diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'website/src/content/blog/2024/07')
| -rw-r--r-- | website/src/content/blog/2024/07/08/doctor_who_gayness_church.md | 245 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | website/src/content/blog/2024/07/16/word_hallucination_with_reference_to_llms.md | 616 |
2 files changed, 0 insertions, 861 deletions
diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2024/07/08/doctor_who_gayness_church.md b/website/src/content/blog/2024/07/08/doctor_who_gayness_church.md deleted file mode 100644 index 40c1b2e..0000000 --- a/website/src/content/blog/2024/07/08/doctor_who_gayness_church.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,245 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: Doctor Who, Gayness, and the Church -description: >- - Series 14 of Doctor Who has a schizophrenic relationship with Christianity. - It’s also gay. I think there might be a connection. -pubDate: 2024-07-08 ---- - -I’ve recently finished the most recent series of Doctor Who, series fourteen (or -‘Season One’ as our new benevolent overlords at Disney+ are styling it.) It’s -pretty fun, by the way. I can recommend it for light watching[^1]. - -There’s a few discussion points coming out of that series that would be worth -dwelling on. But I’ve been particularly thinking about the schizophrenic -attitude the series has taken to Christianity, along with how gay this series -is: and what these two themes might fit together, to give us something important -to say about Jesus Christ, being gay, and the universe. - -## The Doctor’s schizophrenic relationship with Christianity - -First, let’s look at that schizophrenic attitude to Christianity I mentioned. - -The series ticks up an impressive tally of explicit or strongly implicit -references to Christian beliefs and morals, and **none** of them are positive. - -In episode 3, _Boom_, the far-future Anglican church has become an army, -with the ranks of the clergy becoming equivalent to arms-bearing ranks in the -soldiery. The Doctor claims that ‘the Church’ has been an army for most of -its history[^2], and that his companion Ruby Sunday (and therefore us) has -been living in a ‘blip’. An all-powerful arms company has tricked the Church -into fighting a non-existent foe in order to keep them buying weapons. The -Doctor attributes their ability to fall for such a deception to religious faith: - -> I mean, most armies would notice that they were fighting smoke and shadows, -> but not this lot, Ruby, you know why? They have faith. Faith! The magic word -> that keeps you never having to think for yourself. - -In episode 4, _73 Yards_, Kate Lethbridge-Stewart, head of UNIT, makes this -offhand comment, suggesting the oft-repeated claim that all religion is founded -in credulity[^3]: - -> That’s what we do, all of us. We see something inexplicable, and invent the -> rules to make it work. Mankind saw the sun rise and created God: or we saw the -> arrival of a Sontaran, one or the other. - -In episode 5, _Dot and Bubble_, The Doctor is rejected by the people he is -trying to save. They rant that he is ‘not one of us’, call his claims about the -TARDIS ‘magic’ and ‘voodoo’, and in the same breath assert that it is their -‘God-given duty to maintain the standards of Finetime’ (their space colony). - -In episode 6, _Rogue_, a party of murderous aliens turns up at an upper-class -Georgian dance party and demand to be married. The priest denies them, not on -the grounds that they are unrepentant murderers with obviously no intention -of taking their marriage vows seriously, but on the grounds that they are -‘creatures from hell’, _ie_ ‘you don’t look like us’[^4]. - -There are other references to Christianity here and there which are, in -themselves, neutral or ambiguous. This adds to the sense that Christianity is an -important theme for the series. - -But the message is clear. It’s consistently drilled in: Christian beliefs and -morals are stupid and bigoted. - -And yet, when the series culminates in its epic two-part finale, the story is -plastered wall-to-wall with Christ-like imagery. It transpires that the Doctor -has unwittingly been acting as an ‘Angel of Death’ by carrying the invisible God -of Death, Sutekh, on his TARDIS, infecting everyone he goes near with the curse -of death. Finally, through one of his children, the curse is unleashed, and -everyone in the universe is given over to death. Even in death, they continue to -suffer, and one of the characters describes themselves as being in ‘hell’. The -Doctor battles Sutekh face-to-face and defeats him. Sutekh becomes one of the -only creatures which The Doctor, usually a staunch pacifist, can bring himself -to kill. Then, the whole world is restored to life. Ruby Sunday even gets to -meet her birth mother for the first time, and their relationship is wonderfully -restored. - -So on the one hand, any outward sign of Christianity is despised, but the heart -of the Christian story — the Resurrection — becomes the template for the -climactic redemption story which ties the whole series together. - -That’s what I mean when I say this series has a ‘schizophrenic’ relationship -to Christianity. - -## What’s this got to do with gayness? - -In series fourteen, Doctor Who goes gay. - -I’m not playing culture wars here. The Doctor literally kisses a man in episode -six. - -But it’s not just that. When we first meet his companion, Ruby Sunday (in the -Christmas special), she’s busy falling in love with a woman. Ncuti Gatwa plays -The Doctor camp (brilliantly by the way). The Doctor refers to Ruby as ‘babes’. -It’s got ‘gay’ written all over it, and this is definitely on purpose. - -<figure> - <img - alt="An official promotional picture of Ncuti Gatwa looking lustily into the camera" - src="/images/blog/2024/06/30/ncuti-gatwa-promo-pic.webp" - /> - <figcaption> - Look at this official BBC promo pic and tell me Ncuti Gatwa isn’t playing - The Doctor gay. - </figcaption> -</figure> - -From this perspective, it’s not hard to imagine where the hostility to the -Church might come from. - -The Church has failed to teach well and Biblically on sexuality, at least in -the last couple of centuries. Everyone has suffered as a result of this, but gay -people often feel the sharpness of this particularly keenly[^5]. - -The Church has put its weight behind a variety of unhelpful teachings on -sexuality over the centuries[^6]. But two, contradictory, ones stand out as -particularly salient today. - -One is **prudishness**. Sex is evil. Sex is the origin of all evil: the Devil -seduced Eve, and Eve seduced Adam, and that’s when it all went downhill. Sex -is naughty. Sex is bad. Remember when Jesus said, ‘whoever looks at a woman to -lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart’ (Matt 