Language Model Error Detection

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

13 papers in the last four weeks, with none the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 41

Oct 8, 2026cs.AI

Beyond Imitation: A Framework and Benchmark for LLM-Assisted Peer Review

The rapid growth of scientific publishing has strained peer review, particularly in machine learning, raising concerns about declining review quality and increasing reviewer workload. Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as automated review assistants, yet their evaluation has focused largely on imitating human-written reviews rather than supporting the core functions of peer review. Here, we introduce a verification-centric perspective on LLM-assisted peer review, emphasizing error detection as a critical and resource-intensive task. We present a scalable benchmark that evaluates review systems' ability to identify logical contradictions, constructed through synthetic insertion of errors into conference papers, yielding unambiguous evaluation targets and enabling systematic comparison. We further propose a Multi-Layered Review (MLR) framework that prioritizes detailed manuscript comprehension before review generation, aligning more closely with human reviewing practices while improving token efficiency. Across evaluations, our approach demonstrates strong alignment with human review scores, achieves high error detection performance, and provides complementary perspectives on reviewer focus. These improvements can be attributed to both the choice of the underlying LLM and the design of our system. At the same time, we corroborate persistent vulnerabilities to adversarial manipulation, underscoring the need for robustness in automated review systems. Our findings highlight the importance of rigorous, error-focused evaluation to guide responsible deployment of LLM-based tools in peer review and other critical scientific workflows.

Rachel S. Y. Teo, Yutaro Yamada, Shashank Kotyan +2

Sakana AI · National University of Singapore

Automated Peer Review LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection

Oct 5, 2026cs.AI

Language models can notice an impossible engineering problem yet still report it as solved

Language models draft engineering calculations, but answer accuracy does not show whether they reject an impossible problem. We tested 14 models on 30 pairs of mechanics problems, each with a valid version and one made impossible by changing a given value or assumption. Two independent solvers verified every answer key and showed that each flawed problem was physically impossible. We scored solving of valid problems separately from rejection of their flawed counterparts. Each reply required a "solved" or "cannot solve" status; rejection meant "cannot solve" or withholding an answer. The initial prompts did not warn that problems could be flawed. Across three recent models, 12 of 90 replies failed to reject a flawed problem. In 11 of these replies, the model stated the flaw, answered a corrected problem and still reported the original as "solved", according to artificial intelligence raters and numerical checks. We later retested four models from one provider, offering "flawed" instead of "cannot solve" and asking them to name and explain the defect. Three models showed statistically significant increases in rejection, but valid-problem solving fell in three. Evaluations therefore need to score both versions and distinguish flaw recognition from the reported status.

Shaoliang Yang, Jun Wang

Santa Clara University Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA

Numerical Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Error Detection LLM Reliability

Oct 3, 2026cs.CL

Understanding Errors in LLM-Based Question Answering over Imperfect Tables

Answering questions over imperfect tables requires handling errors that can affect the answer. We investigate two challenges for large language models (LLMs): whether error discovery depends on where errors appear in a table, and whether providing their locations is sufficient for accurate question answering (QA). Using human-reviewed instances from RADAR-T, we conduct controlled studies across three LLMs by varying row order and comparing original, error-marked, and repaired tables. First, reordering rows changes error discovery even when the table contents and gold answer remain unchanged. During direct inspection, LLMs are more likely to discover all rows containing relevant errors when these rows appear later in the table or are grouped more closely together. Second, providing verified error locations alone is insufficient for accurate QA: with code execution, accuracy on repaired tables exceeds that on error-marked tables by 39.0-59.1 percentage points across the three LLMs. As a practical application of these findings, we combine error discovery across shuffled table views with explicit guidance for verifying and handling the reported errors in a simple workflow, Geometry-Balanced Discovery and Intervention (GBDI). On RADAR-T, GBDI improves QA accuracy by 3.8-18.5 percentage points over a code-agent baseline across five LLMs (paired 95% confidence intervals exclude zero for four), at the cost of additional inference. These results highlight the importance of both reliable error discovery and effective error handling in QA over imperfect tables. Code is available at https://github.com/645-t/GBDI-ICLR-2027.

Baowen Zhang, Wei Fan, Ruman Wang +1

University of Wisconsin–Madison · University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand · Liaoning Provincial People’s Hospital +1

Table QA Language Model Error Detection Tabular Anomaly Detection LLM Reliability

Oct 1, 2026cs.CL

When Does a Second Model Help? Cross-Model Review in LLM Verification

Large language models now generate code, documentation, and analyses, and are increasingly used to review such output. We ask when a second review by a different model helps. Building on the author's earlier preprints, which varied context, repetition, and role structure within one model, we test model independence in a controlled experiment: 30 artifacts with 150 planted errors, 10 review conditions, and 900 review sessions with three reviewer models from two developers. In this experiment, (1) a top-tier cross-model reviewer is not significantly different in F1 from same-model review in a fresh session (CCR), which does not establish equivalence; (2) the two find partly different errors (Jaccard 41.2%); and (3) at two review calls, one CCR plus one cross-model review matches more planted errors than two CCR reviews (56.7% vs. 42.7%; Holm-adjusted p=.006), but not significantly more than two reviews by the top-tier cross-model reviewer, so model difference and reviewer capability are not separated. A lightweight cross-model reviewer scores no higher than same-model review. Withholding requirements from the reviewer raises F1 for the two lower tiers but not the top tier, in untested point estimates whose pattern depends on how failed sessions are scored. Before analysis we audited all session records, excluding one baseline run of uncertain provenance and 14 failed calls; results with all sessions are also reported. A partial check on public detector outputs from another benchmark neither replicates nor contradicts the main comparison. Records, artifacts, and scripts are available from the author on request.

Tae-Eun Song

Daejeon Jungang Cheonggua Co., Ltd.

LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Automated Code Review

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

Locating Answer-Correctness Signals in Frozen Large Language Models

Language models expose internal signals that predict whether an answer is correct, readable from a single forward pass of a frozen model without additional generations. Yet existing probes often commit to one signal family or layer and can be brittle under distribution shift; in retrieval-augmented settings, many specialized detectors instead target passage faithfulness, which can diverge from correctness when retrieved evidence is unhelpful or conflicting. We therefore ask where answer correctness is readable, which internal signal families carry it, and how they should be combined. We search over hidden states, token probabilities, residual-stream features, attention, and their fusion, treating the selected readouts as a predictive measurement rather than a mechanistic localization. We run this analysis separately in closed-book and with-context settings, since context can change which readouts are informative. A consistent anatomy emerges: correctness concentrates in the answer span, recovered from the answer tokens even under retrieval, and the families carry it complementarily, so fusing them helps most out of distribution, where a single signal is weakest. The protocol is effective across two backbones and gates a retrieval controller as one downstream use.

Yuansen Liu, Yixuan Tang, Anthony Kum Hoe Tung

School of Computing, National University of Singapore

LLM Answer Verification Language Model Error Detection Language Model Probing

Sep 29, 2026cs.CL

SemOPT: Fixing Semantic Errors in LLM-based Optimization Modeling via Reward-Guided Search

Operations research supports decision-making in domains such as energy, economics, and healthcare. Solving operations research problems typically begins with optimization modeling, which translates a natural-language problem description into executable solver code. LLMs offer a promising way to automate this process, but they remain prone to errors. In practice, these errors can be divided into two categories: syntactic errors refer to solver code that fails to run successfully or is judged infeasible by the solver; semantic errors refer to solver code that successfully returns an objective value but violates the intent of the original problem. Since semantic errors do not trigger runtime failures, they are difficult to detect and rectify. To address this problem, we introduce SemOPT, a semantic-guided framework for correcting LLM-based optimization models. SemOPT combines a semantic reward model that distinguishes faithful math models from plausible but incorrect ones with an adaptive correction system that applies hierarchical reward-guided search over the modeling space. Experiments on seven optimization modeling benchmarks show that SemOPT establishes a new state of the art and achieves an average 7.6% accuracy improvement over the strongest baseline on complex datasets.

Zetong Zhou, Wentao Zhang, Jingyuan Wang +3

School of Computer Science and Engineering, Beihang University, Beijing, China · MIIT Key Laboratory of Data and Decision Intelligence, Beihang University, Beijing, China · School of Data Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China +1

Language Model Error Detection Large Language Model-Guided Optimization Natural Language to Optimization Modeling

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

Spontaneous Context Restoration: How Language Models Recover from Corrupted Inputs

Language models sometimes produce correct outputs even when their inputs are corrupted by deletion, replacement, or misspelling. We study the internal processes accompanying this behavior, which we call context restoration, in controlled attention-only transformers and five pretrained LLMs (1B-32B parameters) across arithmetic, reading comprehension, and multiple-choice reasoning tasks. In the attention-only transformers, restoration emerges spontaneously despite training exclusively on clean sequences, without corruption training or an explicit denoising objective. We find that context restoration follows a two-phase process: early layers localize effects associated with repair at corrupted positions, while later layers accumulate these effects at uncorrupted positions through the residual stream and ultimately concentrate them at the output position. Repair outcome is predictable from hidden states: cosine alignment with the clean state is highly predictive in attention-only models, while linear probes recover additional information in pretrained LLMs. A linear probe using only the corrupted prompt's first-block hidden state predicts failure with mean ROC-AUC 0.78. This enables failure triage under matched or even partially shifted deployment conditions and may reduce unnecessary verification or computation. Failed examples also show substantially greater nonlinearity along corruption directions. Moderate-corruption finetuning increases corruption tolerance while simultaneously reducing displacement-normalized linearization error, associating improved robustness with a more nearly linear response to corruption.

