Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

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

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 2410.13961 v2 pith:L2DGR7N2 submitted 2024-10-17 cs.CL

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

classification cs.CL
keywords hallucinationsllmsbenchmarksinformationinsightsmulti-documentwhencontent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original 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.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Attribution Gradients: Incrementally Unfolding Citations for Critical Examination of Attributed AI Answers

    cs.HC 2025-10 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Attribution gradients consolidate citation evidence and enable incremental unfolding of secondary sources, leading to deeper engagement in a lab study of critical reading tasks for AI answers.

  2. LLMs Get Lost In Multi-Turn Conversation

    cs.CL 2025-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    LLMs drop 39% in performance during multi-turn conversations due to premature assumptions and inability to recover from early errors.