5:28)? -He was saying that **all sexual desire** is sinful. Remember when Paul advised, -‘It is good for a man not to touch a woman’ (1 Cor 7:1)? He was saying that it’s -**bad** for a man to touch a woman **under any circumstances**. - -This is, of course, false and dreadful teaching. The truth is that sex is a gift -from God, given so that we can bear his image by loving each other in this most -intimate and wonderful way. This is the consistent message of both Testaments. -But the idea that there’s somehow something **inherently wrong** with sex has -undeniably been a part of the Church’s teaching since at least the Victorian -period (and possibly a great deal longer than that). - -The other is that sex is an **essential aspect of humanity**. If you aren’t -having sex, you’re missing out on an irreplacable part of your created purpose. -This has reacted explosively with the ideas of the Sexual Revolution. The -net result is that we have not so much been **freed to have sex** as we’ve been -**enslaved to have sex**. Virginity is an embarassment – both for men and for -women. - -The radical Biblical idea that you can have a completely fulfilled life, deeply -enriched by loving relationships, **without** having sex or getting married, -is forgotten. - -Everyone has been harmed by these teachings. But those who experience -significant attraction towards the same sex have been harmed double. - -Faced by the impossible demands of bad Church teaching on sexuality on top -of the complexities of living with same-sex desire has left those people with -nowhere to go. They can _just say ‘no’_, and be made to feel that they’re -missing out on completing their full humanity. Or they can indulge their -same-sex attraction, and be judged not only promiscuous but a pervert to boot. - -No wonder so many gay people have given up on the Church (and I haven’t even -talked about discrimination or violence towards gay people). - -And no wonder that The Doctor has become strikingly anti-Christian at the same -time as it has become strikingly gay. - -## What next? - -Doctor Who’s criticisms of the Church hurt when they hit the mark. They hurt -more when they’re unfair. But that’s not the point. That point is this: the -Church has lost control of the conversation. And we’ve lost control of the -conversation because we threw it away. We threw it away encased in bomb-proof -concrete and left it to sink to the bottom of the deepest available ocean -trench. - -If we in the Church are feeling hurt, we should start by feeling hurt by -our own sin. - -The work of regaining trust on the question of sexuality will be the work of -decades: and that’s if we start working full-pelt right now. But there is hope. - -I was encouraged last December by the visit to my local church, Bruntsfield -Evangelical, of _Living Out_[^7], a charity dedicated to helping churches across -the UK talk about sexuality. Ed and Andy, both same-sex attracted men, led us -through talks and discussions, and played recordings of perspectives from their -same-sex attracted female colleagues who couldn’t make it on the day. - -They were primarily there to talk to us about how to support people like them: -same-sex attracted Christians who might be in our church who believe they are -called to singleness, helping them to thrive, living their true selves openly, -surrounded by love and empowered to share their love with others, just as we -want for everyone in our church. In fact, I heard some of the best news I’d ever -heard about my own sexuality, even though I am in the minority of people who -have never experienced significant same-sex attraction. - -Whether or not you agree with their stance that the right place for sex is -within a marriage between a man and a woman, charities like _Living Out_ are -driving the Church in the right direction: serious, Biblical sexual doctrine -which helps us to realise in practice how we are all made in the image of the -God of love. - -And how needed! How desperately needed! And Doctor Who gives us a little glimpse -of that, too. - -Because not only is the series apparently anti-Christian, it also expresses a -need for Christian salvation. The Resurrection story is one which everyone needs -to hear, to have their death transformed to life, to have their full humanity -affirmed and celebrated and tended and to delight in it and to see it flourish. -To know the God of love and life, behind all and over all, with a plan and a -means to defeat the grip of death on the world. - -So let’s keep having those frank conversations about sexuality in the Church. -It matters for all of us. - -[^1]: Unless you’re bothered by - [plotholes big enough to fly a TARDIS through](https://www.doctorwhotv.co.uk/doctor-who-opinion-empire-death-2-102716.htm). - Oh, and you can probably skip episodes 1 and 3. - -[^2]: For the record, this is flatly false. Though exceptions are widespread, the - overwhelming mainstream opinion is that priests should not bear arms. This is - not new, but has been the consistent orthodoxy, taken straight from Jesus’ - teachings by the Church Fathers and maintained constantly since then. Can the - Church be legitimately criticised for its use of violence? Absolutely, let’s - have that discussion. Has the Church almost always been a **literal army**? No. - The Church has **never** been an army. - -[^3]: See _God is Not Great_ by Christopher Hitchens, Chapter 11 for an epitome - example of this put forward by a prominent atheist apologist. - -[^4]: In the spirit of charity, I have to accept that this admits of multiple - interpretations. It is possible that by calling them ‘creatures from hell’, - the priest is referring precisely to their unrepentant murderousness. However, - the priest has already tried to avoid the creature’s gaze by the pitiably - schoolboyish ploy of **looking elsewhere**, priming the viewers to think - that the priest is a silly coward: certainly not the kind to make a noble, - principled defence of justice with his head in the jaws of death. Plus, if - we interpret ‘creatures from hell’ as meaning ‘you don’t look like us so you - must be evil’, that would fit with the consistent framing of the series: that - religious morality is equivalent to bigotry. - -[^5]: Though it must be remembered that many gay people have remained and - thrived within the Church in spite of the challenges, serving in diverse ways, - not least the priesthood. - -[^6]: I found the Ezra Institute to give a good - [introduction to the history of Church teachings on sexuality](https://www.ezrainstitute.com/resource-library/articles/sex-and-the-history-of-christianity). - -[^7]: For a great and humane introduction to what these guys are like, have a - listen to this [Living Out podcast episode](https://www.livingout.org/resources/podcasts/68/misstep-7-godliness-is-heterosexuality-the-plausibility-problem-7). - I get that if you haven’t grappled with issues like these before, it can be - really challenging, and you might find it hard to trust people who take a - different view to yourself. I know: I’ve been there myself! The best way to - start is to listen to a human voice. diff --git a/website/src/content/blog/2024/07/16/word_hallucination_with_reference_to_llms.md b/website/src/content/blog/2024/07/16/word_hallucination_with_reference_to_llms.md deleted file mode 100644 index db5801d..0000000 --- a/website/src/content/blog/2024/07/16/word_hallucination_with_reference_to_llms.