REVIEW 1 cited by
Mitigating Hallucinated Translations in Large Language Models with Hallucination-focused Preference Optimization
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
Mitigating Hallucinated Translations in Large Language Models with Hallucination-focused Preference Optimization
read the original abstract
Machine Translation (MT) is undergoing a paradigm shift, with systems based on fine-tuned large language models (LLM) becoming increasingly competitive with traditional encoder-decoder models trained specifically for translation tasks. However, LLM-based systems are at a higher risk of generating hallucinations, which can severely undermine user's trust and safety. Most prior research on hallucination mitigation focuses on traditional MT models, with solutions that involve post-hoc mitigation - detecting hallucinated translations and re-translating them. While effective, this approach introduces additional complexity in deploying extra tools in production and also increases latency. To address these limitations, we propose a method that intrinsically learns to mitigate hallucinations during the model training phase. Specifically, we introduce a data creation framework to generate hallucination focused preference datasets. Fine-tuning LLMs on these preference datasets reduces the hallucination rate by an average of 96% across five language pairs, while preserving overall translation quality. In a zero-shot setting our approach reduces hallucinations by 89% on an average across three unseen target languages.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Knowledge Injection Exists in MoE? Exploring Expert-Aware Contrast Decoding in MoE for Mitigating LLMs'Hallucinations
EAACD reduces hallucination in MoE LLMs by contrasting predictions of high-reliability expert groups against hallucination-amplified low-reliability expert groups.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.