REVIEW 7 cited by
LM vs LM: Detecting Factual Errors via Cross Examination
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
read the original abstract
A prominent weakness of modern language models (LMs) is their tendency to generate factually incorrect text, which hinders their usability. A natural question is whether such factual errors can be detected automatically. Inspired by truth-seeking mechanisms in law, we propose a factuality evaluation framework for LMs that is based on cross-examination. Our key idea is that an incorrect claim is likely to result in inconsistency with other claims that the model generates. To discover such inconsistencies, we facilitate a multi-turn interaction between the LM that generated the claim and another LM (acting as an examiner) which introduces questions to discover inconsistencies. We empirically evaluate our method on factual claims made by multiple recent LMs on four benchmarks, finding that it outperforms existing methods and baselines, often by a large gap. Our results demonstrate the potential of using interacting LMs for capturing factual errors.
Forward citations
Cited by 7 Pith papers
-
NOMAD: A Multi-Agent LLM System for UML Class Diagram Generation from Natural Language Requirements
NOMAD decomposes UML class diagram creation into a multi-agent LLM workflow that outperforms baselines on a Northwind case study and human exercises while introducing a taxonomy of structural, relationship, and semant...
-
HalluField: Detecting LLM Hallucinations via Field-Theoretic Modeling
HalluField flags LLM hallucinations using a hand-weighted temperature-perturbation of token-level 'free energy' (negative log-likelihood) and Shannon entropy.
-
Can Large Language Models Integrate Spatial Data? Empirical Insights into Reasoning Strengths and Computational Weaknesses
LLMs only become competitive at spatial data integration when given pre-computed geometric features; a review-and-refine prompt then exceeds hand-tuned heuristics.
-
Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models
Chain-of-Verification reduces hallucinations in large language models by drafting responses, planning independent verification questions, answering them separately, and generating a final verified output.
-
Quantifying and Auditing LLM Evaluation via Positive--Unlabeled Learning
A positive-unlabeled learning approach using partial optimal transport is introduced to audit and correct biases in LLM-as-a-judge systems by aligning limited human positives with unlabeled outputs in embedding space.
-
Provenance-Grounded Gating and Adaptive Recovery in Synthetic Post-Training Data Curation
Controlled experiments on synthetic post-training data show provenance-grounded gating and adaptive recovery improve yield and recall over baselines, with generator scale as the primary driver of downstream fine-tunin...
-
A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions
The paper surveys hallucination in LLMs with an innovative taxonomy, factors, detection methods, benchmarks, mitigation strategies, and open research directions.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.