← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.04697 · v1
When Ground Truth Is Not Ground Truth: Automatic Labeling for Hallucination Detection
首次提交 2026-11-03 19:20
版本更新 2026-11-03 19:20
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:39
摘要
Hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) remain a major challenge, as they can produce misleading, factually incorrect, or unverifiable information, thereby undermining their trustworthiness and reliability. However, reliable ground-truth labels remain a key challenge in evaluating hallucination detectors. Recent studies often construct labels automatically by comparing model generations with reference answers using similarity metrics such as BLEURT. This implicitly treats BLEURT similarity as a proxy for hallucination, despite its English-centric supervision, unbounded score range, and design as a similarity metric rather than a factuality measure, making threshold-based ground-truth construction potentially unreliable. Through comprehensive experiments using 15 automatic supervision judges, seven hallucination detection baselines, two generator models, two QA datasets, and five languages, we demonstrate that detector performance varies substantially with the choice of supervision judge. Human validation reveals substantial differences in labeling reliability, with QGen-9B achieving the lowest overall misclassification rate (12.86%), while BLEURT and BLEURT-n exhibit rates of 47.23% and 47.32%, respectively. Our findings highlight the limitations of automatic similarity-based labeling and the need for more reliable judging methods that better capture semantic and factual correctness.
作者备注：8 figures, 11 tables
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-03 19:20 · 最新观测版本
When Ground Truth Is Not Ground Truth: Automatic Labeling for Hallucination Detection
Hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) remain a major challenge, as they can produce misleading, factually incorrect, or unverifiable information, thereby undermining their trustworthiness and reliability. However, reliable ground-truth labels remain a key challenge in evaluating hallucination detectors. Recent studies often construct labels automatically by comparing model generations with reference answers using similarity metrics such as BLEURT. This implicitly treats BLEURT similarity as a proxy for hallucination, despite its English-centric supervision, unbounded score range, and design as a similarity metric rather than a factuality measure, making threshold-based ground-truth construction potentially unreliable. Through comprehensive experiments using 15 automatic supervision judges, seven hallucination detection baselines, two generator models, two QA datasets, and five languages, we demonstrate that detector performance varies substantially with the choice of supervision judge. Human validation reveals substantial differences in labeling reliability, with QGen-9B achieving the lowest overall misclassification rate (12.86%), while BLEURT and BLEURT-n exhibit rates of 47.23% and 47.32%, respectively. Our findings highlight the limitations of automatic similarity-based labeling and the need for more reliable judging methods that better capture semantic and factual correctness.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