How do Humans Process AI-generated Hallucination Contents: a Neuroimaging Study

Despite significant strides in factual reliability, errors -- often termed hallucinations -- remain a major concern for generative AI, especially as LLMs are increasingly expected to be helpful in more complex or nuanced setups. Yet even in the simplest setting -- factoid question-answering with clear ground truth-frontier models without external tools continue to hallucinate. We argue that most factuality gains in this domain have come from expanding the model's knowledge boundary (encoding more facts) rather than improving awareness of that boundary (distinguishing known from unknown). We conjecture that the latter is inherently difficult: models may lack the discriminative power to perfectly separate truths from errors, creating an unavoidable tradeoff between eliminating hallucinations and preserving utility. This tradeoff dissolves under a different framing. If we understand hallucinations as confident errors -- incorrect information delivered without appropriate qualification -- a third path emerges beyond the answer-or-abstain dichotomy: expressing uncertainty. We propose faithful uncertainty: aligning linguistic uncertainty with intrinsic uncertainty. This is one facet of metacognition -- the ability to be aware of one's own uncertainty and to act on it. For direct interaction, acting on uncertainty means communicating it honestly; for agentic systems, it becomes the control layer governing when to search and what to trust. Metacognition is thus essential for LLMs to be both trustworthy and capable; we conclude by highlighting open problems for progress towards this objective.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across diverse natural language processing tasks, yet they remain susceptible to hallucinations -- generating content that is factually incorrect, unfaithful to provided context, or misaligned with user instructions. We present HalluScan, a comprehensive benchmark framework that systematically evaluates hallucination detection and mitigation across 72 configurations spanning 6 detection methods, 4 open-weight model families, and 3 diverse domains. We introduce three key contributions: (1) HalluScore, a novel composite metric that achieves a Pearson correlation of r = 0.41 with human expert judgments; (2) Adaptive Detection Routing (ADR), an intelligent routing algorithm achieving 2.0x cost reduction with only 0.1% AUROC degradation; and (3) systematic error cascade decomposition revealing substantial variation in hallucination error types across domains. Our experiments reveal that NLI Verification achieves the highest overall AUROC of 0.88, while RAV achieves the second-highest AUROC of 0.66.

While Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable progress across diverse tasks, they suffer from hallucinations where generated outputs contradict or misrepresent input semantics. Existing research typically addresses hallucination detection within a single modality or task type, limiting generalizability. We introduce OmniHallu, a unified hallucination detection framework spanning both comprehension and generation tasks across image, video, and audio modalities. We contribute OmniHallu-Bench, a 10,000-sample benchmark with claim-level human annotations covering six cross-modal tasks: image-to-text (I2T), video-to-text (V2T), audio-to-text (A2T), text-to-image (T2I), text-to-video (T2V), and text-to-audio (T2A). Our multi-agent architecture decomposes model outputs into atomic claims, verifies them through modality-specific experts, and aggregates evidence via structured reasoning. We further propose a preference-optimized trainable verifier that approximates the multi-agent decision boundary, reducing expert calls by 66% with minimal performance loss. Extensive experiments reveal a consistent modality-dependent performance gradient and provide fine-grained insights into cross-modal hallucination patterns.