Retrieval-Augmented Generation is used for Islamic question answering, but most systems are evaluated end-to-end, making retrieval failures difficult to isolate from generation failures. We study answer-bearing retrieval for Arabic fiqh, where a passage is relevant only if it states the ruling required by the question. We build a retrieval test collection for Arabic fiqh and use it to evaluate dense, lexical, hybrid, fine-tuned, and madhhab-aware retrieval strategies. The best retriever achieves 0.524 MRR@5, while fine-tuning improves performance to 0.553. Hybrid retrieval provides limited gains for strong models, whereas madhhab-aware filtering more than doubles MRR@5 on school-specific questions. We further present an error analysis showing that the main challenge is distinguishing answer-bearing passages from topically similar passages that do not contain the requested ruling.
Somaya Eltanbouly, Heba Sbahi, Samer Rashwani et al.· 0 citations
Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent Arabic answers, yet factual errors remain difficult to detect, localize, explain, and verify. Existing hallucination benchmarks often provide response-level labels, with limited support for identifying the exact erroneous content, explaining why it is incorrect, or selecting the correct factual answer. We introduce HalluTruthQA, a fine-grained benchmark for hallucination evaluation in Arabic question answering. The benchmark contains 2,400 expert-curated examples across four knowledge-intensive domains: Islamic knowledge, history, science, and geography. Each example pairs an Arabic question and a model-generated answer with a verified reference answer, a binary hallucination label, and six candidate answers for factual verification. Hallucinated answers additionally include character-level erroneous spans, human-written explanations, and macro- and micro-level hallucination types. We evaluate four open-source LLMs, ALLaM-7B, Falcon-H1R-7B, Qwen3-32B, and SILMA, in a zero-shot setting across hallucination detection, span-level localization, factual verification, and explanation evaluation. Results show that these tasks capture different abilities: no single model performs best across all tasks. The best scores are 0.880 Macro-F1 for detection, 0.516 F1-Sp for localization, 0.852 LO-Score for factual verification, and 0.644 for explanation evaluation. These findings show that hallucination evaluation should move beyond response-level detection toward the localization, verification, and explanation of factual errors.
Abdessalam Bouchekif, M. Zighem, S. E. Bekhouche et al.· 2 citations