Preliminary development offers a framework for analyzing hallucinations in RAG within high-risk domains, highlighting significant concerns.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for Chinese information-seeking tasks in healthcare, law, public policy, academic writing, and technical support. These high-risk domains require answers that are not only fluent but also grounded in verifiable evidence. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is commonly used to reduce hallucination, yet retrieved evidence does not guarantee faithful generation: models may ignore evidence, overgeneralize from partial evidence, fabricate citations, or present uncertainty as fact. Existing hallucination benchmarks provide valuable foundations, but Chinese high-risk RAG settings remain underexplored. This preprint presents CnHallu-RAG, a preliminary development resource and evaluation framework for Chinese hallucination analysis in RAG. The framework uses claim-level annotation and distinguishes unsupported claims, evidence-contradicting claims, fabricated citations, outdated claims, and overconfident claims. The current release contains a schema-validated 100-example development set across five domains, prompts, model-running scripts, audit scripts, DeepSeek direct-generation, standard-RAG, and citation-constrained RAG outputs, and a confirmed 20-example audit sample. In answer-level auditing, direct generation is flagged hallucinated on 34 of 100 examples, while both standard RAG and citation-constrained RAG are flagged on 1 of 100 examples. A stratified 20-example manual audit sample confirms the sampled labels, including the known standard-RAG evidence-reversal case. The paper also includes appendix-level analyses of prototype atomic decomposition, independent Qwen judge sensitivity, and a separated candidate extension sample. This work is a preliminary development study rather than a final benchmark. The uploaded files include the compiled PDF and the LaTeX source package. Supporting datasets and audit outputs are not included in this Zenodo deposit pending final licensing review.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Z Z Wu (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: