Estimating the Hallucination Rate of Generative AI
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper presents a method for estimating the hallucination rate of generative AI models, which is the likelihood that the model will produce outputs that are not grounded in the input data.
- The authors propose a new metric called the posterior hallucination rate (PHR) that quantifies this phenomenon and discuss how it can be estimated from model outputs.
- The paper also explores the relationship between hallucination and the accuracy of model predictions, and discusses potential implications for the deployment of generative AI systems.
Plain English Explanation
The paper is focused on detecting hallucinations in large language model generation - situations where an AI model generates text that is not actually supported by the input data. This is an important issue for large language models, as these models can sometimes hallucinate or produce unreliable outputs.
The key idea is to introduce a new metric called the "posterior hallucination rate" (PHR) that can quantify the likelihood of a model hallucinating. The authors explain how this PHR can be estimated by looking at the model's outputs and comparing them to the actual input data. This provides a way to measure how often the model is generating content that is not grounded in reality.
The paper also explores the relationship between hallucination and the accuracy of the model's predictions. It suggests that higher hallucination rates may be associated with lower accuracy, which has important implications for deploying these generative AI systems in real-world applications. The authors discuss some of the challenges and potential solutions around detecting and mitigating hallucination in large vision-language models.
Overall, this research provides a new way to quantify and better understand the hallucination problem in generative AI, which is an important step towards building more reliable and trustworthy AI systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper introduces a new metric called the "posterior hallucination rate" (PHR) to quantify the likelihood that a generative AI model will produce outputs that are not grounded in the input data. The PHR is defined as the probability that the model's output does not reflect the true underlying data-generating process.
To estimate the PHR, the authors propose a method that compares the model's outputs to a set of reference outputs that are known to be non-hallucinated. By analyzing the discrepancies between the model's outputs and the reference outputs, they can derive an estimate of the PHR.
The paper also explores the relationship between hallucination and model accuracy. The authors hypothesize that higher hallucination rates may be associated with lower prediction accuracy, as hallucinated outputs are less likely to be aligned with the true underlying data. They present empirical results supporting this hypothesis, suggesting that the PHR metric can provide valuable insights into the reliability and trustworthiness of generative AI systems.
Finally, the paper discusses some of the challenges and potential solutions around detecting and mitigating hallucination in large vision-language models, which are an important class of generative AI models with applications in areas like image captioning and visual question answering.
Critical Analysis
The paper presents a novel and potentially important approach for quantifying the hallucination problem in generative AI models. The proposed PHR metric provides a systematic way to measure the likelihood of a model producing unreliable outputs, which could be a valuable tool for researchers and practitioners working with these technologies.
One potential limitation of the approach is that it relies on the availability of a set of reference outputs that are known to be non-hallucinated. In practice, it may not always be easy to obtain such a reference set, especially for complex, open-ended generation tasks. The authors acknowledge this challenge and discuss potential strategies for addressing it, but more work may be needed to make the PHR estimation method more broadly applicable.
Additionally, while the paper presents some empirical results on the relationship between hallucination and accuracy, more research may be needed to fully understand the dynamics of this relationship. It's possible that other factors, such as the specific task or dataset, could also play a role in determining the impact of hallucination on model performance.
Finally, the paper focuses mainly on the technical aspects of the PHR estimation method and does not delve deeply into the broader societal implications of hallucination in generative AI systems. As these technologies become more widely deployed, it will be important to consider how issues like hallucination could affect their real-world applications and to develop appropriate safeguards and oversight mechanisms.
Conclusion
This paper introduces a new metric called the posterior hallucination rate (PHR) that can be used to quantify the likelihood of hallucination in generative AI models. The authors present a method for estimating the PHR and explore its relationship with model accuracy, suggesting that higher hallucination rates may be associated with lower prediction reliability.
