Mind the Link: Discourse Link-Aware Hallucination Detection in Summarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies on detecting hallucinations in summaries follow a method of decomposing summaries into atomic content units (ACUs) and then determining whether each unit logically matches the document text based on natural language inference. However, this fails to consider discourse link relations such as temporal order, causality, and purpose, leading to the inability to detect conflicts in semantic connections between individual summary ACUs, even when the conflicts are present in the document. To overcome this limitation, this study proposes a method of extracting Discourse Link-Aware Content Unit (DL-ACU) by converting the summary into an Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR) graph and structuring the discourse link relations between ACUs. Additionally, to align summary ACUs with corresponding document information in a fine-grained manner, we propose a Selective Document-Atomic Content Unit (SD-ACU). For each summary ACU, the SD-ACU retrieves only the most relevant document sentences and then decomposes them into document ACUs. Applying the DL-ACU module to existing hallucination detection systems such as FIZZ and FENICE reduces the error rate of discourse link errors on FRANK. When both modules are combined, the system improves balanced accuracy and ROC-AUC across major benchmarks. This suggests the proposed method effectively captures discourse link errors while enabling ACU-to-ACU alignment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".