The System Hallucination Scale (SHS): A Human-Centered Instrument for Assessing Perceived Reliability of Large Language Models
Organizations: Machine Learning and Information Science Group, Medical University of Graz, Austria · Human Machine Mind Cooperation, Graz, Austria · MIDATA Cooperative, Zurich, Switzerland · Human-Centered AI Lab, BOKU University Vienna, Austria
Abstract
Large language models routinely produce factually incorrect or misleading outputs, yet conventional automated benchmarks overlook how users perceive reliability during interaction. We introduce the System Hallucination Scale (SHS), a lightweight instrument modeling the famous System Usability Scale (SUS) and System Causability Scales (SCS). SHS measures perceived reliability across five dimensions: factual accuracy, source reliability, logical coherence, deceptiveness of presentation, and responsiveness to user guidance, using ten balanced Likert-scale items that provide a directional score and consistency diagnostic. In a supervised validation study with 193 participants (386 evaluations across 47 trained experimenters), SHS demonstrated strong internal consistency and high clarity, completing in an average of 4.2 minutes. Participants rated source verifiability and presentation deceptiveness worse than factual accuracy, indicating perceived vulnerabilities lie primarily in traceability and framing. As a proof of concept, SHS assesses human-perceived reliability rather than ground-truth correctness, providing open-source multilingual implementations and an interactive calculator.
Figures & tables
| Dimension | Pol. | Item |
|---|---|---|
| Factual Accuracy | Q1. The response was factually reliable. | |
| Q2. The LLM frequently generated false or fabricated information. | ||
| Source Reliability | Q3. It was easy to find and verify the sources of the presented information. | |
| Q4. The LLM often omitted sources or invented them, and it was difficult to recognize what was real. | ||
| Logical Coherence | Q5. The LLM’s reasoning was logically structured and supported by facts. | |
| Q6. The LLM’s reasoning contained unfounded or illogical steps. |
| SHS | SHS 100 | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| High perceived reliability | ||
| Moderate perceived reliability; some concerns | ||
| Low perceived reliability; caution advised | ||
| Very low perceived reliability |
| System (model, version) | Access mode | Collection window | Evaluations |
|---|---|---|---|
| ChatGPT (OpenAI, GPT-4-based) | Free-tier web interface | Oct–Nov 2025 | 68 |
| Claude (Anthropic, Claude 3 Sonnet) | Free-tier web interface (Claude.ai) | Oct–Nov 2025 | 85 |
| Gemini (Google) | Free-tier web interface | Oct–Nov 2025 | 78 |
| Mistral (Mistral AI) | Public inference platform | Oct–Nov 2025 | 79 |
| DeepSeek (DeepSeek AI) | Public inference platform | Oct–Nov 2025 | 76 |
| Total | 386 |
| Category | Purpose | Dimensions |
|---|---|---|
| Verified Knowledge (“Wissen”) | Objectively checkable prompts on topics the participant knew or could easily verify, establishing a correctness baseline the participant could adjudicate. | FA, SR |
| “Glatteis” (Trick) | Prompts referencing non-existent people or entities, impossible events, fabricated facts, or category errors, constructed so that hallucinating an answer (rather than flagging the false premise) indicates problematic behavior. | DP, LC, RG |
| Evaluation aspect | Most frequent response | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Clarity of SHS items | Yes | 87.2% |
| Relevance for LLM evaluation | Yes | 83.0% |
| Appropriateness of response options | Yes | 93.6% |
| No explanation required | No, never | 66.0% |
| Demographic questions length | Exactly right | 97.9% |
| FA | SR | LC | DP | RG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Factual Accuracy (FA) | 1.00 | ||||
| Source Reliability (SR) | 0.72 | 1.00 | |||
| Logical Coherence (LC) | 0.68 | 0.61 | 1.00 | ||
| Deceptiveness (DP) | 0.54 | 0.49 | 0.57 | 1.00 | |
| Responsiveness (RG) | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.51 | 0.48 | 1.00 |
| System | Tech. | UX | Auto. | Human | Dims. | Primary focus |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TruthfulQA | 1 | Truthfulness | ||||
| HaluEval | 1 | Binary detection | ||||
| FEVER | 1 | Claim verification | ||||
| FActScore | 1 | Atomic precision | ||||
| SelfCheckGPT | 1 | Consistency-based | ||||
| Semantic entropy | 1 | Meaning-level uncertainty |
| Characteristic | SUS | SCS | SHS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of items | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Response scale | 5-pt Likert | 5-pt Likert | 5-pt Likert |
| Item structure | Alternating | Alternating | Paired per dimension |
| Score range (native) | 0–100 | 0–100 | |
| Score range (rescaled) | — | — | 0–100 |
| Dimensions | 1 | 1 | 5 |
LLM Evaluation
Large language model evaluation measures what models can do, how reliably they do it, and whether benchmark scores predict real-world performance.
See all 2,427 papers