Span-level hallucination detection pinpoints unsupported content in LLM outputs, enabling actionable feedback and targeted mitigation. Existing evaluations for span-level hallucination detection methods are fragmented across tasks, annotation formats, and metrics, and most span-level datasets cover only a single NLG domain, making it difficult to assess whether a detection method actually generalizes across tasks and domains. In this paper, we introduce SHAM-Bench (Span-level Hallucination Benchmark Across Multiple Tasks), a unified benchmark for span-level hallucination detection spanning six NLG tasks, aggregated from existing human-annotated datasets totaling 6,461 examples under a common schema and evaluation protocol. Using SHAM-Bench, we evaluate existing hallucination detection methods and find that fine-tuned detectors often perform well in-domain but degrade under distribution shift, whereas prompt-based methods with reasoning are more robust across tasks. Our analysis further shows that subtle unsupported content remains difficult to detect and span-level evaluation is still challenged by ambiguous span boundaries and noisy labels. We release the dataset, evaluation code, and a public leaderboard to support future research on broadly generalizable hallucination detection.
Figures & tables
Task &
% of
count
response
hallu
hallu
dataset
total
words
words
rate
context_qa
13.5%
875
131.5
7.1
0.041
ragtruth
13.5%
875
131.5
7.1
0.041
data2text
13.9%
900
182.0
7.2
0.040
ragtruth
13.9%
900
182.0
7.2
0.040
mt
7.4%
479
27.5
4.0
0.136
Table 1: SHAM-Bench statistics in both task aggregates and dataset breakdowns. Hallucination rate is the proportion of reponse words that are hallucinated. Word counts and hallucination rate are averaged across all examples.
Method
Overall (std)
open_qa
ctx_qa
data2txt
open_bio
summ
mt
Span-level
PsiloQA ( ModernBERT-base )
0.239 (0.12)
0.338
0.072
0.089
0.363
0.359
0.216
LettuceDetect ( lettuce-large )
0.482 (0.21)
0.324
0.833
0.614
0.198
0.541
0.382
RAGTruth ( ft-llama2-13B )
0.518 (0.19)
0.367
0.865
0.654
0.354
0.469
0.398
FAVA ( ft-llama2-7B )
0.381 (0.15)
0.319
0.696
0.243
0.244
0.376
0.411
Prompt ( GPT-5-mini )
0.498 (0.07)
0.402
0.603
0.528
0.525
0.495
0.435
Table 2: Average span- and sentence-level F 1 scores on SHAM-Bench by task. Prompt method uses gpt-5-mini with reasoning but no prompt optimization. Overall reports the unweighted mean and standard deviation of six task scores. Highest scores are in bold ; second highest are underlined . The full results can be found in Appendix D .
Method
summ
qa
faithbench
zhou
ragtruth
favabench
mushroom
ragtruth
Span-level
PsiloQA ( ModernBERT-base )
0.225
0.547
0.053
0.210
0.556
0.072
LettuceDetect ( lettuce-large )
0.307
0.559
0.695
0.242
0.463
0.833
RAGTruth ( ft-llama2-13B )
0.323
0.357
0.835
0.327
0.435
0.865
FAVA ( ft-llama2-7B )
0.310
0.228
0.761
0.235
0.463
0.695
Table 3: Average span- and sentence-level F 1 scores on SHAM-Bench summarization and open/context_qa tasks by dataset. Prompt method uses gpt-5-mini with reasoning but no prompt optimization. Highest scores are in bold ; second highest are underlined .
Method
Reason
Opt
Overall (std)
open_qa
ctx_qa
data2txt
open_bio
summ
mt
Span-level
prompt ( GPT-5-mini )
✗
✗
0.425 (0.09)
0.386
0.553
0.321
0.486
0.471
0.331
prompt ( GPT-5-mini )
✓
✗
0.498 (0.07)
0.402
0.603
0.528
0.525
0.495
0.435
prompt ( GPT-5-mini )
✓
✓
0.497 (0.09)
0.364
0.636
0.536
0.476
0.532
0.437
prompt ( Qwen3-4B )
✗
✗
0.298 (0.07)
0.343
0.176
0.255
0.362
0.306
0.347
prompt ( Qwen3-4B )
✓
✗
0.442 (0.11)
0.369
0.647
0.511
0.328
0.457
0.338
Table 4: Average span-level F 1 scores of prompt-based detectors on SHAM-Bench by task. Reason and opt indicate whether reasoning and prompt optimization are used. Overall reports the unweighted mean and standard deviation of six task scores. Highest scores are in bold ; second highest are underlined . Complete span- and sentence-level results are in Table 5 .
