PreprintCited by 13Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

From Single to Multi: How LLMs Hallucinate in Multi-Document Summarization

Open access
Belem, Catarina G., Pezeshkpour, Pouya, Iso, Hayate, Maekawa, Seiji, Bhutani, Nikita, Hruschka, Estevam·2024·arXiv

Abstract

Although many studies have investigated and reduced hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) for single-document tasks, research on hallucination in multi-document summarization (MDS) tasks remains largely unexplored. Specifically, it is unclear how the challenges arising from handling multiple documents (e.g., repetition and diversity of information) affect models outputs. In this work, we investigate how hallucinations manifest in LLMs when summarizing topic-specific information from multiple documents. Since no benchmarks exist for investigating hallucinations in MDS, we use existing news and conversation datasets, annotated with topic-specific insights, to create two novel multi-document benchmarks. When evaluating 5 LLMs on our benchmarks, we observe that on average, up to 75% of the content in LLM-generated summary is hallucinated, with hallucinations more likely to occur towards the end of the summaries. Moreover, when summarizing non-existent topic-related information, gpt-3.5-turbo and GPT-4o still generate summaries about 79.35% and 44% of the time, raising concerns about their tendency to fabricate content. To understand the characteristics of these hallucinations, we manually evaluate 700+ insights and find that most errors stem from either failing to follow instructions or producing overly generic insights. Motivated by these observations, we investigate the efficacy of simple post-hoc baselines in mitigating hallucinations but find them only moderately effective. Our results underscore the need for more effective approaches to systematically mitigate hallucinations in MDS. We release our dataset and code at github.com/megagonlabs/Hallucination_MDS.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2410.13961

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Mini-Haystacks consist of 20 documents and ensure that each reference insight is repeated across three documents.

    “Mini-Haystacks consist of 20 documents and ensure that each reference insight is repeated across three documents.”

    From LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation (2025) · cites this paper as [3]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Belem, C. G., Pezeshkpour, P., Iso, H., Maekawa, S., Bhutani, N., & Hruschka, E.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
5276-5309
OpenAlex
W4411120009
Cited by
13
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 4
FWCI
12.14
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • 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, multi-document summarization, large language models, hallucination mitigation, GPT-4o, GPT-3.5-turbo, human evaluation of summaries

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