Hallucination Detection in Foundation Models for Decision-Making: A Flexible Definition and Review of the State of the Art

IF 28 1区 计算机科学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS ACM Computing Surveys Pub Date : 2025-02-11 DOI:10.1145/3716846
Neeloy Chakraborty, Melkior Ornik, Katherine Driggs-Campbell
{"title":"Hallucination Detection in Foundation Models for Decision-Making: A Flexible Definition and Review of the State of the Art","authors":"Neeloy Chakraborty, Melkior Ornik, Katherine Driggs-Campbell","doi":"10.1145/3716846","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Autonomous systems are soon to be ubiquitous, spanning manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare, entertainment, and other industries. Most of these systems are developed with modular sub-components for decision-making, planning, and control that may be hand-engineered or learning-based. While these approaches perform well under the situations they were specifically designed for, they can perform especially poorly in out-of-distribution scenarios that will undoubtedly arise at test-time. The rise of foundation models trained on multiple tasks with impressively large datasets has led researchers to believe that these models may provide “common sense” reasoning that existing planners are missing, bridging the gap between algorithm development and deployment. While researchers have shown promising results in deploying foundation models to decision-making tasks, these models are known to hallucinate and generate decisions that may sound reasonable, but are in fact poor. We argue there is a need to step back and simultaneously design systems that can quantify the certainty of a model’s decision, and detect when it may be hallucinating. In this work, we discuss the current use cases of foundation models for decision-making tasks, provide a general definition for hallucinations with examples, discuss existing approaches to hallucination detection and mitigation with a focus on decision problems, present guidelines, and explore areas for further research in this exciting field.","PeriodicalId":50926,"journal":{"name":"ACM Computing Surveys","volume":"10 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":28.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACM Computing Surveys","FirstCategoryId":"94","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3716846","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"计算机科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, THEORY & METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Autonomous systems are soon to be ubiquitous, spanning manufacturing, agriculture, healthcare, entertainment, and other industries. Most of these systems are developed with modular sub-components for decision-making, planning, and control that may be hand-engineered or learning-based. While these approaches perform well under the situations they were specifically designed for, they can perform especially poorly in out-of-distribution scenarios that will undoubtedly arise at test-time. The rise of foundation models trained on multiple tasks with impressively large datasets has led researchers to believe that these models may provide “common sense” reasoning that existing planners are missing, bridging the gap between algorithm development and deployment. While researchers have shown promising results in deploying foundation models to decision-making tasks, these models are known to hallucinate and generate decisions that may sound reasonable, but are in fact poor. We argue there is a need to step back and simultaneously design systems that can quantify the certainty of a model’s decision, and detect when it may be hallucinating. In this work, we discuss the current use cases of foundation models for decision-making tasks, provide a general definition for hallucinations with examples, discuss existing approaches to hallucination detection and mitigation with a focus on decision problems, present guidelines, and explore areas for further research in this exciting field.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
决策基础模型中的幻觉检测:一个灵活的定义和最新研究进展
自主系统很快就会无处不在,横跨制造业、农业、医疗保健、娱乐和其他行业。这些系统中的大多数都是用模块化的子组件开发的,用于决策、计划和控制,这些子组件可能是手工设计的,也可能是基于学习的。虽然这些方法在它们专门为之设计的情况下表现良好,但它们在测试时毫无疑问会出现的分布外场景中表现特别差。基于大量数据集的多任务训练的基础模型的兴起,让研究人员相信,这些模型可能提供了现有规划者所缺失的“常识”推理,弥合了算法开发和部署之间的差距。虽然研究人员在将基础模型应用于决策任务方面取得了令人鼓舞的成果,但众所周知,这些模型会产生幻觉,并产生听起来合理但实际上很差的决策。我们认为有必要退后一步,同时设计出能够量化模型决策确定性的系统,并检测出它何时可能出现幻觉。在这项工作中,我们讨论了决策任务基础模型的当前用例,通过实例提供了幻觉的一般定义,讨论了以决策问题为重点的幻觉检测和缓解的现有方法,提出了指导方针,并探索了这个令人兴奋的领域的进一步研究领域。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
ACM Computing Surveys
ACM Computing Surveys 工程技术-计算机:理论方法
CiteScore
33.20
自引率
0.60%
发文量
372
审稿时长
12 months
期刊介绍: ACM Computing Surveys is an academic journal that focuses on publishing surveys and tutorials on various areas of computing research and practice. The journal aims to provide comprehensive and easily understandable articles that guide readers through the literature and help them understand topics outside their specialties. In terms of impact, CSUR has a high reputation with a 2022 Impact Factor of 16.6. It is ranked 3rd out of 111 journals in the field of Computer Science Theory & Methods. ACM Computing Surveys is indexed and abstracted in various services, including AI2 Semantic Scholar, Baidu, Clarivate/ISI: JCR, CNKI, DeepDyve, DTU, EBSCO: EDS/HOST, and IET Inspec, among others.
期刊最新文献
Utilizing Internet of Things in Human-Building Interaction to Support Sustainable Built Environments Few-Shot Learning in Video and 3D Object Detection: A Survey Crypto-Ransomware and Their Defenses: In-Depth Behavioral Characterization, Discussion of Deployability, and New Insights Prompting Frameworks for Large Language Models: A Survey A Systematic Review on Human Roles, Solutions, and Methodological Approaches to Address Bias in AI
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1