arXiv AI

Target-Aware Curation of Hallucination Stress Tests for Large Language Models

arXiv AI
Aug 5

Quantifying Hallucinations in Language Language Models on Medical Textbooks

arXiv:2603. 09986v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Hallucinations, the tendency for large language models to provide responses with factually incorrect and unsupported claims, is a serious problem within natural language processing for which we do not yet have an effective solution to mitigate against.

By Brandon C. Colelough, Davis Bartels, Dina Demner-Fushman
arXiv AI
1d ago

Mycelium: A Meta-Study of Hallucination Detection Across Provenance, Typology, and Granularities

The paper presents a meta‑study of hallucination detection in large language models, framing it as a benchmark‑conditioned measurement problem. It organizes existing benchmarks along three axes—provenance, typology, and granularity—to analyze how construction, annotation, and evaluation choices influence detection tasks. The authors also examine span‑level evaluation, propose a new Span Coverage F1 metric, and discuss the implications for cross‑benchmark comparisons and generalization.

By Julia Belikova, Elisei Rykov
arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 14

When Bias Pretends to Be Truth: How Spurious Correlations Undermine Hallucination Detection in LLMs

The paper examines a specific type of hallucination in large language models caused by spurious correlations—unintended, statistically prominent associations in training data such as surnames linked to nationalities. These hallucinations are confidently produced, persist regardless of model scaling or refusal fine‑tuning, and evade existing detection methods like confidence filtering and inner‑state probing. The authors use controlled synthetic experiments and evaluations on both open‑source and proprietary LLMs, including GPT‑5, to demonstrate the failure of current detection techniques and provide a theoretical explanation for why statistical biases undermine confidence‑based approaches.

By Shaowen Wang, Yiqi Dong, Ruinian Chang, Tansheng Zhu, Yuebo Sun, Kaifeng Lyu, Jian Li
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 21

Fluent but Fallible: Benchmarking Hallucination and Factual Reliability in Large Language Models

The paper "Fluent but Fallible: Benchmarking Hallucination and Factual Reliability in Large Language Models" evaluates ten advanced LLMs on a benchmark of 70 academic prompts across four complexity levels. Using five metrics—Accuracy, Precision, Recall, Response Deviation Index, and Hallucination Index—reviewers found that Perplexity and DeepSeek V3 achieved the highest overall accuracy, Gemini balanced recall and performance, LLaMA 3 resisted hallucinations, and Falcon had perfect precision but low recall and high deviation. The study highlights a trade‑off between response completeness and factual reliability, especially as prompt complexity increases.

By Osama Shabih, Dayam Nadeem, Shahab Saquib Sohail, Mohammad Nadeem
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 21

Detecting Errors in Large Language Model Responses: The Incremental Predictive Value of Hidden States

The paper investigates whether the internal hidden states of large language models can improve the detection of hallucinations in model responses. By integrating hidden states with an output‑side baseline and evaluating on both open‑ended generation and multiple‑choice tasks, the authors find that adding hidden states yields modest AUROC gains of about 0.004 and 0.039. These results suggest that while hidden states contain additional predictive information, the overall improvement over strong standalone detection methods remains limited.

By Ningzhi Li, Xiaojun Ma, Xiaofei Wang
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 8

PHRBench: A Behavioral Evaluation of Post-Hallucination Reasoning in LLMs

PHRBench is a new benchmark that evaluates how large language models handle hallucinated information during multi-stage reasoning. It tests 18 models across four domains using 4,820 controlled instances, measuring Hallucination Compliance, Hallucination Avoidance, and Heuristic Correction to determine if a model can correct hallucinated premises and still reach the correct answer. The study finds that successful recovery is rare, often requires frequent belief updates, and that features of the hallucinated prompt can predict recovery with an AUROC of 0.847.

By Linghao Meng, Feng He, Xuan Yang, Junyuan Mao, Pinze Ren, Deqing Mu, Hesen Yang, Qiankun Li