Accurate information is crucial for democracy as it empowers voters to make informed decisions about their representatives and keeping them accountable. In the US, state election commissions (SECs), often required by law, are the primary providers of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) to voters, and secondary sources like non-profits such as League of Women Voters (LWV) try to complement their information shortfall. However, surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, there is neither a single source with comprehensive FAQs nor a study analyzing the data at national level to identify current practices and ways to improve the status quo. This paper addresses it by providing the first dataset on Voter FAQs covering all the US states. Second, we introduce metrics for FAQ information quality (FIQ) with respect to questions, answers, and answers to corresponding questions. Third, we use FIQs to analyze US FAQs to identify leading, mainstream and lagging content practices and corresponding states. Finally, we identify what states across the spectrum can do to improve FAQ quality and thus, the overall information ecosystem. Across all 50 U.S. states, 12% were identified as leaders and 8% as laggards for FIQSvoter, while 14% were leaders and 12% laggards for FIQSdeveloper. The code and sample data are provided at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/election-qa-analysis-BE4E.

Recent advances in Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have expanded their capabilities to video understanding, with Text-to-Video (T2V) models excelling in generating videos from textual prompts. However, they still frequently produce hallucinated content, revealing AI-generated inconsistencies. We introduce ViBe https://huggingface.co/datasets/ViBe-T2V-Bench/ViBe: a large-scale dataset of hallucinated videos from open-source T2V models. We identify five major hallucination types: Vanishing Subject, Omission Error, Numeric Variability, Subject Dysmorphia, and Visual Incongruity. Using ten T2V models, we generated and manually annotated 3,782 videos from 837 diverse MS COCO captions. Our proposed benchmark includes a dataset of hallucinated videos and a classification framework using video embeddings. ViBe serves as a critical resource for evaluating T2V reliability and advancing hallucination detection. We establish classification as a baseline, with the TimeSFormer + CNN ensemble achieving the best performance (0.345 accuracy, 0.342 F1 score). While initial baselines proposed achieve modest accuracy, this highlights the difficulty of automated hallucination detection and the need for improved methods. Our research aims to drive the development of more robust T2V models and evaluate their outputs based on user preferences. Our code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/vibe-1840/

The troubling rise of hallucination presents perhaps the most significant impediment to the advancement of responsible AI. In recent times, considerable research has focused on detecting and mitigating hallucination in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, it’s worth noting that hallucination is also quite prevalent in Vision-Language models (VLMs). In this paper, we offer a fine-grained discourse on profiling VLM hallucination based on the image captioning task. We delineate eight fine-grained orientations of visual hallucination: i) Contextual Guessing, ii) Identity Incongruity, iii) Geographical Erratum, iv) Visual Illusion, v) Gender Anomaly, vi) VLM as Classifier, vii) Wrong Reading, and viii) Numeric Discrepancy. We curate Visual HallucInation eLiciTation, a publicly available dataset comprising 2,000 samples generated using eight VLMs across the image captioning task, along with human annotations for the categories as mentioned earlier. To establish a method for quantification and to offer a comparative framework enabling the evaluation and ranking of VLMs according to their vulnerability to producing hallucinations, we propose the Visual Hallucination Vulnerability Index (VHVI). In summary, we introduce the VHILT dataset for image-to-text hallucinations and propose the VHVI metric to quantify hallucinations in VLMs, targeting specific visual hallucination types. A subset sample is available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/vr25/vhil. The full dataset will be publicly released upon acceptance.

In the fast-paced domain of Large Language Models (LLMs), the issue of hallucination is a prominent challenge. Despite continuous endeavors to address this concern, it remains a highly active area of research within the LLM landscape. Grasping the intricacies of this problem can be daunting, especially for those new to the field. This tutorial aims to bridge this knowledge gap by introducing the emerging realm of hallucination in LLMs. It will comprehensively explore the key aspects of hallucination, including benchmarking, detection, and mitigation techniques. Furthermore, we will delve into the specific constraints and shortcomings of current approaches, providing valuable insights to guide future research efforts for participants.

The recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have garnered widespread acclaim for their remarkable emerging capabilities. However, the issue of hallucination has parallelly emerged as a by-product, posing significant concerns. While some recent endeavors have been made to identify and mitigate different types of hallucination, there has been a limited emphasis on the nuanced categorization of hallucination and associated mitigation methods. To address this gap, we offer a fine-grained discourse on profiling hallucination based on its degree, orientation, and category, along with offering strategies for alleviation. As such, we define two overarching orientations of hallucination: (i) factual mirage (FM) and (ii) silver lining (SL). To provide a more comprehensive understanding, both orientations are further sub-categorized into intrinsic and extrinsic, with three degrees of severity - (i) mild, (ii) moderate, and (iii) alarming. We also meticulously categorize hallucination into six types: (i) acronym ambiguity, (ii) numeric nuisance, (iii) generated golem, (iv) virtual voice, (v) geographic erratum, and (vi) time wrap. Furthermore, we curate HallucInation eLiciTation (HILT), a publicly available dataset comprising of 75,000 samples generated using 15 contemporary LLMs along with human annotations for the aforementioned categories. Finally, to establish a method for quantifying and to offer a comparative spectrum that allows us to evaluate and rank LLMs based on their vulnerability to producing hallucinations, we propose Hallucination Vulnerability Index (HVI). Amidst the extensive deliberations on policy-making for regulating AI development, it is of utmost importance to assess and measure which LLM is more vulnerable towards hallucination. We firmly believe that HVI holds significant value as a tool for the wider NLP community, with the potential to serve as a rubric in AI-related policy-making. In conclusion, we propose two solution strategies for mitigating hallucinations.