Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

Chainpoll: A high efficacy method for LLM hallucination detection

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2310.18344 v1 pith:JJLPRENT submitted 2023-10-22 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords chainpollhallucinationmetricsdetectionrealhalldatasetsllmsmethod
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have experienced notable advancements in generating coherent and contextually relevant responses. However, hallucinations - incorrect or unfounded claims - are still prevalent, prompting the creation of automated metrics to detect these in LLM outputs. Our contributions include: introducing ChainPoll, an innovative hallucination detection method that excels compared to its counterparts, and unveiling RealHall, a refined collection of benchmark datasets to assess hallucination detection metrics from recent studies. While creating RealHall, we assessed tasks and datasets from previous hallucination detection studies and observed that many are not suitable for the potent LLMs currently in use. Overcoming this, we opted for four datasets challenging for modern LLMs and pertinent to real-world scenarios. Using RealHall, we conducted a comprehensive comparison of ChainPoll with numerous hallucination metrics from recent studies. Our findings indicate that ChainPoll outperforms in all RealHall benchmarks, achieving an overall AUROC of 0.781. This surpasses the next best theoretical method by 11% and exceeds industry standards by over 23%. Additionally, ChainPoll is cost-effective and offers greater transparency than other metrics. We introduce two novel metrics to assess LLM hallucinations: Adherence and Correctness. Adherence is relevant to Retrieval Augmented Generation workflows, evaluating an LLM's analytical capabilities within given documents and contexts. In contrast, Correctness identifies logical and reasoning errors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Decomposed Entailment for Factuality Checking and Hallucination Detection

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    HallDetect detects source-grounded hallucinations by decomposing responses into atomic claims and verifying each with a compact NLI model over multi-scale source chunks, outperforming frugal generative baselines on th...

  2. KEA Explain: Explanations of Hallucinations using Graph Kernel Analysis

    cs.LG 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A graph-kernel comparison of LLM-derived and ground-truth knowledge graphs detects hallucinations and produces contrastive explanations.

  3. Teaching Audio-Aware Large Language Models What Does Not Hear: Mitigating Hallucinations through Synthesized Negative Samples

    eess.AS 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A contrastive-style adapter trained on LLM-generated positive and negative audio descriptions improves audio hallucination accuracy to 77.5 percent and audio question answering to 84.3 percent, without changing the fr...

  4. Not All Needles Are Found: How Fact Distribution and Don't Make It Up Prompts Shape Retrieval, Reasoning, and Hallucination in Long-Context LLMs

    cs.CL 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    On a new extended needle-in-a-haystack benchmark, explicit anti-hallucination prompts and dispersed fact placement cause some long-context LLMs to over-refuse or collapse in accuracy, while others remain robust.

Pith tools