Large language models are known to hallucinate, generating linguistically plausible but incorrect answers to questions. Uncertainty quantification has been proposed as a strategy to detect such behaviour, but existing methods lack a unified framework to assess reliability at both the prompt and answer level. We introduce a geometric framework which quantifies language model uncertainty at both levels by explicitly modelling a prompt-conditioned semantic distribution in answer embedding space. Our approach is black-box and sampling-based; we generate multiple answers per prompt, and use archetypal analysis to estimate a geometric support for the answer distribution. At the prompt level, we approximate the distribution entropy to quantify uncertainty; for each individual answer, we then use notions of atypicality to assess its reliability relative to the batch. We employ our framework to not only detect hallucinations but correct them, by selecting the batch example deemed most reliable. Experiments show that our framework performs comparably to or better than prior methods on short form question-answering datasets, and achieves superior results on medical datasets where hallucinations carry particularly critical risks. Beyond pure performance, we suggest the theoretical grounding of our work provides support for semantic distributions as useful objects of study for language model uncertainty.
We propose a lightweight and single-pass uncertainty quantification method for detecting hallucinations in Large Language Models. The method uses attention matrices to estimate uncertainty without requiring repeated sampling or external models. Specifically, we measure the Kullback-Leibler divergence between each attention head's distribution and a uniform reference distribution, and use these features in a logistic regression probe. Across multiple datasets, task types, and model families, attention divergence is highly predictive of answer correctness and performs competitively with existing uncertainty estimation methods. We find that this signal is concentrated in middle layers and on factual tokens such as named entities and numbers, suggesting that attention dynamics provides an efficient and interpretable white-box signal of model uncertainty.
Understanding why a large language model (LLM) is uncertain about the response is important for their reliable deployment. Current approaches, which either provide a single uncertainty score or rely on the classical aleatoric-epistemic dichotomy, fail to offer actionable insights for improving the generative model. Recent studies have also shown that such methods are not enough for understanding uncertainty in LLMs. In this work, we advocate for an uncertainty decomposition framework that dissects LLM uncertainty into three distinct semantic components: (i) input ambiguity, arising from ambiguous prompts; (ii) knowledge gaps, caused by insufficient parametric evidence; and (iii) decoding randomness, stemming from stochastic sampling. Through a series of experiments we demonstrate that the dominance of these components can shift across model size and task. Our framework provides a better understanding to audit LLM reliability and detect hallucinations, paving the way for targeted interventions and more trustworthy systems.
Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinations, i.e., statements unsupported by the input or training data, hindering reliable deployment. In parallel, numerous uncertainty estimation (UE) methods have been proposed to quantify model confidence and are often implicitly treated as proxies for model failure. However, the relationship between uncertainty and hallucinations remains insufficiently characterized. We present a systematic empirical study of the association between uncertainty estimators and hallucinations in LLMs. Rather than assuming this association, we evaluate directly when and to what extent it holds. We consider a diverse set of uncertainty estimators, including information-theoretic, sampling-based, and reflexive estimators, and examine their behavior across hallucination settings. Our experiments cover both intrinsic hallucinations (violations of input faithfulness) and extrinsic hallucinations (unsupported claims relative to training data), using four complementary benchmarks, including RAGTruth and HalluLens. We find that the association is highly variable and often weak, depending on the hallucination type and the LLM under evaluation. These results challenge the use of uncertainty as a direct signal of hallucination and clarify when it provides actionable information.