REVIEW 2 cited by
An Audit on the Perspectives and Challenges of Hallucinations in NLP
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
An Audit on the Perspectives and Challenges of Hallucinations in NLP
read the original abstract
We audit how hallucination in large language models (LLMs) is characterized in peer-reviewed literature, using a critical examination of 103 publications across NLP research. Through the examination of the literature, we identify a lack of agreement with the term `hallucination' in the field of NLP. Additionally, to compliment our audit, we conduct a survey with 171 practitioners from the field of NLP and AI to capture varying perspectives on hallucination. Our analysis calls for the necessity of explicit definitions and frameworks outlining hallucination within NLP, highlighting potential challenges, and our survey inputs provide a thematic understanding of the influence and ramifications of hallucination in society.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Synthetic Sources?: Auditing Generative Search Engine Citations for Evidence of AI-Generated Sources
Audit of ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini and Perplexity finds ~16% of cited sources are AI-generated across 712 queries on politics, health and environment.
-
Attribution Gradients: Incrementally Unfolding Citations for Critical Examination of Attributed AI Answers
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.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.