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,616 +0,0 @@ ---- -title: What do academics think LLM ‘hallucination’ means? -description: >- - What does the word ‘hallucination’ actually mean in reference to LLMs when - used by academics? And where does that word come from? I’ve trawled the - academic literature for answers. -pubDate: 2024-07-16 -updatedDate: 2024-07-17 ---- - -The word, ‘hallucination’ as applied to LLMs has me enthralled right now. It’s -such a **weird** word. And problematic, I think. - -If you don’t know what I’m on about, have a quick look at -[IBM’s introduction to the topic](https://www.ibm.com/topics/ai-hallucinations). -It gives you a good intuition what people are talking about, and helpfully -illustrates the deep conceptual confusions which have me gripped. - -But this got me asking: what do people actually mean when they say that an LLM -is ‘hallucinating’? And why that word? Where does it come from, and how did it -end up in our mouths? - -As far as I could see, nobody seems to have answered this question before, except -with the odd bit of unsubstantiated guessing. I think it’s important that we -know where this word came from and what it means. - -So I ended up going on a bit of a treasure hunt. I’ve skimmed well over a -hundred academic articles to trace where the word came from, how it’s been used -over time, and how it’s spread from field to field. - -The result is that I have what I hope is a pretty compelling story of where this -weird old word come from and what it’s supposed to mean. I’ve also got an -excruciating amount of evidence. - -What I’ll do, is first present my story, and then step through the excruciating -detail, providing you with all my sources, so you can check my working, and -perhaps see what important evidence I might have missed. If you’re just here for -the headlines, you don’t have to read the excruciating bits. - -Before I proceed, two caveats. - -1. I am not a subject matter expert. Judge the quality of my arguments and my - evidence. Do not treat me as an authority. -2. For the purposes of this post, I’m just considering academic literature. - The ways that people use the word ‘hallucination’ in popular discourse may be - quite different. (For the record, I think they do: but that’s a story for - another day.) - -## The long and short of it - -So this is my theory. - -In 1999, the word ‘hallucination’ was coined accidentally and off-hand by a -couple of researchers, Baker and Kanade, in the field of computer vision (CV). - -The word caught on in CV, and came to have a fairly unambiguous meaning. -Given an image with missing pixels you want to fill in, ‘hallucinating’ meant -generating those missing pixels by means of information in a deep learning -model’s training data, rather than by means of any information contained in the -input image. (This was also known as ‘example-based in-painting’). It was a term -of art, not jargon. - -Then, sometime between 2017 and the end of 2018, a few different researchers in -natural language processing (NLP) adopted the term. They were probably aware of -the term's usage in CV, and transferred it to mean something similar in NLP. - -When these NLP researchers used it, they used it to refer to when a model -produces content which is irrelevant to the input, or contains information not -contained in the input. - -When the word ‘hallucination’ first appeared in two or three papers in NLP, the -authors used it as a technical term for their own limited purposes. However, it -was soon adopted in various contexts for similar concepts. - -For example, in image captioning, ‘hallucination’ came to mean producing a -caption which mentions an object which wasn’t depicted in the input image. In -machine translation, it came to mean generating a translation which was in the -right language, but which meant something completely irrelevant to the input. -In abstractive summarisation, it came to mean producing a summary containing -details which weren’t in the text the model was supposed to summarise. - -When the term entered NLP, it underwent a striking transformation. It acquired -a **valence**. - -In CV, the term referred to normal behaviour, and was value-neutral. It was just -a description of what a certain machine does. ‘We need to fill in these missing -pixels. The model will do that by hallucinating them.’ - -In contrast, in NLP, the term ‘hallucination’ was always used to describe -**abnormal** behaviour, and almost always used with a negative valency. In other -words, while CV folk used it to describe what they expected their models to do, -NLP folk used it to describe a **bug**. - -(There were odd exceptions, though. You do get the periodic paper which insists -that there are positive applications of hallucination. But the fact they have to -insist so hard rather proves that that boat has already sailed. And even they -are still buying in to the idea that hallucination is abnormal behaviour.) - -Now, that brings us up to about 2020. From 2020, we get another change. - -From about 2020 until the present, academics have attempted to **jargonise** -the word ‘hallucination’. Broadly, they have so far **failed**. - -When I say that people have attempted to ‘jargonise’ the word, I mean that -people are using it while assuming a specific definition. They are using it with -technical qualifiers like ‘extrinsic’. They are using it without explaining the -meaning or the context, as if you should already know what the word means. And -‘hallucination’ itself is becoming an object of study. - -When I say that they have ‘failed’, I mean that there is no widely agreed and -specific meaning for the word, which in my mind, is a crucial feature of jargon. -However, the intended meanings tend to coalesce around the idea of an abnormal -behaviour of LLMs whereby they produce output which is not epistemically -supported by their input. - -## Excruciata - -OK, that was the long and short of it. Now for the excruciating detail. To -recap, I think these six claims are enough to support my theory: - -1. Since 2022, academics have treated ‘hallucination’ as jargon -2. Since 2017/18, the