Gespeichert in:
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2025
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25498 |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| _version_ | 1866912615917158400 |
|---|---|
| author | Hagar, Nick Agustianto, Wilma Diakopoulos, Nicholas |
| author_facet | Hagar, Nick Agustianto, Wilma Diakopoulos, Nicholas |
| contents | Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in newsroom workflows, but their tendency to hallucinate poses risks to core journalistic practices of sourcing, attribution, and accuracy. We evaluate three widely used tools - ChatGPT, Gemini, and NotebookLM - on a reporting-style task grounded in a 300-document corpus related to TikTok litigation and policy in the U.S. We vary prompt specificity and context size and annotate sentence-level outputs using a taxonomy to measure hallucination type and severity. Across our sample, 30% of model outputs contained at least one hallucination, with rates approximately three times higher for Gemini and ChatGPT (40%) than for NotebookLM (13%). Qualitatively, most errors did not involve invented entities or numbers; instead, we observed interpretive overconfidence - models added unsupported characterizations of sources and transformed attributed opinions into general statements. These patterns reveal a fundamental epistemological mismatch: While journalism requires explicit sourcing for every claim, LLMs generate authoritative-sounding text regardless of evidentiary support. We propose journalism-specific extensions to existing hallucination taxonomies and argue that effective newsroom tools need architectures that enforce accurate attribution rather than optimize for fluency. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2509_25498 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2025 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Not Wrong, But Untrue: LLM Overconfidence in Document-Based Queries Hagar, Nick Agustianto, Wilma Diakopoulos, Nicholas Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in newsroom workflows, but their tendency to hallucinate poses risks to core journalistic practices of sourcing, attribution, and accuracy. We evaluate three widely used tools - ChatGPT, Gemini, and NotebookLM - on a reporting-style task grounded in a 300-document corpus related to TikTok litigation and policy in the U.S. We vary prompt specificity and context size and annotate sentence-level outputs using a taxonomy to measure hallucination type and severity. Across our sample, 30% of model outputs contained at least one hallucination, with rates approximately three times higher for Gemini and ChatGPT (40%) than for NotebookLM (13%). Qualitatively, most errors did not involve invented entities or numbers; instead, we observed interpretive overconfidence - models added unsupported characterizations of sources and transformed attributed opinions into general statements. These patterns reveal a fundamental epistemological mismatch: While journalism requires explicit sourcing for every claim, LLMs generate authoritative-sounding text regardless of evidentiary support. We propose journalism-specific extensions to existing hallucination taxonomies and argue that effective newsroom tools need architectures that enforce accurate attribution rather than optimize for fluency. |
| title | Not Wrong, But Untrue: LLM Overconfidence in Document-Based Queries |
| topic | Computation and Language Artificial Intelligence |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.25498 |