| Input | ||
|---|---|---|
| Required Input | Description | |
output | Output generated by the model | |
context | The context provided to the model | |
| Optional Input | ||
input | Input provided to the model |
| Output | ||
|---|---|---|
| Field | Description | |
| Result | Returns Passed if no hallucination is detected, Failed if hallucination is detected | |
| Reason | Provides a detailed explanation of the evaluation |
What to do If you get Undesired Results
If the content is evaluated as containing hallucinations (Failed) and you want to improve it:- Ensure all claims in your output are explicitly supported by the source material
- Avoid extrapolating or generalizing beyond what is stated in the input
- Remove any specific details that aren’t mentioned in the source text
- Use qualifying language (like “may,” “could,” or “suggests”) when necessary
- Stick to paraphrasing rather than adding new information
- Double-check numerical values, dates, and proper nouns against the source
- Consider directly quoting from the source for critical information
Comparing Detect Hallucination with Similar Evals
- Factual Accuracy: While Detect Hallucination checks for fabricated information not in the source, Factual Accuracy evaluates the overall factual correctness of content against broader knowledge.
- Groundedness: Detect Hallucination focuses on absence of fabricated content, while Groundedness measures how well the output is supported by the source material.
- Context Adherence: Detect Hallucination identifies made-up information, while Context Adherence evaluates how well the output adheres to the given context.