Pranjal Garg, Jacob Beck

Independent Researcher

Language Model Error Detection Mechanistic Interpretability Language Model Robustness Representation Geometry in Language Models

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

On the Limits of Metacognitive Monitoring in LLMs

Reliable decisions depend on recognizing when an answer may be wrong. In biological cognition, metacognitive monitoring can dissociate from task performance, raising the question of how closely solving and judging are linked in language models. Here we study the confidence reports of four frontier models across 15 benchmarks. High task accuracy can coexist with weak error discrimination: a model solves 97% of competition mathematics problems while its answer-time confidence ranks correct answers above errors barely better than chance. Confidence separates correct answers from errors more effectively on questions solved by a separate reference model, while review brings limited improvement on reference-hard questions. Aggregate discrimination also rewards ranking correct answers on easy questions above errors on hard ones, which question-only forecasts already do well. Cross-evaluation helps most where the evaluator answered correctly, and errors shared by the two models usually retain high confidence. Hard questions and shared errors remain difficult targets for prompted self-review and peer oversight, even in models with strong problem-solving performance.

Dongqi Han, Yifan Yang, Dongsheng Li

Microsoft Research Asia

Language Model Error Detection Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Self-Assessment LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Metacognition in Language Models

Sep 27, 2026cs.CL

Quizzing the Translation: A Prover-Grounded Evaluation Metric for NL $\rightarrow$ FOL

A standard pipeline for symbolic reasoning over natural-language problems translates them into first-order logic and invokes a theorem prover. The translation step is the bottleneck: swap "every" for "some" and every inference that follows is corrupted. Yet today's metrics often score more broken translations higher than less broken ones, because BLEU, BERTScore, and Smatch++ reward surface overlap that the worst errors happen to preserve. We introduce SIV, which derives two kinds of probes from the target formula and uses a theorem prover to verify the candidate translation against each. Positive probes are statements the candidate must entail, which detect translations that drop content; contrastive probes are statements the candidate must not entail, which detect translations that assert more than the original. On a controlled pool of perturbed FOLIO translations, the severity of the error accounts for 80% of SIV's score variance, compared with at most 17% for any prior metric. Across six error classes on a disjoint pool, SIV scores the reference above the perturbed candidate in over 99% of pairs. Because each probe is labeled with what it tests, the failure pattern also supplies a labeled error trace, recovering the perturbation class at macro-F1 0.638, nearly double the score-only baseline. On 434 expert-audited real LLM translations, SIV attains the top AUC, uniquely detects and grades expert-labeled major errors, and abstains, rather than mis-scoring, on out-of-vocabulary translations.

Pu Suo, Ali Emami

Emory University

Language Model Error Detection Mathematical Reasoning Semantic Parsing

Sep 27, 2026cs.AI

The Error You See Is Not the Error You Made: Progression-aware Reasoning Origin for Reasoning Error Localization

Verifying multi-step LLM reasoning requires more than determining whether a trace is correct: a useful verifier should identify where the reasoning first goes wrong. However, existing holistic methods provide little positional evidence, while forward sequential verification often treats the first rejected step as the error source. Under error propagation, this assumption can fail, since an earlier mistake may remain locally plausible and become observable only through its downstream consequences. We therefore rethink reasoning verification as a progression-aware error-source localization problem: rather than asking only where a reasoning trace first appears inconsistent, we ask which earlier step best explains how that inconsistency emerges along the trajectory. Based on this view, we propose Progression-aware Reasoning Origin (PRO), a training-free framework for first-error localization. PRO jointly models incoming support from the preceding context and outgoing compatibility with subsequent reasoning, selectively refines regions where these signals disagree, and finally performs detector-conditioned source attribution with intervention-based evidence to distinguish the true error origin from its propagated manifestations. We further formalize the gap between forward rejection and structural exposure, showing why incoming-side evidence alone is insufficient for reliable localization under error propagation. Experiments across open-form, medical, and structured reasoning tasks demonstrate consistent improvements over strong verification baselines, supporting progression-aware source attribution as a more faithful formulation of reasoning verification.

