MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7113200082

Hallucinations in Large Foundation Models: Characterization, Quantification, Detection, Avoidance, and Mitigation

2025· article· en· W7113200082 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueScholar Commons (University of South Carolina) · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDeceptionGenerative grammarFoundation (evidence)Unintended consequencesScope (computer science)Argument (complex analysis)PerceptionSalient
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Deception is an inherent aspect of social interactions, with research indicating that most people engage in deceptive behavior at least once or twice daily . In parallel, advances in artificial intelligence have led to machines exhibiting deceptive tendencies. These deceptions can be categorized into two types: unintended and intentional. Unintended deceptions - often referred to as hallucinations - occur when generative AI systems produce plausible and convincing narratives yet are factually inaccurate. This phenomenon primarily results from the systems' architectural design, extensive parametric memory, and reliance on statistical assumptions. In this thesis, we provide a comprehensive discussion on the characterization, detection, avoidance, and mitigation of hallucinations. Although recent research has observed early signs of deception, cheating, and self-preservation in top-performing reasoning models, these phenomena fall outside the scope of the current study. The author of The Coming Wave, co-founder of DeepMind, and current CEO of Inflection AI, Mustafa Suleyman, outlines three waves of AI: Wave 1: Classification and training. Wave 2: Generative AI, which creates new data. Wave 3: Interactive AI, where conversations serve as the interface and autonomous bots collaborate behind the scenes. We are currently in Wave 2 - Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), which has profoundly impacted everyday life and accelerated AI development. Recent advancements in GenAI have demonstrated significant accuracy in generating high-quality text, images, videos, and even software code with minimal human intervention. Large Foundation Models (LFMs), like GPT and DALL-E, are accessible to the general public, enabling individuals to efficiently produce high-quality creative content on a large scale. For example, in healthcare, GenAI models help in drug discovery and medical imaging analysis, while in education, they enhance learning by creating adaptive and personalized content, among other applications. Nonetheless, the widespread adoption of GenAI has brought about substantial challenges concerning misinformation, safety, and ethical issues, highlighting the need for regulatory measures to mitigate its impact. A key challenge of LFM lies in its tendency to generate factually inaccurate, logically incoherent, or entirely fabricated outputs while maintaining an appearance of plausibility - a phenomenon referred to as ``hallucination''. For instance, earlier last year, Air Canada encountered legal action following an incident in which its AI-powered chatbot provided inaccurate information regarding bereavement travel discounts. Moreover, the Cambridge Dictionary has declared ``hallucinate'' as its Word of the Year for 2023. As GenAI systems, including large language and image or video generation models, are widely adopted across industries, hallucinations present a critical obstacle. In an interview with The Verge, Google CEO Sundar Pichai described AI hallucinations as an inherent feature of LLMs, calling it an ``unsolved problem.'' In this dissertation, I examine six distinct components to address the challenge of hallucination. (i) Characterization: We developed a first-of-its-kind taxonomy for the systematic classification of hallucinations and introduced a large-scale benchmark called HILT. (ii) Quantification: We introduced novel evaluation metrics, including the Hallucination Vulnerability Index (HVI) and its automated variant HVI_auto, to assess and rank the hallucination of LLMs. We are confident that the dataset and the evaluation metrics will be valuable resources for future researchers studying hallucination behaviors in LLMs and developing effective detection and mitigation strategies. (iii) Detection: We introduced an innovative automated span-based hallucination detection method, referred to as Factual Entailment; this technique achieved a 30% increase in accuracy on the FACTOID benchmark compared to state-of-the-art TE methods. (iv) Avoidance: We introduced a new prompting technique, termed ``Sorry, Come Again?'' (SCA), to avoid hallucinations through prompt analysis. [PAUSE] injection technique slows LLM generation to enhance comprehension. Using optimal paraphrasing combined with LDA improves performance in both the Number and Time categories. (v) Mitigation: We introduced radiant, Retrieval-Augmented entIty-context AligNmenT, a paradigm that combines RAG with alignment principles, enhancing the interaction between retrieved evidence and the model’s internal representations. (vi) Multi-modal: Lastly, we constructed a similar taxonomy of hallucinations and datasets, called VHILT and ViBe, for both (a) Image-to-Text and (b) Text-to-Video modalities, along with a preliminary analysis. These datasets will benefit researchers in the community by supporting further research. Overall, this dissertation offers a concrete approach to evaluating the content generated by language models and addressing hallucinations across all modalities.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,828
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,623

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,002
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,225
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScholar Commons (University of South Carolina)Même sujetExplainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Travaux en français237 207