Reducing Hallucination in Enterprise AI Workflows via Hybrid Utility Minimum Bayes Risk (HUMBR)
Authors: Chenhao Fang, Jordi Mola, Mark Harman, Jason Nawrocki, Vaibhav Shrivastava, Yue Cheng, Jay Minesh Shah, Katayoun Zand, Mansi Tripathi, Arya Pudota, Matthew Becker, Hervé Robert, Abhishek Gulati
Organizations: Meta Platforms, Inc. Menlo Park, CA, USA · Meta Platforms, Inc. Bellevue, WA, USA · Meta Platforms, Inc. London, UK · Meta Platforms, Inc. Andover, MA, USA · Meta Platforms, Inc. New York, NY, USA
Although LLMs drive automation, it is critical to ensure immense consideration for high-stakes enterprise workflows such as those involving legal matters, risk management, and privacy compliance. For Meta, and other organizations like ours, a single hallucinated clause in such high stakes workflows risks material consequences. We show that by framing hallucination mitigation as a Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) problem, we can dramatically reduce this risk. Specifically, we introduce a Hybrid Utility MBR (HUMBR) framework that synthesizes semantic embedding similarity with lexical precision to identify consensus without ground-truth references, for which we derive rigorous error bounds. We complement this theoretical analysis with a comprehensive empirical evaluation on widely-used public benchmark suites (TruthfulQA and LegalBench) and also real world data from Meta production deployment. The results from our empirical study show that MBR significantly outperforms standard Universal Self-Consistency. Notably, 81% of the pipeline's suggestions were preferred over human-crafted ground truth, and critical recall failures were virtually eliminated.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Workflow of the proposed HUMBR ensemble system. The system calculates consensus using a Hybrid Utility Function (Semantic + Lexical) and applies a consensus threshold τ to filter risky outputs.
Figure 2. Cost- Pfail Pareto Frontier: An idealized depiction of the operational trade-off landscape.
Decoding Method
% Truth × Info
Quality Score
Greedy Decoding ( T=0 )
69.5%
74.1
Universal Self-Consistency (USC)
76.5%
75.5
HUMBR (Ours)
80.3%
81.8
Oracle (Upper Bound)
81.5%
83.5
Table 1. Performance on TruthfulQA. Evaluated by Claude-Opus-4.5 Judge. % Truth × Info is the strict metric requiring answers to be both factually correct and informative (non-refusals).
Interpretation
Rule-Application
Method
Acc
Bal-Acc
Exact Match
F1 Score
Greedy Decoding
35.1%
34.0%
44.4%
42.9%
Self-Consistency (USC)
39.2%
36.5%
49.3%
45.5%
HUMBR (Ours)
54.2%
50.2%
53.5%
50.8%
Oracle (Upper Bound)
69.7%
67.1%
59.0%
53.9%
Table 2. LegalBench Performance. HUMBR outperforms baselines on both classification (Interpretation) and generation (Rule-Application) tasks.
Figure 3. Human-in-the-Loop Workflow. The AI generates a suggestion which serves as a draft for the Human Expert.
Comparison
Win
Loss
Win Rate (%)
HUMBR vs. Human Expert *
30
7
81.0%
HUMBR vs. Universal Self-Consistency*
17
2
89.5%
Universal Self-Consistency vs. Human
11
6
64.7%
Table 3. Pairwise Win-Rates in Blind Expert Evaluation. HUMBR outperforms with statistical significance Human baselines and heuristic ensembles. Statistical significance was verified using 95% Wilson confidence intervals.
Figure 4. Outcome Distribution Analysis. The stacked bars represent the full breakdown of 100% of samples. HUMBR (Top) greatly expands the “Success” rate (Teal) and reduces the “Recall Errors” (Gray).
Category
Human Expert
HUMBR
Success (No Failure)
28.0%
44.5%
Critical Errors
Misses Key Sections
28.0%
0.8%
Contradicts Source
4.7%
2.5%
Precision & Style Errors
Uncited References
12.4%
25.2%
Table 4. Detailed Failure Mode Breakdown. HUMBR dominates in quality and completeness.