Yiguo Wang, Ziyuan Yang, Yi Zou +3

Xiaopeng Honors College, Nanchang Hangkong University, China · School of Cyber Science and Engineering, Sichuan University, China · School of Software, Nanchang Hangkong University, China +1

Language Model Error Detection Reasoning Verification

Sep 21, 2026cs.AI

Pinocchio: Fast Uncertainty Estimates for Black-Box Language Models

In high-stakes decision-making applications of large language models (LLMs), practitioners require not only accurate LLMs but also uncertainty estimates for their predictions. Existing approaches to uncertainty estimation for LLMs require access to log-probabilities output by the model or require fine-tuning access. However, many industrial LLM products use closed-source API models, and many such API models like GPT do not return log-probabilities and may not allow fine-tuning. We introduce Pinocchio, an external calibrator that estimates the correctness of responses from black-box API models. Trained jointly on responses from seven LLMs, it achieves 0.862 AUROC predicting the correctness of held-out responses from those same models, and shows zero-shot transfer to thirteen unseen models across eight organizations. Our model needs only a single forward pass to generate an uncertainty estimate and requires no access to the target model's logits, weights, or internal states. A lightweight text only 0.8B checkpoint matches our largest model's AUROC. We release code for adding uncertainty estimation to existing repos in only two additional lines of code.

Kevin David Hayes, Arka Pal, Haosong Zhang +2

Department of Computer Science, University of Maryland · Ritual AI · Fudan University +1

Language Model Error Detection Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Calibration LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

Look Before You Leap: Factual Decoding with Internal Attribution Signals

Hallucination remains a critical challenge in large language models (LLMs), where early factual errors compound through autoregressive generation in a snowballing effect that neither post-hoc correction nor weight-level intervention can effectively preempt. We propose DescaPE (DEcoding Signal Control Against Path Error-snowballing), a decoding framework that leverages internal model signals to suppress hallucination-prone trajectories at inference time. Through sliding-window MLP ablation, we identify a factual-salient layer span within LLMs whose derived signal is selectively elevated for factual tokens and exhibits anomalous spikes at hallucination-prone steps. We train a lightweight probe to approximate this signal from a single forward pass and integrate it into candidate scoring to penalize high-risk continuations while rewarding factually grounded ones. Experiments across five factuality benchmarks on three LLMs demonstrate that DescaPE achieves factuality improvements over decoding-time baselines in multiple settings, while incurring only 1.10x latency overhead in our efficiency evaluation. Our code is available at https://github.com/hayeonggg/DESCAPE.

Hayeong Ryu, JungMin Yun, Byeonggeuk Lim +2

Department of Artificial Intelligence, Chung-Ang University · Graduate School of Advanced Imaging Sciences, Multimedia and Film, Chung-Ang University

Language Model Decoding Language Model Error Detection LLM Hallucination Mitigation

Sep 14, 2026cs.CL

When the Wrong Key Wins: Understanding and Detecting Hallucinations in LLMs

Large language models can hallucinate even when the knowledge required for a correct answer is already available. We study this failure through a latent-key view of inference, where answer selection depends on competition among associations acquired during pretraining. We show that model predictions can be highly sensitive to individual query keywords, that these influential keywords exhibit entity-specific binding, and that their effects are systematically shaped by pretraining frequency. Multiple bindings can also compete and exhibit higher-order interactions within the same query. Based on this mechanism, we introduce a two-stage keyword-perturbation method for hallucination detection. By removing influential keywords and measuring how the model reorganizes its prediction, the method distinguishes errors caused by misleading key associations from correct decisions supported by diagnostic evidence. Across multiple models and benchmarks, perturbation provides a strong and transferable detection signal, reaching

0.910

AUROC on probe-known ScientistQA. Finally, we extend the same probabilistic framework to four hallucination regimes: knowledge deficit, wrong knowledge, context distraction, and unstable inference. Their operational distributions across benchmarks provide diagnostic context for why different detector families succeed in different settings.

Xuhan Tong, Haoyue Bai, Dawei Zhou +2

University of Wisconsin–Madison

Language Model Error Detection Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection Language Model Probing

Sep 12, 2026cs.CL

Domain-Specific Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models

Large language models generate fluent text that can contain unfaithful claims -- a phenomenon known as hallucination. We present a multi-signal detection pipeline combining fine-tuned DeBERTa-v3 classification, Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout uncertainty quantification, and temperature-scaled calibration for response-level hallucination detection. Evaluated on the HaluEval benchmark, our pipeline achieves F1=0.915 and AUROC=0.977 on general-domain tasks, with per-task F1 scores of 0.97 (QA), 0.96 (Summarization), and 0.82 (Dialogue). MC Dropout inference further improves accuracy to 93.2%. A context ablation study confirms the model performs genuine entailment reasoning rather than exploiting surface patterns, with summarization F1 dropping 24% when knowledge context is removed. Learning curve analysis reveals that 25% of training data captures 77% of full-data performance. Beyond detection, we apply Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to a Qwen2.5-0.5B generator, reducing its hallucination rate from 85.5% to 37.7% (55.9% relative reduction) as measured by our detector. Cross-domain evaluation on the SciFact biomedical benchmark shows that general-domain training transfers poorly (F1=0.52), motivating domain-specific fine-tuning. PubMedBERT fine-tuned on SciFact achieves F1=0.63 and AUROC=0.81, demonstrating that domain-matched pre-training is the strongest adaptation strategy. Code and models are available at https://github.com/varunteja99/hallucination-detection-nlp

