mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

On the Limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs): False Attribution

arXiv 2404.04631 ↗First posted 6 Apr 2024cs.CLcited by 13

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

In this work, we introduce a new hallucination metric - Simple Hallucination Index (SHI) and provide insight into one important limitation of the parametric knowledge of large language models (LLMs), i.e. false attribution. The task of automatic author attribution for relatively small chunks of text is an important NLP task but can be challenging. We empirically evaluate the power of 3 open SotA LLMs in zero-shot setting (Gemma-7B, Mixtral 8x7B, and LLaMA-2-13B). We acquired the top 10 most popular books of a month, according to Project Gutenberg, divided each one into equal chunks of 400 words, and prompted each LLM to predict the author. We then randomly sampled 162 chunks per book for human evaluation, based on the error margin of 7% and a confidence level of 95%. The average results show that Mixtral 8x7B has the highest prediction accuracy, the lowest SHI, and a Pearson's correlation (r) of 0.724, 0.263, and -0.9996, respectively, followed by LLaMA-2-13B and Gemma-7B. However, Mixtral 8x7B suffers from high hallucinations for 3 books, rising as high as a SHI of 0.87 (in the range 0-1, where 1 is the worst). The strong negative correlation of accuracy and SHI, given by r, demonstrates the fidelity of the new hallucination metric, which may generalize to other tasks. We also show that prediction accuracies correlate positively with the frequencies of Wikipedia instances of the book titles instead of the downloads and we perform error analyses of predictions. We publicly release the annotated chunks of data and our codes to aid the reproducibility and evaluation of other models.

Key facts. Cited by 13 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 6 Apr 2024.

Builds on

20 of 49 references.

References · 20

  1. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
  2. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  3. 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
  4. 2022Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasonerscited by 4,374
  5. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
  6. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,075
  7. 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,128
  8. 2023HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Modelscited by 341
  9. 2017Challenges in Data-to-Document Generationcited by 226
  10. 2022Factuality Enhanced Language Models for Open-Ended Text Generationcited by 202
  11. 2017Faithful to the Original: Fact Aware Neural Abstractive Summarizationcited by 141
  12. 2017Learning Active Learning from Datacited by 101
8 more
  1. 2022A Survey of Active Learning for Natural Language Processingcited by 40
  2. 2024A Survey of AI-generated Text Forensic Systems: Detection, Attribution, and Characterizationcited by 19
  3. 2024Comparing Hallucination Detection Metrics for Multilingual Generationcited by 18
  4. 2023Neural Authorship Attribution: Stylometric Analysis on Large Language Modelscited by 11
  5. 2024Generative AI and Teachers -- For Us or Against Us? A Case Studycited by 6
  6. 2023ProCoT: Stimulating Critical Thinking and Writing of Students through Engagement with Large Language Models (LLMs)cited by 4
  7. 2023T5 meets Tybalt: Author Attribution in Early Modern English Drama Using Large Language Modelscited by 3
  8. 2024Instruction Makes a Differencecited by 2

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2024: 1; 2025: 7; 2026: 5.

13 papers.

Sort:

By area: