论文精选73°

黑盒大模型幻觉检测研究

From Tokens to Semantics: Leveraging Complementary Signals for Hallucination Detection in Black-Box LLMs

精选理由

这篇论文教你如何检测黑盒大模型的幻觉,有4种方法可选,无需监督标签也能用。

AI 摘要

研究人员提出两种互补信号检测黑盒大模型幻觉:语义熵和token不确定性。他们开发了TopK方法聚合token信号,CoCoA方法结合目标响应不确定性和语义相似性,以及Gated和Stacked两种监督方法。研究在7个基准上测试了4个语言模型,Stacked方法在近半数情况下表现最佳,TopK和CoCoA无需监督标签也具竞争力。

原文 · arXiv cs.AI

From Tokens to Semantics: Leveraging Complementary Signals for Hallucination Detection in Black-Box LLMs

When LLMs support public-facing or high-stakes workflows, missed fabrications can harm users and institutions, while false alarms consume limited human-review capacity. When no trusted context or reference document is available, we study two signals accessible through black-box model APIs: semantic entropy, which measures disagreement among sampled response meanings, and uncertainty derived from token log-probabilities. Their failure modes can be complementary: semantic entropy becomes uninformative when responses form one semantic cluster, while token uncertainty can miss consistently confident errors. We extend token-based uncertainty detection by aggregating token-level signals across sampled responses through our TopK method, evaluate the hybrid CoCoA method, which combines target-response uncertainty with semantic dissimilarity, and propose and study two supervised methods: Gated, which routes single-cluster cases to an aggregated-token-feature classifier, and Stacked, which learns jointly from semantic uncertainty and broader token features. We evaluate seven benchmarks, including five public benchmarks (four text datasets and multimodal handwritten-cheque extraction) and two constructed benchmarks (Financial Summaries and Long-Text QA), using four language models. In our evaluation across models and datasets, Stacked gave the best performance in nearly half of the cases, while TopK and CoCoA remain competitive without supervised training labels, although their thresholds require careful calibration. No method is universally strongest. We therefore evaluate performance at false-positive-rate budgets from 1% to 15%, assess their sensitivity to generation and calibration choices, and examine variation across dataset characteristics.