Varun Teja Chundru, Debasmita Biswas

Department of Computer Science Purdue University Fort Wayne

Language Model Error Detection LLM Hallucination Mitigation LLM Hallucination Detection

Sep 11, 2026cs.LG

Legible Failures: Detecting and Repairing In-Context Binding Errors

A wrong answer does not show whether the model lacked the needed information or held it and failed to use it. On an entity-obligation binding task, a language model can emit an incorrect prompt-supplied binding while a linear probe can recover the correct one from its frozen hidden state. We measure how often this occurs across 16 public checkpoints, each evaluated with three seeds. We fit a probe on a training fold, select its layer on a validation fold, and report results on a disjoint test fold. On the trials each model gets wrong, probe accuracy exceeds the strict present-obligation baseline, 1/K = 0.125, by +0.196 (95% CI [+0.101, +0.296], bootstrapped over models). A query-entity counterfactual rules out token presence and recency. A score built from the sign of probe-output disagreement improves failure detection over the model's own confidence by +0.079 AUROC (95% CI [+0.036, +0.126]). Raw probe confidence gives no measurable improvement over model confidence. Steering the residual stream toward the probe-decoded binding, with no gold label, raises accuracy on all eight models tested by a mean of +0.168 (95% CI [+0.066, +0.280]). Where recent studies report that probe-detected errors are resistant to interventions, we find that in-context binding is a setting in which probes are actionable.

Manas Venkata Sai Ravulapalli, Samrath Singh Chadha, Abhinav M. Hari

Efficient Computation Inc.

Language Model Error Detection LLM Reliability In-Context Learning Language Model Probing

Aug 6, 2026cs.LG

Reasoning Errors Have a Region and a Direction in the Residual-Stream Trajectory of LLMs

As language models are increasingly used for tasks that require verifiable reasoning, reliably distinguishing sound reasoning from flawed reasoning has become an important practical problem. Recent trajectory-based methods seek this signal in layerwise residual-stream displacements, which capture how representations change while attenuating some stable, token-specific information. However, displacement omits the state from which an update originates, whereas restoring the full state risks reintroducing shortcut-prone information. We identify this trade-off and propose a three-stream detector that combines motion with two restricted views of location. A coarse region reader based on vector quantization and a fine direction reader over normalized multi-layer states. This design restores enough state context to interpret the motion without returning to full-state probing. On reasoning benchmarks unseen during training, our method improves selection accuracy by up to 12% over the displacement-only state of the art and 21% over single-layer probing baselines. Although trained only on reasoning benchmarks, it also reads factual completion and fact verification, ahead of every detector we compare against, which places the signal on correctness rather than on a kind of reasoning. Ablations further show that motion, region, and direction provide complementary signals. These results suggest that reasoning validity is better read from state-conditioned motion than from either static states or decontextualized trajectories alone.

Hamed Damirchi, Ignacio Meza De la Jara, Damith Ranasinghe +2

Australian Institute for Machine Learning · Adelaide University · Naval Group Pacific +1

Language Model Error Detection LLM Interpretability LLM Reliability Representation Geometry in Language Models LLM Reasoning

Aug 4, 2026cs.CV

UHP Detection: LVLMs have their Unique Hallucination Pattern in the Consistency Space

Large vision--language models (LVLMs) demonstrate strong multimodal reasoning capabilities but remain prone to hallucination, where model predictions are not grounded in visual evidence. Existing black-box hallucination detection methods estimate uncertainty through a single consistency metric, implicitly assuming that model uncertainty can be adequately characterized by a single measure. However, hallucinations exhibit diverse manifestations of uncertainty across different behavioral probes, making a single measure insufficient to characterize their underlying behavior. We propose \emph{Unique Hallucination Pattern (UHP) Detection}, a fully black-box framework that models hallucination as a structured uncertainty pattern defined by two axes: perturbation modality (image vs.\ text) and logical polarity (a statement vs.\ its negation). Their intersection produces four complementary consistency groups that capture distinct manifestations of model uncertainty, from which both within-group and between-group features are extracted to train a lightweight classifier. Through comprehensive experiments on AMBER and PhD across three LVLMs, UHP Detection consistently outperforms prior black-box and white-box baselines, with improvements of up to

+18.72\%

AUC-ROC and

+20.07\%

AUC-PR over the strongest black-box methods. Extensive ablation studies demonstrate that each consistency group contributes complementary information and that their combination forms a structured hallucination pattern. Furthermore, cross-dataset evaluation shows that this learned pattern generalizes across benchmarks, indicating that hallucination behavior reflects a model-specific consistency pattern. \textbf{Code is publicly available at} https://github.com/amirezzati/uhpdet.