word ‘hallucination’ has typically been used to describe - LLMs producing unfaithful output -3. Up to now, academics have not agreed a specific meaning for the word - ‘hallucination’ -4. The word ‘hallucination’ entered the NLP literature around 2017/2018, - probably from CV -5. The word ‘hallucination’ was not jargon in CV, but was a term of - art for example-based in-painting -6. The word ‘hallucination’ entered the CV literature in Baker & Kanade 1999 - -I’ll work through each of these in turn, showing how I got there from the -available evidence. - -Feel free to use this as a cheap way to harvest citations for your own research. - -### 1. Since 2022, academics have treated ‘hallucination’ as jargon - -My evidence for this is twofold: surveys of ‘hallucination’ usually treat the -word as jargon, and many original research papers do, too. - -First, let’s look at those surveys. These first five all belong together. - -- Ji et al 2022 [^16] -- Liu et al 2023 [^30] -- Rawte et al 2023 [^42] -- Wang, Cunxiang et al 2023 [^48] -- Huang, Lei et al 2023 [^13] - -All the latter four of these surveys lean heavily on Ji et al 2022 for their -definition of ‘hallucination’. Since they all source their definition of -‘hallucination’ from Ji et al 2022, it follows that their definitions are all -extremely similar, and often verbatim. Ji et al 2022 had this to say about the -word ‘hallucination’: - -> Within the context of NLP, the most inclusive and standard definition of -> hallucination is the \[sic\] generation that is nonsensical or unfaithful to -> the provided source content. - -They also made a distinction between **intrinsic** hallucination, which they -regarded as ‘the generation output that contradicts the source content’, and -**extrinsic** hallucination, which they regarded as ‘the generation output that -cannot be verify \[sic\] with the source content’. Some of the other surveys -pick up on this intrinsic/extrinsic distinction. To me, extending the word with -technical epithets suggests they regard the word itself as already having an -agreed, specific meaning. - -Meanwhile, Li, Wei et al 2022 [^26], another survey, offers no definition -of ‘hallucination’, but uses it freely along with the intrinsic/extrinsic -distinction. This suggests they expect their expert readers to already know -some agreed meaning of the word ‘hallucination’. This is a hallmark of jargon in -my books. - -Original research also shows the word ‘hallucination’ being used as jargon. For -example, Maynez et al 2020 [^35], despite being often cited when other authors -first introduce the term ‘hallucination’, provides no definition of the term. -They do, however, use the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction (this might be the -paper which coined the distinction). - -All the following papers use the word ‘hallucination’, sometimes in passing -comments, sometimes as the principal focus of the paper, without attempting to -define the word. - -- Mao et al 2020 [^32] -- Wang, Alex et al 2020 [^47] -- Lin et al 2022 [^29] -- Kumar et al 2022 [^21] -- Lee, Hwanhee et al 2022 [^23] -- Li, Junyi et al 2023 [^27] -- Guerreiro et al 2023 [^12] -- Dahl et al 2024 [^6] -- Song et al 2024 [^46] - -Dahl et al 2024 also use the word without defining it, even as they tack on -their own bespoke technical epithets, ‘open-domain’ and ‘closed-domain’. Plus, -in many of these examples, the context is not enough to make clear what the word -‘hallucination’ is taken to mean. - -All these examples demonstrate that the authors assume that their audience, -_viz_ technical experts, will come with an agreed and specific meaning of the -word ‘hallucination’ pre-baked and ready for precise academic application. - -In other words, these authors, including both surveys and primary literature, -use the word ‘hallucination’ as if it is jargon. - -### 2. Since 2017/18, the word ‘hallucination’ has typically been used to describe LLMs producing unfaithful output - -Recall those surveys I referred to before. They mostly depended on Ji et al -2022’s definition, which was: - -> \[...\] generation that is nonsensical or unfaithful to the provided source -> content. [^16] - -Whatever we might think about ‘hallucination’, the word ‘unfaithful’ really -is a jargon word in the field of natural language processing, with an agreed, -specific meaning. An LLM is ‘unfaithful’ just in case it produces output which -is not epistemically supported by the input. - -This is most often used in the case of summarisers. In that case, a summariser -is unfaithful just in case it produces a summary containing information which -is not implied by any information in the document it was supposed to summarise. - -(‘Nonsensical’ is not a jargon term as far as I know. I have never encountered -any attempt in the NLP literature to define ‘nonsensical’, and although this -definition is often quoted, the term ‘nonsensical’ is rarely used in practice.) - -Now, I am not claiming that this is the only way or even the dominant way in -which the term ‘hallucination’ has been used. Indeed, in section 3, I’m going to -show precisely that this is **not** the case: in fact, the word ‘hallucination’ -continues to be used in diverse ways in the academic literature. - -All I want to claim here is that it is **typical** for academics to use the word -‘hallucination’ to mean something in the rough area of unfaithfulness. - -This is an important part of the story, because this is the meaning which links -the word most closely to its etymological roots in computer vision. - -All I need to do really is provide enough citations. I know I haven’t read -everything. But if what was typical in my reading is unusual in the literature -at large, I’ve been the victim of some extraordinary bad luck. Have a look at -these papers: - -- Durmus et al 2020 [^7] defines ‘hallucination’ as one of two kinds of failures - of faithfulness -- Huang, Luyang et al 2020 [^14] defines ‘hallucination’ as ‘creating content - not present in the input’ -- Maynez et al 2020 [^35] introduces ‘hallucination’ as a cause of - unfaithfulness -- Zhao et al 2020 [^56] defines ‘hallucination’ as ‘including material that is - not supported by the original text’ -- Nan et al 2021 [^38] defines ‘hallucination’ as putting out claims not - supported by the input -- Zhou, Chunting et al 2021 [^59] defines ‘hallucination’ as failures of - faithfulness in machine translation -- Mao et al 2020 [^32] clearly uses ‘hallucination’ to mean unfaithfulness -- King et al 2022 [^18] is aware of usages of ‘hallucination’ to refer to - unfactuality, but narrows in on failures of faithfulness, which they call - ‘consistency’ - -So there you have it. ‘Hallucination’ has widely been taken to roughly mean -‘unfaithfulness’. - -### 3. Up to now, academics