2-6B -0.48% -0.17 2932 -3.15% 3501 -2.45% 3501 GPT3.5-Turbo -0.67% -0.15 2892 -1.85% 3438 -1.03% 3483 GPT4-0613 0.01% -0.16 2823 -2.31% 3431 -3.59% 3465 GPT4-1106 1.24% -0.14 2884 -3.90% 3356 -4.98% 3249 InternLM-20B -0.14% -0.13 3040 -1.41% 3501 -4.10% 3501 Qwen-14B -0.98% -0.17 3074 -0.62% 3501 0.78% 3501 Xinyu-7B 0.07% -0.17 3062 -0.07% 3432 0.00% 3501 Xinyu2-70B -1.36% -0.16 3080 -3.20% 3501 -1.35% 3501 Table 10: Difference (Original -New) · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liang, X., Song, S., Niu, S., Li, Z., Xiong, F., Tang, B., Wang, Y., He, D., Cheng, P., Wang, Z., & Deng, H.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2311.15296
arXiv
2311.15296
References
0
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

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