Amir Mohammad Ezzati, Kiyan Rezaee, Bardiya Kariminia +4

Sharif University of Technology · Michigan State University · Shahid Beheshti University +2

Hallucination Detection in VLMs Vision-Language Models Uncertainty Quantification Language Model Error Detection Audio-Language Model Hallucination Detection VLM Hallucination+1

Jul 27, 2026cs.CL

D-Score: A Spectral Hidden-State Signal for Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models

Large Language Models can produce fluent text that is false, unsupported by the available evidence, or inconsistent with information that appears to be internally represented by the model. We study hallucination detection from the geometry of hidden activations and introduce the D-Score, a simple spectral statistic computed from a single forward pass. For a fixed model, layer, and tolerance parameter, the D-Score counts how many singular directions of the hidden activation matrix have singular values that remain close to the leading one. We use this quantity as a hallucination score, classifying an input text as hallucinated when its D-Score is larger than a pre-defined quantity. The motivation is that, when a model processes a text that conflicts with information available in its own internal state, the hidden representation may encode both the asserted content and some form of counter-evidence, uncertainty, correction, or lack of support; this can make the hidden trajectory spread across additional singular directions. We formalize this intuition through a lightweight spectral argument and evaluate the resulting detector on FAVA-Annotation and RAGTruth. The experiments indicate that the D-Score is a strong hidden-state signal for hallucination detection, while requiring no external verifier, no retrieval step, and no multiple generations.

Bianca Raimondi, Davide Evangelista, Maurizio Gabbrielli +1

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Language Model Error Detection Hallucination in Language Models LLM Hallucination Detection Representation Geometry in Language Models

Jul 21, 2026cs.AI

The Knowing-Saying Gap: When Probes See Errors that Confidence Misses

Linear probes detect corrupted context in language models with near-perfect accuracy, yet this does not translate into reliable failure prediction. The result is a dissociation with direct implications for deployment monitoring. Across multi-hop arithmetic chains, probes that detect corruption turn out to be uninformative about final answer correctness; models forced into structured confidence formats collapse to two values with indistinguishable error rates; and probe persistence across hops fails to separate correct from incorrect outcomes, refuting our pre-registered "persistence beats peak" hypothesis. This pattern of knowing but not saying generalises across model families including reasoning models. As a real-time monitor, probe-based interventions are sharply model and error-type dependent: branch-and-pick is net-positive across models and uniquely non-breaking on Llama-3.1-8B (4 rescued, 0 broken), while reprompt and replace-prior break correct traces at roughly the rate they rescue wrong ones. Probe-based monitoring is a necessary complement to verbalised confidence, but no single intervention dominates, and the deployable answer is model-aware, error-type-aware routing.

Jyotin Goel, Ipshita Bandyopadhyay, Justin Shenk

Language Model Error Detection Confidence Estimation in Language Models Language Model Self-Assessment LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Causal Interventions in Language Models+1

Jun 20, 2026cs.CL

Pre-Generation Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models via Soft-Target Attention Probing

Detecting hallucination risk before generation enables abstention, retrieval augmentation, and routing decisions without incurring the cost of decoding. While prior work has shown that such risk can be estimated from a model's internal representations, existing approaches treat this as binary classification over a single decoded output. We instead formulate it as a risk-estimation problem. Under this formulation, we introduce soft-target supervision based on the empirical answer error rate over stochastically sampled outputs - an estimator we prove to be the unique unbiased minimum-variance estimator of the model's per-prompt error probability under its sampling distribution. We further adapt attention probing to the pre-generation setting, enabling the detector to selectively aggregate hallucination-relevant prompt representations. Across three question-answering benchmarks and five models, attention probing outperforms linear probing on short-answer tasks. Replacing binary labels with soft-target supervision further and consistently improves detection quality.

