mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

CHI: A Composite Hallucination Index Unifying Entity, Relation, and Quantity Dimensions for Summarization Evaluation

arXiv 2609.33343 ↗First posted 27 Sep 2026cs.CL cs.AIcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Faithfulness evaluation of abstractive summaries remains an open challenge, with existing metrics addressing only isolated hallucination types: factual entity errors, relational inconsistencies, or numerical fabrications, without capturing their co-occurrence or interaction. We introduce CHI (Composite Hallucination Index), the first unified hallucination metric that decomposes faithfulness errors into three orthogonal dimensions: entity hallucination (EHI), relation hallucination (RHI*), and quantity hallucination (QHI). Each dimension employs a shared softmax-normalized architecture over Venn diagram-derived factors representing extractiveness, positive hallucination, over-focus, negative hallucination, and lost focus. The novel QHI component introduces tolerance-aware numerical matching with exact, epsilon, derived, and temporal comparison modes. We fuse the three dimensions via harmonic mean to produce a single composite score that penalizes weakness in any dimension. We validate CHI on 800 source articles spanning four domains (news, medical, legal, financial) with summaries from five generation systems. Empirical results demonstrate that: (i) the three dimensions are statistically orthogonal (mean rho = 0.148), confirming they capture distinct error types; (ii) CHI achieves the highest system-level correlation with human judgments (rho = 0.66, p = 0.006) on SummEval, outperforming ROUGE (rho = 0.53), EHI (rho = 0.58), and all individual components; and (iii) ablation studies confirm that all three dimensions contribute unique variance, with the full composite outperforming any individual component while providing decomposable error diagnostics unavailable from single-score baselines. CHI provides practitioners with a decomposable, interpretable, and efficient faithfulness metric suitable for both offline evaluation and online monitoring of summarization systems.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 20 of its 32 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Sep 2026.

Builds on

20 of 32 references.

References · 20

  1. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
  2. 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
  3. 2019BART: Denoising Sequence-to-Sequence Pre-training for Natural Language Generation, Translation, and Comprehensioncited by 5,893
  4. 2019BERTScore: Evaluating Text Generation with BERTcited by 5,512
  5. 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,164
  6. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
  7. 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,282
  8. 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,102
  9. 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 900
  10. 2020SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluationcited by 674
  11. 2021SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarizationcited by 407
  12. 2023AlignScore: Evaluating Factual Consistency with a Unified Alignment Functioncited by 288
8 more
  1. 2024MiniCheck: Efficient Fact-Checking of LLMs on Grounding Documentscited by 257
  2. 2024Long-form factuality in large language modelscited by 155
  3. 2020Evaluating Factuality in Generation with Dependency-level Entailmentcited by 122
  4. 2024LMUnit: Fine-grained Evaluation with Natural Language Unit Testscited by 33
  5. 2024UniSumEval: Towards Unified, Fine-Grained, Multi-Dimensional Summarization Evaluation for LLMscited by 21
  6. 2023AMRFact: Enhancing Summarization Factuality Evaluation with AMR-Driven Negative Samples Generationcited by 11
  7. 2025Evaluating Evaluation Metrics -- The Mirage of Hallucination Detectioncited by 6
  8. 2023Evaluating Factual Consistency of Texts with Semantic Role Labelingcited by 4

Built on by

Not cited yet.