Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations in Multilingual Summarisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hallucinations pose a significant challenge to the reliability of neural models for abstractive summarisation. While automatically generated summaries may be fluent, they often lack faithfulness to the original document. This issue becomes even more pronounced in low-resource languages, where summarisation requires cross-lingual transfer. With the existing faithful metrics focusing on English, even measuring the extent of this phenomenon in cross-lingual settings is hard. To address this, we first develop a novel metric, mFACT, evaluating the faithfulness of non-English summaries, leveraging translation-based transfer from multiple English faithfulness metrics. Through extensive experiments in multiple languages, we demonstrate that mFACT is best suited to detect hallucinations compared to alternative metrics. With mFACT, we assess a broad range of multilingual large language models, and find that they all tend to hallucinate often in languages different from English. We then propose a simple but effective method to reduce hallucinations in cross-lingual transfer, which weighs the loss of each training example by its faithfulness score. This method drastically increases both performance and faithfulness according to both automatic and human evaluation when compared to strong baselines for cross-lingual transfer such as MAD-X. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/yfqiu-nlp/mfact-summ.
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 | 0.004 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".