Amina Miftakhova, Alexey Zaytsev

Applied AI Institute

Language Model Error Detection LLM Hallucination Detection Language Model Probing

Jun 18, 2026cs.CL

Peeking Inside LLMs: Leveraging Internal Artifacts of LLMs for Enhancing Reliability in Legal Classification

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being adopted in the legal domain. However, despite their strong performance, LLMs are prone to generating incorrect or hallucinated outputs, raising serious concerns about their reliability in high-stakes domains such as law. Detecting the correctness of responses of LLM-based systems is therefore a critical challenge. In this work, we explore the potential of leveraging internal artifacts of LLM to detect the correctness of their predictions in legal-domain classification tasks. We develop approaches that utilize features derived from these internal artifacts to build downstream classifiers capable of identifying incorrect LLM outputs. We evaluate our approach on two representative legal classification tasks: bail decision prediction and statute violation prediction. Our experimental results demonstrate that LLMs' internal artifacts are reliable indicators for detecting incorrect predictions in legal classification tasks, and can be applied to enhance the reliability of LLM-based classification systems.

Sudipta Santra, Debtanu Datta, Saptarshi Ghosh

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, 721302, West Bengal, India

Legal NLP Language Model Error Detection LLM Reliability

Jun 8, 2026cs.LG

Measurement Under Selection: Decoy-Calibrated Failure Audits for Language Models

Knowing how often a language model fails does not explain where its errors concentrate. When auditors examine many explanations, the strongest observed pattern may arise by chance. We introduce Janus, a procedure for checking proposed error patterns before reporting them. Janus starts with a fixed list of yes/no properties of the examples being evaluated, such as whether the input is long. For each property, it compares the model's error rates on examples with that property and those without it. To see how large a difference can arise by chance, it repeats this calculation after shuffling the yes/no labels across examples without changing the group sizes. These shuffled properties are called decoys. A pattern is reported only if the size of its error difference meets a threshold set using decoys. On separate held-out examples, the same group must still have the higher error rate and the difference must meet a minimum, which was chosen in advance. In a controlled experiment, where the model must find a code in documents containing tables of staff, projects, and renewal codes, Janus confirms five related patterns of higher error rates on tasks requiring more lookups across tables. It also confirms a sixth pattern: lower error rates on examples with the needed information at the ends of the tables. In our samples from the MuSiQue and LongBench v2 public benchmarks, SliceLine finds groups with high error rates, while Janus reports no confirmed error patterns for the example properties we chose to test. For comparison, we use standard tests that shuffle errors and account for testing many candidates. With the same holdout check, they confirm two to six controlled patterns, depending on the test and threshold, and none on either benchmark. In simulations with no real error patterns, Janus reports false patterns more often than Benjamini-Hochberg, depending on the decoy count.

Vyzantinos Repantis, Ameya Gawde, Harshvardhan Singh

The Educational Approaches to Virtual Reality Technologies Lab, University of Ioannina, Greece · Meta Platforms

LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Selective Inference LLM Reliability Multiple Hypothesis Testing Language Model Auditing

Jun 4, 2026cs.CL

How Language Models Fail: Token-Level Signatures of Committed and Persistent Reasoning Failures

Failures in language model reasoning emerge through distinct processes that leave identifiable signatures in the reasoning trace. We characterize these failures using token-level uncertainty signals, finding they arise through two empirically distinguishable processes. The first is committed failure, in which a model locks onto an incorrect reasoning path early in its trace. A central diagnostic signature is the commitment point, beyond which considering additional tokens hurt rather than help failure detection. In the second, persistent uncertainty, uncertainty instead accumulates throughout, and the full trace is needed to best distinguish failing from successful completions. These signatures reproduce across 23 model-dataset configurations, with the framework's falsifiable predictions holding in 20 of 23 cases, well above chance across both failure modes. Finally, we demonstrate our failure mode framework has direct implications for self-consistency, identifying when uncertainty signals complement it and when it can be selectively skipped. These results offer a foundation for understanding when LLM reasoning failures become detectable and for adapting detection strategies accordingly.

Tanvi Thoria, Kiana Jafari, Marc R. Schlichting +1

Department of Computer Science, Stanford University · Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University

Language Model Error Detection LLM Reliability LLM Uncertainty Estimation

Jun 3, 2026cs.DC

Ekka: Automated Diagnosis of Silent Errors in LLM Inference

LLM serving frameworks are quickly evolving with a complex software stack and a vast number of optimizations. The rapid development process can introduce silent errors where output quality silently degrades without any explicit error signals. Diagnosing silent errors is notoriously difficult due to the substantial semantic gap between the high-level symptoms and the low-level root causes. We observe that diagnosis of silent errors can be effectively framed as a differential debugging problem by leveraging the existence of semantically correct reference implementations. We propose Ekka, an automated diagnosis system that identifies root causes by systematically aligning and comparing intermediate execution states between a target and a reference framework. We constructed a benchmark of real-world silent errors from popular serving frameworks, where Ekka shows 80% pass@1 diagnosis accuracy and 88% pass@5 diagnosis accuracy, outperforming state-of-the-art systems. Ekka also diagnoses 4 new silent errors from serving frameworks, all of which have been confirmed by the developers.