Figure 1: Distribution of hallucination rates as predicted by RAGTruth on summarization (top) and PsiloQA on QA (bottom). The first distribution in each plot is the distribution of the corresponding model’s training set. To the right of each distribution is the proportion of examples that contain any hallucinated spans.
Figure 2: Top: ground-truth span recovery by GPT-5-mini reasoning prompt-based detector. Bottom: error categories for spans received no overlapping prediction.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Figure 3: Distribution of over-prediction lengths for overlapping spans predicted by prompting GPT-5-mini with reasoning, grouped by dataset and query type. Negative values indicate under-prediction.
Method
Reason
Opt
Overall (std)
open_qa
ctx_qa
data2txt
open_bio
summ
mt
Span-level
prompt ( GPT-5-mini )
✗
✗
0.425 (0.09)
0.386
0.553
0.321
0.486
0.471
0.331
prompt ( GPT-5-mini )
✓
✗
0.498 (0.07)
0.402
0.603
0.528
0.525
0.495
0.435
prompt ( GPT-5-mini )
✓
✓
0.497 (0.09)
0.364
0.636
0.536
0.476
0.532
0.437
prompt ( Qwen3-4B )
✗
✗
0.298 (0.07)
0.343
0.176
0.255
0.362
0.306
0.347
prompt ( Qwen3-4B )
✓
✗
0.442 (0.11)
0.369
0.647
0.511
0.328
0.457
0.338
Appendix
Table 5: Average span- and sentence-level F 1 scores of prompt-based hallucination detection methods on SHAM-Bench aggregated by task. Reason and opt indicate whether reasoning and prompt optimization are used. The overall column shows the unweighted mean and standard deviation of six task scores. Highest score in each column in bold and the second highest score is underlined .
Hallucination detection is essential for the reliable deployment of large language models (LLMs). However, existing evaluations face two core challenges: inconsistent inference configuration and evaluation, and limited coverage of downstream domains and tasks. Consequently, reported detector performance is often difficult to compare, reproduce, and generalize beyond specific experimental settings. We introduce OpenHalDet, a unified benchmark for hallucination detection across diverse generation scenarios. OpenHalDet standardizes the evaluation pipeline, from prompt construction and response generation to truthfulness annotation, detector scoring, and metric computation. It supports heterogeneous detector families under different access settings, including black-box methods that use only generated outputs, gray-box methods that rely on probability-based signals, and white-box methods that exploit internal model signals. By bringing diverse tasks, models, and detectors into a shared framework, OpenHalDet enables controlled comparison and provides a systematic view of how different detection paradigms behave in LLM applications. We release OpenHalDet as an open and extensible codebase to facilitate reproducible evaluation and future development of hallucination detection methods. The code and datasets are available at https://github.com/Nellie179/Hallucination-Detection.
Xinyi Li, Zhen Fang, Yongxin Deng +12
University of Technology Sydney · University of Bristol · University of Wisconsin–Madison +2
Large language models (LLMs) hallucinate with confidence: their outputs can be fluent, authoritative, and simply wrong. In medical, legal, and scientific applications this failure causes direct harm, and detecting it from internal model states offers a path to safer deployment. A growing body of work reports that this problem is increasingly tractable, with recent methods achieving high detection performance on widely used benchmarks. We show, however, that much of this apparent progress does not survive scrutiny. Four of the six corpora embed the ground-truth answer directly in the input prompt. A naïve text-similarity baseline we call TxTemb exploits this to achieve near-perfect detection scores without any access to model internals. To measure what genuine detection capability remains once these artifacts are controlled, we conduct a large-scale evaluation spanning twenty-two detection methods, twelve open-source models spanning six architectural families, and six corpora. We further introduce DRIFT, a supervised probe over inter-layer hidden-state transitions, as a point of comparison for live-generation detection. Our findings suggest that the field's reported progress on hallucination detection is substantially explained by benchmark construction artifacts in widely used corpora, and that the majority of established baselines perform near chance under controlled conditions; the consistent exceptions are SAPLMA and DRIFT, both supervised probes on upper-layer hidden states.
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.