Hallucination remains a major reliability barrier for production LLM systems, particularly in multi-agent pipelines where unsupported claims can propagate unchecked across stages. This paper adapts a HOPE-inspired Nested Learning architecture with Continuum Memory Systems (CMS) and semantic similarity caching to a hybrid benchmark of 310 prompts combining 217 epistemic-uncertainty prompts and 93 fabrication-induction stress-test prompts. A three-stage agentic pipeline orchestrated via the Open Floor Protocol (OFP) is evaluated with five KPIs -- FCD (Factual Claim Density), FGR (Factual Grounding References), FDF (Fictional Disclaimer Frequency), ECS (Explicit Contextualization Score), and OSR (Observability Score Ratio) -- aggregated into THS (Total Hallucination Score) across five weighting configurations to study mitigation-observability trade-offs. FDF, ECS, OSR, and FGR are subtracted as mitigation signals, so that a more negative THS indicates stronger mitigation. The FrontEndAgent is configured as a high-stochasticity generator (temperature = 1.0) to produce a realistic hallucination baseline, while the SecondLevelReviewer and ThirdLevelReviewer operate as progressive correctors. This asymmetric design yields end-to-end THS reductions of -31.3% to -35.9% across five weighting configurations. Semantic caching achieves 440 cache hits over 930 potential calls (47.3% hit rate), reducing LLM invocations to 490, lowering energy and CO2e footprint, and making multi-stage review pipelines operationally viable at production scale. ExtremeObservability attains the most negative final THS (-0.0709), confirming that observability-heavy configurations reinforce rather than compromise mitigation. These findings suggest that memory-augmented multi-agent designs can jointly improve factual reliability, operational efficiency, and auditability without model retraining.
Diego Gosmar, Deborah A. Dahl
Head of AI, Tesisquare · Member, Open Voice Interoperability Initiative · Linux Foundation AI & Data +4
Hallucinations remain a major obstacle for large language models (LLMs), especially in safety-critical domains. We present HALT (Hallucination Assessment via Log-probs as Time series), a lightweight hallucination detector that leverages only the top-20 token log-probabilities from LLM generations as a time series. HALT uses a gated recurrent unit model combined with entropy-based features to learn model calibration bias, providing an extremely efficient alternative to large encoders. Unlike white-box approaches, HALT does not require access to hidden states or attention maps, relying only on output log-probabilities. Unlike black-box approaches, it operates on log-probs rather than surface-form text, which enables stronger domain generalization and compatibility with proprietary LLMs without requiring access to internal weights. To benchmark performance, we introduce HUB (Hallucination detection Unified Benchmark), which consolidates prior datasets into ten capabilities covering both reasoning tasks (Algorithmic, Commonsense, Mathematical, Symbolic, Code Generation) and general purpose skills (Chat, Data-to-Text, Question Answering, Summarization, World Knowledge). While being 30x smaller, HALT outperforms Lettuce, a fine-tuned modernBERT-base encoder, achieving a 60x speedup gain on HUB. HALT and HUB together establish an effective framework for hallucination detection across diverse LLM capabilities.
Enterprises will not deploy AI agents they cannot trust, and the most-cited reason for distrust is hallucination: confident, fluent output that is simply not true. The common response is to wait for a model that does not hallucinate. We argue that this is the wrong target. Large language models are, by construction, capable of generating unsupported text, and no amount of scale removes the possibility; a faithfulness judge bolted onto a raw model catches some errors but still ships others, and even well-curated retrieval pipelines have been shown to fabricate citations. We reframe the goal: "zero hallucination" is not a property a model possesses but a property a system enforces. We present HALO (Hallucination-Aware Layered Oversight), an assurance architecture which treats hallucination as a containable failure mode rather than an eliminable one. HALO composes six layers of defense: grounded generation over retrieved, approved content; constrained, deterministic execution that bounds where the model can err; multi-signal verification that scores every output for groundedness and hallucination using both an LLM judge and evidence-based checks against the source text; calibrated abstention, so the system declines rather than guesses when grounding is insufficient; total traceability of every retrieval, tool call, and generation; and continuous oversight that detects drift, alerts on threshold breaches, and closes the loop by regenerating and statistically validating improved agents. We detail each layer, give particular attention to evidence-based confidence (which verifies extractions against the source document rather than trusting the model's self-reported certainty), and illustrate the architecture on a regulated claims-extraction workload.