analiza aiqbench
This study provides a rigorous empirical audit revealing that conversational LLMs hallucinate approximately 97% of scenes in generated autobiographies, even when provided with daily quotes but no personal history corpus. The research identifies "grounded drift" as the primary failure mode, where models invent plausible-sounding people and settings that contradict the factual record, a finding that persists across different model versions. While grounding generation on a subject-specific corpus significantly improves accuracy, it does not eliminate hallucinations entirely, highlighting critical limitations in current approaches to personal narrative synthesis.
Auditing the Synthetic Memoir: Measuring Scene-Level Confabulation in LLM-Generated Autobiography Against the Documented Record of the Life It Describes
arXiv:2608.23640v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When a large language model (LLM) is asked to write a person's life, how much of what it writes actually happened? We present a scene-level case-study audit - the first quantified audit of LLM-generated autobiography against a subject-specific ground-truth corpus that we are aware of, based on an unsystematic literature search. The subject and the author of this paper are the same person: a 366-day "page-a-day" book of first-person anecdotal entries was drafted with a conversational LLM whose documented inputs were a template, two exemplar days, and each day's quote - not her corpus - and every day was subsequently audited at the anecdote-scene level against an independent verification corpus using a four-level rubric fixed before analysis. We define the verification-failure rate as the share of days not rated VERIFIED (scene positively corroborated): 354 of 366 days fail, 96.7% (Wilson 95% CI 94.4-98.1%). Only 12 days contain a corroborated scene; 19 days (5.2%) assert claims actively contradicted by the record; the dominant failure mode is grounded drift - real people, employers, and settings inside invented scenes - though its measured share varies across raters. Independent re-rating replicates the headline (no evidence the original rate was inflated) while showing that the four-way taxonomy has only fair-to-moderate reliability. Regenerating the same days with current named models reproduces 100% verification failure under the same inputs; grounding generation in the subject's corpus significantly improves the verification rate while leaving substantial residual failure (83.3%). We contribute the measurement, a reusable audit instrument whose WEAK/UNVERIFIED boundary we show to be unreliable, and a grounding remedy with quantified effect.
Abstract:When a large language model (LLM) is asked to write a person's life, how much of what it writes actually happened? We present a scene-level case-study audit - the first quantified audit of LLM-generated autobiography against a subject-specific ground-truth corpus that we are aware of, based on an unsystematic literature search. The subject and the author of this paper are the same person: a 366-day "page-a-day" book of first-person anecdotal entries was drafted with a conversational LLM whose documented inputs were a template, two exemplar days, and each day's quote - not her corpus - and every day was subsequently audited at the anecdote-scene level against an independent verification corpus using a four-level rubric fixed before analysis. We define the verification-failure rate as the share of days not rated VERIFIED (scene positively corroborated): 354 of 366 days fail, 96.7% (Wilson 95% CI 94.4-98.1%). Only 12 days contain a corroborated scene; 19 days (5.2%) assert claims actively contradicted by the record; the dominant failure mode is grounded drift - real people, employers, and settings inside invented scenes - though its measured share varies across raters. Independent re-rating replicates the headline (no evidence the original rate was inflated) while showing that the four-way taxonomy has only fair-to-moderate reliability. Regenerating the same days with current named models reproduces 100% verification failure under the same inputs; grounding generation in the subject's corpus significantly improves the verification rate while leaving substantial residual failure (83.3%). We contribute the measurement, a reusable audit instrument whose WEAK/UNVERIFIED boundary we show to be unreliable, and a grounding remedy with quantified effect.
20 pages, 4 figures, 6 tables. Code and derived data available at this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL); Computers and Society (cs.CY)
arXiv:2608.23640 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.23640v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.23640 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 379 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 3 oct. 2026

PIRAMID: Progress and Plans
LessWrong · 27 iul. 2026

Improving CoT Monitorability of Evaluation Awareness via Verbalization Training
LessWrong · 2 oct. 2026

World Models and Yann LeCun’s Bet Against Large Language Models
Quantum Zeitgeist · 17 iul. 2026