have not agreed a specific meaning for the word ‘hallucination’ - -So we know that it was normal for academics to use ‘hallucination’ to mean -something like ‘unfaithfulness’. But was it also normal for academics to use it -for other meanings? - -I think it was. There are a number of ways which authors used the word which are -not consistent with the ‘unfaithfulness’ interpretation. - -The main way is that authors have assumed that in order to be a ‘hallucination’, -the output has to **contradict** something: either the input, or the training -data, or the facts, or itself. This contrasts with the ‘faithfulness’ -interpretation, under which a hallucination can be perfectly consistent with -the input, the training data, the facts, and itself, as long as it isn’t -**supported** by the input. - -All the following papers are clear that hallucination requires contradicting -something, usually the facts: - -- Huang, Yichong et al 2021 [^15] -- Zhu et al 2021 [^60] -- Pagnoni et al 2021 [^40] -- Shuster et al 2021 [^45] -- Zhang, Yue et al 2023 [^55] -- Rawte et al 2023 [^42] -- Dahl et al 2024 [^6] -- Magesh et al 2024 [^31] - -On the other end of the spectrum, a few authors seemed to believe that -hallucinated outputs **cannot** contradict the corresponding inputs. (This is -also inconsistent with the ‘unfaithfulness’ view.) - -- Durmus et al 2020 [^7] -- Huang, Luyang et al 2020 [^14] -- Nan et al 2021 [^38] - -There’s also disagreement on whether ‘nonsense’, or ‘incoherence’, counts as -hallucination. - -On the one hand, Durmus et al 2020 [^7] argue that nonsensical outputs are not -hallucinations, since it doesn’t make sense to ask whether nonsensical outputs -are faithful. Likewise, Shuster et al 2021 [^45] contrast hallucination with -incoherence. - -But on the other hand, Pagnoni et al 2021 [^40] include misleading and incorrect -grammar in their definition of ‘hallucination’, while Ji et al 2022 [^16] -explicitly include ‘nonsensical’ outputs in their widely-quoted definition of -‘hallucination’. - -Some authors have managed to recognise the ambiguity of the term. Both King -et al 2022 [^18] and Farquhar et al 2024 [^9] acknowledge that the word -‘hallucination’ has been used variably to cover failures of faithfulness and -failures of factuality, and are careful to define their terms for their own -purposes to avoid being misunderstood in the context of this ambiguity. - -So it seems that although many academics have treated the term ‘hallucination’ -as jargon, in actual fact, there is no widely agreed specific meaning of the -word. - -<hr> - -I will slide in here with a quick side note. While some authors treated -‘hallucination’ as jargon for unfaithfulness or unfactuality, other authors -contemporaneously managed to talk about these topics without using the word -‘hallucination’ at all. Here are some examples: - -- Cao, Ziqiang et al 2018 [^3] -- Li, Haoran et al 2018 [^25] -- Falke et al 2019 [^8] -- Goodrich et al 2019 [^11] -- Kryściński et al 2019 [^20] -- Cao, Meng et al 2020 [^4] -- Zhang, Yuhao et al 2019 [^54] -- Marcus & Davis 2020 [^33] -- Marcus 2020 [^34] -- Krishna et al 2021 [^19] -- Bai et al 2022 [^1] -- Weidinger et al 2022 [^50] -- Perez et al 2022 [^41] -- Min et al 2023 [^36] -- Muhlgay et al 2024 [^37] - -Probably not a significant enough point to merit a whole section. But there you -are. I think it adds to the picture that ‘hallucination’ is failed jargon. - -### 4. The word ‘hallucination’ entered the NLP literature around 2017/2018, probably from CV - -So people have been using the word ‘hallucination’ in the NLP literature -recently. But where did it come from? - -I think it entered the NLP literature somewhere around 2017/18, and probably -was borrowed from the field of computer vision (CV). - -I can't offer a theory for a single, original usage of the word in NLP. But -there are three papers I feel are pretty close. These are the three oldest -papers I could find in the NLP literature which use the word ‘hallucination’. - -- Wiseman et al 2017 [^51] -- Rohrbach et al 2018 [^44] -- Lee, Katherine et al 2018 [^22] - -Both Rohrbach et al and Lee et al use a form of language which suggests they are -intentionally coining a technical term. Here’s Rohrbach et al: - -> In Figure 1 we show an example where a competitive captioning model, Neural -> Baby Talk (NBT) (Lu et al., 2018), incorrectly generates the object “bench.” -> We refer to this issue as object _hallucination_. - -And here’s Lee et al: - -> These mistranslations are completely semantically incorrect and also -> grammatically viable. They are untethered from the input so we name them -> **‘hallucinations’**. - -I have no reason to believe that these two papers are deliberately plagiarising -each other. It’s reasonable to assume that these two papers genuinely coined a -similar term for a similar phenomenon at the same time. - -Wiseman et al 2017, in contrast, doesn’t look like it’s attempting to coin a -technical term. They just use the word once, presumably as a stylistic flourish -to help illustrate their point. But they do use it for a closely related -concept. - -> \[…\] we see the model hallucinates factual statements, such as “in front of -> their home crowd,” which is presumably likely according to the language model, -> but ultimately incorrect (and not supported by anything in the box- or line- -> scores). - -Just to add to the picture, Ehud Reiter, in his 2018 blog post [^43], gives us -an insight into the International Natural Language Generation conference of -2018. He claims that at that conference, ‘hallucination’ was a hot topic of -discussion, and cites Rohrbach 2018 to support his claim that ‘hallucination is -a well-known problem in neural approaches to image captioning’. - -It might be fruitful to have a peruse of the -[INLG 2018 Proceedings](https://aclanthology.org/events/inlg-2018) to see -whether that interest in ‘hallucination’ was reflected in the written -contributions, or if it was mainly contained in verbal discussions. I haven’t -taken the liberty to do this myself: by all means, have a look yourself and let -me know what you find! - -I think all this suggests that the word ‘hallucination’ entered the field -gradually, not with a bang, and perhaps spread by word of mouth at conferences -as much as it spread through published papers, at least at first. - -But we still have to explain why all these different authors seem to have -independently come up with a similar meaning for the word ‘hallucination’. - -I think the best explanation is that they got the word ‘hallucination’ from -computer vision (CV). If my fifth section is cogent, then ‘hallucination’ was -used in CV to refer to deep learning models generating data based on information -in their training data, not from information