Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

On the Limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs): False Attribution

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 2404.04631 v2 pith:I2SDQAVE submitted 2024-04-06 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords chunksattributionhallucinationllmsmixtralmodelsaccuracyauthor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

In this work, we introduce a new hallucination metric - Simple Hallucination Index (SHI) and provide insight into one important limitation of the parametric knowledge of large language models (LLMs), i.e. false attribution. The task of automatic author attribution for relatively small chunks of text is an important NLP task but can be challenging. We empirically evaluate the power of 3 open SotA LLMs in zero-shot setting (Gemma-7B, Mixtral 8x7B, and LLaMA-2-13B). We acquired the top 10 most popular books of a month, according to Project Gutenberg, divided each one into equal chunks of 400 words, and prompted each LLM to predict the author. We then randomly sampled 162 chunks per book for human evaluation, based on the error margin of 7% and a confidence level of 95%. The average results show that Mixtral 8x7B has the highest prediction accuracy, the lowest SHI, and a Pearson's correlation (r) of 0.724, 0.263, and -0.9996, respectively, followed by LLaMA-2-13B and Gemma-7B. However, Mixtral 8x7B suffers from high hallucinations for 3 books, rising as high as a SHI of 0.87 (in the range 0-1, where 1 is the worst). The strong negative correlation of accuracy and SHI, given by r, demonstrates the fidelity of the new hallucination metric, which may generalize to other tasks. We also show that prediction accuracies correlate positively with the frequencies of Wikipedia instances of the book titles instead of the downloads and we perform error analyses of predictions. We publicly release the annotated chunks of data and our codes to aid the reproducibility and evaluation of other models.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Trends and Challenges in Authorship Analysis: A Review of ML, DL, and LLM Approaches

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A systematic review of 93 papers on authorship analysis, summarizing ML, DL, and LLM methods, datasets, and open challenges from 2015 to 2024.

Pith tools