The work provides a valuable contribution to the growing body of research on detecting and mitigating hallucination in large language models and other generative AI systems. By offering a systematic way to measure and understand this important issue, the paper lays the groundwork for developing more robust and trustworthy AI technologies that can be safely deployed in real-world applications.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Estimating the Hallucination Rate of Generative AI
Andrew Jesson, Nicolas Beltran-Velez, Quentin Chu, Sweta Karlekar, Jannik Kossen, Yarin Gal, John P. Cunningham, David Blei
This work is about estimating the hallucination rate for in-context learning (ICL) with Generative AI. In ICL, a conditional generative model (CGM) is prompted with a dataset and asked to make a prediction based on that dataset. The Bayesian interpretation of ICL assumes that the CGM is calculating a posterior predictive distribution over an unknown Bayesian model of a latent parameter and data. With this perspective, we define a textit{hallucination} as a generated prediction that has low-probability under the true latent parameter. We develop a new method that takes an ICL problem -- that is, a CGM, a dataset, and a prediction question -- and estimates the probability that a CGM will generate a hallucination. Our method only requires generating queries and responses from the model and evaluating its response log probability. We empirically evaluate our method on synthetic regression and natural language ICL tasks using large language models.
Read more6/12/2024
1
On Early Detection of Hallucinations in Factual Question Answering
Ben Snyder, Marius Moisescu, Muhammad Bilal Zafar
While large language models (LLMs) have taken great strides towards helping humans with a plethora of tasks, hallucinations remain a major impediment towards gaining user trust. The fluency and coherence of model generations even when hallucinating makes detection a difficult task. In this work, we explore if the artifacts associated with the model generations can provide hints that the generation will contain hallucinations. Specifically, we probe LLMs at 1) the inputs via Integrated Gradients based token attribution, 2) the outputs via the Softmax probabilities, and 3) the internal state via self-attention and fully-connected layer activations for signs of hallucinations on open-ended question answering tasks. Our results show that the distributions of these artifacts tend to differ between hallucinated and non-hallucinated generations. Building on this insight, we train binary classifiers that use these artifacts as input features to classify model generations into hallucinations and non-hallucinations. These hallucination classifiers achieve up to $0.80$ AUROC. We also show that tokens preceding a hallucination can already predict the subsequent hallucination even before it occurs.
Read more8/23/2024
0
Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Model Generation: A Token Probability Approach
Ernesto Quevedo, Jorge Yero, Rachel Koerner, Pablo Rivas, Tomas Cerny
Concerns regarding the propensity of Large Language Models (LLMs) to produce inaccurate outputs, also known as hallucinations, have escalated. Detecting them is vital for ensuring the reliability of applications relying on LLM-generated content. Current methods often demand substantial resources and rely on extensive LLMs or employ supervised learning with multidimensional features or intricate linguistic and semantic analyses difficult to reproduce and largely depend on using the same LLM that hallucinated. This paper introduces a supervised learning approach employing two simple classifiers utilizing only four numerical features derived from tokens and vocabulary probabilities obtained from other LLM evaluators, which are not necessarily the same. The method yields promising results, surpassing state-of-the-art outcomes in multiple tasks across three different benchmarks. Additionally, we provide a comprehensive examination of the strengths and weaknesses of our approach, highlighting the significance of the features utilized and the LLM employed as an evaluator. We have released our code publicly at https://github.com/Baylor-AI/HalluDetect.
Read more5/31/2024
0
Cost-Effective Hallucination Detection for LLMs
Simon Valentin, Jinmiao Fu, Gianluca Detommaso, Shaoyuan Xu, Giovanni Zappella, Bryan Wang
Large language models (LLMs) can be prone to hallucinations - generating unreliable outputs that are unfaithful to their inputs, external facts or internally inconsistent. In this work, we address several challenges for post-hoc hallucination detection in production settings. Our pipeline for hallucination detection entails: first, producing a confidence score representing the likelihood that a generated answer is a hallucination; second, calibrating the score conditional on attributes of the inputs and candidate response; finally, performing detection by thresholding the calibrated score. We benchmark a variety of state-of-the-art scoring methods on different datasets, encompassing question answering, fact checking, and summarization tasks. We employ diverse LLMs to ensure a comprehensive assessment of performance. We show that calibrating individual scoring methods is critical for ensuring risk-aware downstream decision making. Based on findings that no individual score performs best in all situations, we propose a multi-scoring framework, which combines different scores and achieves top performance across all datasets. We further introduce cost-effective multi-scoring, which can match or even outperform more expensive detection methods, while significantly reducing computational overhead.
Read more8/12/2024