contained in or implied by the -input. This would explain how independent authors in NLP all independently -coined the word ‘hallucination’ in their own field to mean pretty similar -things. They were probably aware of the usage in the CV literature and adopted -it by analogy. - -So, I reckon the word ‘hallucination’ probably entered the NLP literature from a -few authors independently, and they chose that word because they were borrowing -it from the CV literature, where it was already being used for a similar -concept. - -But that depends on my next claim: so let’s look at that! - -### 5. The word ‘hallucination’ was not jargon in CV, but was a term of art for example-based in-painting - -I want to argue that ‘hallucination’, although it wasn’t jargon, was widely used -in the computer vision (CV) literature to refer to what was more technically -called ‘example-based in-painting’, that is, filling in gaps in images using -the information from training data baked into neural networks. - -First look at Baker & Kanade 1999 [^2]. If my sixth section is correct, this -is where the term entered CV, but that’s not crucial to my argument here. Even -if I’ve missed some crucial evidence, it is nonetheless pretty certain that -they had a seminal effect on the use of the word in the field – they are early -in the field’s history, and widely cited by other CV papers which use the -word ‘hallucination’. They’re even cited as the origin of the term in machine -learning by the NLP paper, Farquhar et al 2024 [^9], a quarter of a century -later. - -Baker & Kanade are writing about a new algorithm they’ve used in order -to increase the resolution of low-resolution images of human faces. The -intended application is for surveillance camera footage. They use the word -‘hallucination’ once in their title (‘Hallucinating faces’), once in their -abstract, and 79 times in the main body of the text. - -Across those 79 occurrences, they are using it to refer to one of three things: - -- Their algorithm: _eg_ their ‘face hallucination algorithm’ -- The output of their algorithm: _eg_ ‘hallucinated faces’ -- What their activity does: _eg_ ‘a face is hallucinated by our algorithm’ - -The closest they come to explaining what they **mean** by the word is in their -abstract: - -> Although numerous resolution enhancement algorithms have been proposed in the -> literature, most of them are limited by the fact that they make weak, if any, -> assumptions about the scene. We propose an algorithm that can be used to learn -> a prior on the spatial distribution of the image gradient for frontal images -> of faces. We proceed to show how such a prior can be incorporated into a -> super-resolution algorithm to yield 4-8 fold improvements in resolution (16-64 -> times as many pixels) using as few as 2-3 images. The additional pixels are, -> in effect, hallucinated. - -(By ‘super-resolution’, they mean increasing the resolution of images. This is -typically reduced to a particular kind of ‘image in-painting’ problem, which in -general means filling in gaps in images.) - -So, their idea is that, rather than limiting your algorithm to the information -contained in the input image, you can get better results by baking in -assumptions about the image to the algorithm. - -Why is this supposed to work? They hope that for a clever enough algorithm, -the information that ‘this blurry splodge is a full-frontal portrait of a -human face’ will provide just enough information to accurately guess what a -higher-resolution version of the image would have been. - -As for how that information, about what full-frontal portraits of human faces -look like, gets baked into the algorithm in practice: that’s done by training -a neural network on full-frontal images of faces. Hence why this field was so -close to NLP, which, in recent years at least, has leaned heavily on neural -networking or ‘deep learning’ approaches. - -To recap, they don’t provide a specific meaning, but they do use it to roughly -mean the process of inventing missing pixels in images, not on the basis of -information contained in the input, but based on information contained in -training data instead. - -To see how this term was picked up by later authors in the field working on -super-resolution, in-painting and other related tasks, see: - -- Criminisi 2004 [^5] -- Fawzi et al 2016 [^61] -- Nazeri et al 2019 [^39] -- Xiong et al 2019 [^53] -- Xiang et al 2022 [^52] - -But also notice other papers, on similar topics, which get on just fine without -using the term at all: - -- Karras et al 2017 [^17] -- Zhou, Bolei et al 2017 [^58] -- Liao et al 2018 [^28] - -And notice how Wang, Zhihao et al 2020 [^49] introduce the word, as an -alternative to another technical term: - -> Face image super-resolution, a.k.a. face hallucination (FH), can often help -> other face-related tasks - -The fact that nobody ever attempts to define the word ‘hallucination’, and it -doesn’t appear to be required lingo in any field, no matter how niche, to me -implies that it wasn’t treated as jargon in CV, at least during the period from -1999 until 2018ish. (The usage in reference to LLMs may well have gone back to -affect the usage in CV: I haven’t checked.) - -So again. The word ‘hallucination’ was used in CV roughly to mean filling in -gaps in images by means of information contained in training data, baked into an -algorithm by training a neural network on many examples. It was used widely, but -not universally, and was not treated as jargon. - -### 6. The word ‘hallucination’ entered the CV literature in Baker & Kanade 1999 - -I think that the word ‘hallucination’ entered the CV literature in Baker & -Kanade 1999. My argument for this is pretty straightforward. - -I found the word ‘hallucination’ in Baker & Kanade 1999 [^2]. I couldn’t find it -in CV anywhere earlier. - -To add to that, they don’t use the word ‘hallucination’ in a way which suggests -that they intentionally borrowed it from somewhere else. - -My best theory is that they wanted a name for their algorithm to mark it out -from the competition, and the glove fit. I think that’s plausible enough, and -it’s consistent with the way Baker & Kanade use the word. - -It’s also worth noting that according to Zhiwei et al 2009 [^57], the -foundational work in the field was published only in the same year (_viz_ -Freeman & Pasztor 1999 [^10]). So there wasn’t really anywhere else for the word -to have come **from**. The only possibility is that they borrowed the word from -another field. If anybody reading this is able to suggest other fields which -used the word ‘hallucination’ before 1999, please let me know! - -## Congratulations - -If you’ve made it this far, you are a **hero**. Pat yourself on the back. Please -send me your corrections! - ---- - -I have made little to no attempt to normalise these references into a standard -citation format. Please don’t tell the citation police. - -[^1]: [Bai et al 2022. Training a Helpful and Harmless Assistant with Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback. arXiv:2204.05862v1 \[cs.CL\] 12 Apr 2022](https://arxiv.org/abs/2204.05862) -[^2]: [Baker, Simon & Kanade, Takeo 1999. Hallucinating Faces. Tech. Report, CMU-RI-TR-99-32, Robotics Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, September, 1999](https://www.ri.cmu.edu/publications/hallucinating-faces-2) -[^3]: [Cao, Ziqiang et al 2018. Faithful to the Original: Fact Aware Neural Abstractive Summarization. The Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18)](https://cdn.aaai.org/ojs/11912/11912-13-15440-1-2-20201228.pdf) -[^4]: [Cao, Meng et al 2020. Factual Error Correction for Abstractive Summarization Models. