Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for information access, content production, and agent-based task execution, but their outputs remain vulnerable to subtle, high-risk hallucinations. To systematically evaluate and advance post-generation hallucination detection, we introduce HaluCheck, a large-scale, bilingual benchmark comprising over 42k instances spanning both factual hallucinations in text and faithfulness hallucinations in agent trajectories. HaluCheck features fine-grained, multi-level annotations for detection, localization, and correction, covering different tasks and perturbation degrees. Experiments on fourteen LLMs reveal that, while models show basic sample-level detection ability, they struggle with fine-grained localization, correction, and agent hallucination detection. Further analysis demonstrates that thinking, web search, and supervised fine-tuning each offer partial improvements, but none fully solve the problem. HaluCheck thus provides a solid basis for benchmarking and diagnosing LLM reliability across text and agent scenarios.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Representative hallucination risks in real-world LLM applications.
Figure 2: Overview of HaluCheck . We construct a bilingual, multi-level benchmark covering factuality hallucinations in text and faithfulness hallucinations in agent trajectories. By injecting controllable perturbations into Wikipedia/QA passages and real agent interactions, HaluCheck supports hallucination detection, span localization and correction, and root-turn tracing in agent trajectories.
Dataset
Split
Lang.
Total
Obvious
Moderate
Subtle
Composition
Full
EN
18,024
2,976
7,205
7,843
QA: 10,630; Wiki: 7,394
HaluReal
Full
CH
8,922
2,294
3,433
3,195
QA: 5,597; Wiki: 3,325
Lite
CH/EN
1,000 / 1,000
Balanced
–
HaluFake
–
CH/EN
500 / 500
–
–
–
Fabricated entities
Full
EN
6,743
2,206
2,286
2,251
Plan: 2,500; Perception: 2,305; Tool-use: 1,938
HaluAgent
Full
CH
8,291
2,898
2,647
2,746
Plan: 2,810; Perception: 2,691; Tool-use: 2,790
Table 1: Statistics of HaluCheck . The full sets contain balanced pairs of factual and hallucinated samples, while lite sets are used for evaluation. Perturbation-degree and composition statistics cover only hallucinated samples.
Figure 3: Hallucination rates across different entities.
Benchmark
Size
Lang.
Main focus
Data source
Evaluation protocol
Agent
TruthfulQA ( Lin et al., 2022 )
817 questions
EN
Truthfulness in QA
Misconception questions
Truthfulness and informativeness
–
HotPotQA ( Yang et al., 2018 )
113K QA pairs
EN
Multi-hop QA
Wiki QA with supporting facts
Answer/supporting-fact EM/F1
–
HaluEval ( Li et al., 2023b )
35K samples
EN
QA, dialogue, and summarization hallucination
Human-annotated LLM samples
Binary hallucination recognition
–
RAGTruth ( Niu et al., 2024 )
∼ 18K responses
EN
RAG hallucination
Natural RAG responses
Case- and word-level labels
–
HALoGEN ( Ravichander et al., 2025 )
10,923 prompts; ∼ 150K gen.
EN
Generation hallucination measurement
LLM responses across 9 domains
Atomic-unit verification
–
AgentHallu ( Liu et al., 2026 )
693 trajectories
EN
Agent hallucination attribution
Annotated agent trajectories
Binary label, root step, explanation
Yes
Table 2: Comparison between HaluCheck and representative benchmarks.
Model
CH
EN
HaluReal
HaluFake
HaluAgent
HaluReal
HaluFake
HaluAgent
Acc
UR
SpanF1
CR
UR
Recall
Acc
UR
RTAcc
Acc
UR
SpanF1
CR
UR
Recall
Acc
UR
RTAcc
Gemini3.1-Pro
84.35
9.40
70.07
82.27
44.60
75.70
64.55
2.20
54.93
84.87
16.63
72.95
86.00
93.20
53.40
72.28
1.35
76.16
Gemini3-Flash
77.62
0.25
59.80
72.60
1.20
96.20
50.60
0.00
54.02
81.53
0.85
60.12
72.93
12.20
93.90
72.12
0.05
72.76
GPT5.4
63.08
16.85
39.32
56.42
60.00
67.80
50.45
0.00
57.09
71.33
15.75
42.88
63.83
92.00
54.00
72.36
0.65
73.31
GPT5-Mini
63.35
43.40
43.55
57.43
7.40
94.10
50.90
0.30
58.40
65.28
55.55
42.61
57.16
6.60
96.70
70.73
0.85
70.24
Table 3: Main results on HaluCheck . All values are percentages. UR is short for UncertainRate, CR is short for CorrectionRate, and RTAcc is short for RootTurnAccuracy. The best result for each metric is highlighted in bold .
