Daily Arxiv

This is a page that curates AI-related papers published worldwide.
All content here is summarized using Google Gemini and operated on a non-profit basis.
Copyright for each paper belongs to the authors and their institutions; please make sure to credit the source when sharing.

CogniBench: A Legal-inspired Framework and Dataset for Assessing Cognitive Faithfulness of Large Language Models

Created by
  • Haebom

Author

Xiaqiang Tang, Jian Li, Keyu Hu, Du Nan, Xiaolong Li, Xi Zhang, Weigao Sun, Sihong Xie

Outline

We address Faithfulness hallucinations, which are claims that are not supported by the context in which they are provided, in large-scale language models (LLMs). We note that existing benchmarks focus on “factual statements” that paraphrase source material and overlook “cognitive statements” that involve inferences from the given context, making it difficult to assess and detect hallucinations in cognitive statements. Inspired by the way evidence is assessed in the legal domain, we design a rigorous framework to assess the level of confidence in cognitive statements, and introduce the CogniBench dataset, which demonstrates insightful statistics. In keeping with the rapid development of LLMs, we develop an automatic annotation pipeline that is easily scalable to a variety of models, generating the large-scale CogniBench-L dataset that helps train accurate detectors for both factual and cognitive hallucinations. The models and dataset are made available at https://github.com/FUTUREEEEEE/CogniBench .

Takeaways, Limitations

Takeaways: We propose a cognitive statement reliability assessment framework for LLM by utilizing evidence assessment methods in the legal domain, and build a large-scale dataset (CogniBench, CogniBench-L) to support training of factual and cognitive hallucination detectors. Continuous data acquisition and model improvement are possible through an automatic annotation pipeline.
Limitations: Further validation of the generalizability of the presented framework and dataset and its applicability to various LLMs is needed. There may be a lack of discussion on the objectivity and subjectivity of the reliability assessment criteria for cognitive statements. A detailed analysis of the accuracy and limitations of the automatic annotation pipeline is needed.
👍