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pp 6251–6258, November 16–20, 2020](https://aclanthology.org/2020.emnlp-main.506.pdf) -[^5]: [Criminisi, Perez & Toyama, "Region filling and object removal by exemplar-based image inpainting," in IEEE Transactions on Image Processing, vol. 13, no. 9, pp 1200-1212, Sept 2004, doi: 10.1109/TIP.2004.833105](https://doi.org/10.1109/TIP.2004.833105) -[^6]: [Dahl et al 2024. Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models. arXiv:2401.01301v1 \[cs.CL\] 2 Jan 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.01301v1) -[^7]: [Durmus et al 2020. FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarization. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 5055–5070, July 5 - 10, 2020](https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.454.pdf) -[^8]: [Falke et al 2019. Ranking Generated Summaries by Correctness: An Interesting but Challenging Application for Natural Language Inference. Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 2214–2220, Florence, Italy, July 28 - August 2, 2019](https://aclanthology.org/P19-1213.pdf) -[^9]: [Farquhar, S., Kossen, J., Kuhn, L. et al 2024. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature 630, 625–630 (2024). 19 June 2024. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07421-0](https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07421-0) -[^10]: [Freeman, W. T., & Pasztor, E. C. (1999). Learning low-level vision. Proceedings of the Seventh IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision. doi:10.1109/iccv.1999.790414](https://doi.org/10.1109/iccv.1999.790414) -[^11]: [Goodrich et al 2019. Assessing The Factual Accuracy of Generated Text. arXiv:1905.13322v1 \[cs.CL\] 30 May 2019](https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.13322v1) -[^12]: [Guerreiro et al 2023. Hallucinations in Large Multilingual Translation Models. arXiv:2303.16104v1 \[cs.CL\] 28 Mar 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16104v1) -[^13]: [Huang, Lei et al 2023. A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions. arXiv:2311.05232v1 \[cs.CL\] 9 Nov 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.05232v1) -[^14]: [Huang, Luyang et al 2020. Knowledge Graph-Augmented Abstractive Summarization with Semantic-Driven Cloze Reward. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 5094–5107, July 5-10, 2020](https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.457.pdf) -[^15]: [Huang, Yichong et al 2021. The Factual Inconsistency Problem in Abstractive Text Summarization: A Survey. arXiv:2104.14839v1 \[cs.CL\] 30 Apr 2021](https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.14839v1) -[^16]: [Ji et al 2022. Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation. arXiv:2202.03629v1 \[cs.CL\] 8 Feb 2022](https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03629v1) -[^17]: [Karras et al 2017. PROGRESSIVE GROWING OF GANS FOR IMPROVED QUALITY, STABILITY, AND VARIATION. arXiv:1710.10196v3 \[cs.NE\] 26 Feb 2018](https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.10196v3) -[^18]: [King et al 2022. Don’t Say What You Don’t Know: Improving the Consistency of Abstractive Summarization by Constraining Beam Search. arXiv:2203.08436v1 \[cs.CL\] 16 Mar 2022](https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.08436v1) -[^19]: [Krishna, Roy & Iyyer 2021. Hurdles to Progress in Long-form Question Answering. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp 4940–4957, June 6–11, 2021](https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.393.pdf) -[^20]: [Kryściński et al 2019. Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization. arXiv:1910.12840v1 \[cs.CL\] 28 Oct 2019](https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.12840v1) -[^21]: [Kumar et al 2022. Language Generation Models Can Cause Harm: So What Can We Do About It? An Actionable Survey. arXiv:2210.07700v1 \[cs.CL\] 14 Oct 2022](https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.07700v1) -[^22]: [Lee, Katherine et al 2018. Hallucinations in Neural Machine Translation. Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2018), Montréal, Canada](https://openreview.net/pdf?id=SJxTk3vB3m) -[^23]: [Lee, Hwanhee et al 2022. Factual Error Correction for Abstractive Summaries Using Entity Retrieval. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Evaluation, and Metrics (GEM), pp 439-444, December 7, 2022](https://aclanthology.org/2022.gem-1.41.pdf) -[^24]: [Lewis et al 2020. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Tasks. 34th Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2020)](https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2020/file/6b493230205f780e1bc26945df7481e5-Paper.pdf) -[^25]: [Li, Haoran et al 2018. Ensure the Correctness of the Summary: Incorporate Entailment Knowledge into Abstractive Sentence Summarization. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, pp 1430–1441, August 20-26, 2018](https://aclanthology.org/C18-1121.pdf) -[^26]: [Li, Wei et al 2022. Faithfulness in Natural Language Generation: A Systematic Survey of Analysis, Evaluation and Optimization Methods. arXiv:2203.05227v1 \[cs.CL\] 10 Mar 2022](https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.05227v1) -[^27]: [Li, Junyi et al 2023. HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models. arXiv:2305.11747v3 \[cs.CL\] 23 Oct 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11747v3) -[^28]: [Liao, L., Hu, R., Xiao, J., & Wang, Z. (2018). Edge-Aware Context Encoder for Image Inpainting. 2018 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP). doi:10.1109/icassp.2018.8462549](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.2018.8462549) -[^29]: [Lin, Hilton & Evans 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoods. Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics Volume 1: Long Papers, pp 3214-3252, May 22-27, 2022](https://aclanthology.org/2022.acl-long.229.pdf) -[^30]: [Liu et al 2023. TRUSTWORTHY LLMS: A SURVEY AND GUIDELINE FOR EVALUATING LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS’ ALIGNMENT. arXiv:2308.05374v1 \[cs.AI\] 21 Mar 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.05374v1) -[^31]: [Magesh et al 2024. Hallucination-Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading AI Legal Research Tools. arXiv:2405.20362v1 \[cs.CL\] 30 May 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.20362v1) -[^32]: [Mao et al 2020. Constrained Abstractive Summarization: Preserving Factual Consistency with Constrained Generation. arXiv:2010.12723v1 \[cs.CL\] 24 Oct 2020](https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.12723v2) -[^33]: [Marcus & Davis 2020. GPT-3, Bloviator: OpenAI’s language generator has no idea what it’s talking about. Technology Review, August 22, 2020](https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/08/22/1007539/gpt3-openai-language-generator-artificial-intelligence-ai-opinion/) -[^34]: [Marcus 2020. The Next Decade in AI: Four Steps Towards Robust Artificial Intelligence. Robust AI. 14 Feb 2020](https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.06177v1) -[^35]: [Maynez et al 2020. On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1906–1919, July 5 - 10, 2020](https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.173.pdf) -[^36]: [Min et al 2023. FACTSCORE: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation. arXiv:2305.14251v1 \[cs.CL\] 23 May 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.14251v1) -[^37]: [Muhlgay et al 2024. Generating Benchmarks for Factuality Evaluation of Language Models. arXiv:2307.06908v2 \[cs.CL\] 4 Feb 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.06908v2) -[^38]: [Nan et al 2021. Improving Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization via Question Answering. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, pp 6881–6894, August 1–6, 2021](https://aclanthology.org/2021.acl-long.536.pdf) -[^39]: [Nazeri et al 2019. EdgeConnect: Structure Guided Image Inpainting using Edge Prediction. 2019 IEEE/CVF International Conference on Computer Vision Workshop (ICCVW)](https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCVW.2019.00408) -[^40]: [Pagnoni et al 2021. Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metrics. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp 4812–4829, June 6–11, 2021](https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.383.pdf) -[^41]: [Perez et al 2022. Red Teaming Language Models with Language Models. arXiv:2202.03286v1 \[cs.CL\] 7 Feb 2022](https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.03286) -[^42]: [Rawte et al 2023. A Survey of Hallucination in “Large” Foundation Models. arXiv:2309.05922v1 \[cs.AI\] 12 Sep 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.05922v1) -[^43]: [Reiter 2018. Hallucination in Neural NLG, blog post, Nov 12, 2018](https://ehudreiter.com/2018/11/12/hallucination-in-neural-nlg) -[^44]: [Rohrbach et al 2018. Object Hallucination in Image Captioning. arXiv:1809.02156v1 \[cs.CL\] 6 Sep 2018](https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.02156v1) -[^45]: [Shuster et al 2021. Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversation. arXiv:2104.07567v1 \[cs.CL\] 15 Apr 2021](https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.07567v1) -[^46]: [Song et al 2024. FineSurE: Fine-grained Summarization Evaluation using LLMs. arXiv:2407.00908v1 \[cs.CL\] 1 Jul 2024](https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00908v1) -[^47]: [Wang, Alex et al 2020. Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 5008–5020, July 5-10, 2020](https://aclanthology.org/2020.acl-main.450.pdf) -[^48]: [Wang, Cunxiang et al 2023. Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity. arXiv:2310.07521v1 \[cs.CL\] 11 Oct 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07521v1) -[^49]: [Wang, Zhihao et al 2020. Deep Learning for Image Super-resolution: A Survey. arXiv:1902.06068v2 \[cs.CV\] 8 Feb 2020](https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.06068v2) -[^50]: [Weidinger et al 2022. Taxonomy of Risks posed by Language Models. FAccT ’22, June 21–24, 2022, Seoul, Republic of Korea. doi: 10.1145/3531146.3533088](https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3531146.3533088) -[^51]: [Wiseman, Hieber & Rush 2017. Challenges in Data-to-Document Generation. arXiv:1707.08052v1 \[cs.CL\] 25 Jul 2017](https://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1707.08052v1) -[^52]: [Xiang et al 2022. Deep learning for image inpainting: A survey. doi: 10.1016/j.patcog.2022.109046](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patcog.2022.109046) -[^53]: [Xiong et al 2019. Foreground-aware Image Inpainting. 2019 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR)](https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2019.00599) -[^54]: [Zhang, Yuhao et al 2019. Optimizing the Factual Correctness of a Summary: A Study of Summarizing Radiology Reports. arXiv:1911.02541v1 \[cs.CL\] 6 Nov 2019](https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02541v1) -[^55]: [Zhang, Yue et al 2023. Siren’s Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models. arXiv:2309.01219v1 \[cs.CL\] 3 Sep 2023](https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01219v1) -[^56]: [Zhao et al 2020. Reducing Quantity Hallucinations in Abstractive Summarization. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2020, pp 2237–2249, November 16 - 20, 2020](https://aclanthology.org/2020.findings-emnlp.203.pdf) -[^57]: [Zhiwei Xiong, Xiaoyan Sun, & Wu, F. (2009). Image hallucination with feature enhancement. 2009 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. doi:10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206630](https://doi.org/10.1109/cvpr.2009.5206630) -[^58]: [Zhou, Bolei et al 2017. Places: An Image Database for Deep Scene Understanding. arXiv:1610.02055v1 \[cs.CV\] 6 Oct 2016](https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.02055v1) -[^59]: [Zhou, Chunting et al 2021. Detecting Hallucinated Content in Conditional Neural Sequence Generation. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pp 1393–1404, August 1–6, 2021](https://aclanthology.org/2021.findings-acl.120.pdf) -[^60]: [Zhu et al 2021. Enhancing Factual Consistency of Abstractive Summarization. Proceedings of the 2021 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pp 718–733, June 6–11, 2021](https://aclanthology.org/2021.naacl-main.58.pdf) -[^61]: [Fawzi et al 2016. Image inpainting through neural networks hallucinations. EPFL, Switzerland & IBM Research Watson, USA](https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~horst/cogrobo/papers/ivmsp2016.pdf) |