Component
Case 1
Case 2
Case 3
Input Snippet
“… Samsung TV Plus … due to its integration with the webOS operating system.”
“The 2014 crime drama film starring Tom Hardy and James Gandolfini … was directed by Michaël R. Roskam.”
“He is currently Professor … at McGill University, and Recurrent Visiting professor … at the Central European University in Prague, Hungary.”
GroundTruth
Hallu : Tizen → webOS
Clean : no hallucination
Hallu : Queen’s University → McGill University; Budapest, Hungary → Prague, Hungary
Key CoT Content
“ webOS is actually used by LG , not Samsung. Samsung uses Tizen OS for their smart TVs.”
“ James Gandolfini died in 2013 , but the film was released in 2014 . However, the film was shot before his death and released afterward, so he could still appear in it .”
“ Kymlicka is associated with Queen’s University , not McGill. Also, Central European University is in Budapest , Hungary, not ‘Prague, Hungary’.”
Figure 4: Effect of thinking mode (Mean ± std. across five Qwen3 Models).
Figure 5: Effect of web search (Mean ± std. across five Qwen3 Models).
Figure 6: Effect of LoRA Fine-tuning.
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Language
Hallucinated
Clean
CH
16.74
16.67
EN
12.14
11.05
Appendix
Table 5: Qwen3-8B-Base perplexity comparison between hallucinated and clean texts.
Metric
Rule
LLM
r
ρ
Span-P
42.9
34.9
0.965
0.915
Span-R
48.6
41.5
0.975
0.964
Span-F1
44.4
36.8
0.967
0.948
CorrRate
62.6
47.1
0.645
0.635
Appendix
Table 8: Correlation between rule-based span matching and LLM-judge evaluation on HaluReal .
Metric
r
ρ
Qwen3.5
GLM4.7
Precision
0.9948
0.9895
0.3520
0.3089
Recall
0.9704
0.9862
0.4238
0.3523
F1
0.9892
0.9886
0.3737
0.3208
Correction Acc.
0.9787
0.9780
0.4740
0.4311
Appendix
Table 9: Robustness of span-level evaluation across Qwen3.5 and GLM4.7 judges.
Figure 7: Average model performance across perturbation degrees on HaluReal/Text and HaluAgent. Error bars denote one standard deviation across models.
Figure 8: Average HaluAgent performance across perturbation categories. Error bars denote one standard deviation across models.
Item
Value
Framework / optimizer
ms-swift ( swift sft ) + DeepSpeed ZeRO-2 / AdamW
Tuner
LoRA: rank 16, alpha 32, dropout 0.05
LoRA modules
all-linear; bias none
Precision
bf16; gradient checkpointing
Per-device batch
train 2 / eval 2
Gradient accumulation
4
Appendix
Table 10: Hyperparameters for LoRA-SFT experiments.
Dataset Pair
Metric
Pearson
Spearman
HaluText -CH
Accuracy
0.8722∗∗∗
0.8273∗∗∗
Precision
0.8376∗∗∗
0.8889∗∗∗
Recall
0.9069∗∗∗
0.8304∗∗∗
F1
0.9177∗∗∗
0.9077∗∗∗
Refusal Rate
0.9536∗∗∗
0.9063∗∗∗
HaluText -EN
Accuracy
0.9499∗∗∗
0.9253∗∗∗
Appendix
Table 11: Model-level correlations between HaluCheck and natural-hallucination test sets. ∗ , ∗∗ , and ∗∗∗ denote significance at p<0.05 , p<0.01 , and p<0.001 , respectively.
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.
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.