Yile Gu, Zhen Zhang, Shaowei Zhu +4

University of Washington · 2Amazon Web Services.

Software Engineering LLM Serving Language Model Error Detection Root Cause Analysis Differential Diagnosis Fault Diagnosis

Jun 1, 2026cs.CL

DECK: A Consistency x Confidence Taxonomy of LLM Hallucinations

Existing hallucination taxonomies classify LLM errors by what is wrong with the output -- memorised misconceptions, reasoning failures, fluent fabrications -- but cannot answer a different question: which uncertainty scorer would have caught this error? We propose a complementary taxonomy that classifies errors by their detectability signature, the signal a scorer family would read. The DECK taxonomy is a 2x2 partition along inter-sample consistency and token-level confidence into four regimes (Drift, Entrenched, Confabulation, Knotted) that yields a falsifiable blind-spot map: black-box consistency scorers have signal in D and C, white-box token-probability scorers in K and C, and only an LLM-as-a-Judge with independent pretraining can detect E. Across three models and four short-form QA datasets we test this map two ways: judge-involving scorer disagreements concentrate in each family's predicted blind-spot cells, and external labels (SelfAware unanswerable, HaluEval adversarial, PopQA entity popularity) land in the predicted cells, robustly to cross-fitted thresholds. We further identify a universal blind spot of output-level UQ: on knowledge-gap inputs where the generator emits confident, repeatable fabrications, every output-level family collapses by construction. A linear probe on Llama-3-8B's final-layer hidden states also falls to chance, with or without quantisation, though an intermediate layer retains weak signal.

Mohit Singh Chauhan

Language Model Error Detection LLM Hallucination Detection LLM Uncertainty Estimation

May 31, 2026cs.AI

TriLens: Per-Layer Logit-Lens Entropy for White-Box Hallucination Detection

When a language model hallucinates, the final answer is wrong, but the mistake is not necessarily invisible inside the model. Different internal pathways may remain uncertain, disagree in how quickly they sharpen, or commit to competing continuations before the output is produced. We introduce TriLens, a white-box detector that turns this intuition into a compact representation: at every layer, it reads the multi-head self-attention output, the feed-forward output, and the residual stream through the model's own logit lens, then records only the entropy of each readout. The resulting 3L-dimensional trajectory describes how certainty forms across depth and across modules, without storing high-dimensional hidden states or sampling multiple generations. This simple signal yields a strong detector across instruction-tuned LLMs and QA benchmarks, and our analyses show that the three module-wise entropy trajectories provide complementary evidence. TriLens suggests that hallucination detection can benefit from tracking how internal computation settles, not only what the final layer predicts.

Bohan Yang, Yijun Gong, Zhi Zhang +3

Binjiang Institute of Zhejiang University · Beijing Normal-Hong Kong Baptist University · Great Bay University +1

Language Model Error Detection LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection LLM Uncertainty Estimation

May 29, 2026cs.CL

BenHalluEval: A Multi-Task Hallucination Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models on Bengali

Despite Bengali being the sixth most spoken language in the world, no prior work has systematically evaluated hallucination in large language models (LLMs) for Bengali. We introduce BenHalluEval, a fine-grained hallucination evaluation framework for Bengali covering four tasks: Generative Question Answering (GQA), Bangla-English Code-Mixed QA, Summarization, and Reasoning. We construct 12,000 hallucinated candidates using GPT-5.4 across twelve task-specific hallucination types, drawn from three existing Bengali datasets, and evaluate seven LLMs spanning reasoning-oriented, multilingual, and Bengali-centric categories under a dual-track protocol that independently measures false-positive rate on ground-truth instances (Track A) and hallucination detection rate on hallucinated candidates (Track B). To jointly penalise both failure modes and prevent inflated scores from uniform response bias, we propose BenHalluScore, a dual-track calibration metric that ranges from 7.72% to 55.42% across models and tasks, revealing substantial variation in hallucination calibration. Chain-of-thought prompting, applied as a mitigation strategy, shifts response distributions without consistently improving hallucination discrimination. BenHalluEval establishes the first dedicated hallucination benchmark for Bengali and highlights the inadequacy of single-track and prompting-only evaluation approaches for low-resource language settings. The dataset and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/BanglaHalluEval-EB77.

Shefayat E Shams Adib, Ahmed Alfey Sani, Ekramul Alam Esham +3

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Islamic University of Technology · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of California

Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Language Model Generation Evaluation Hallucination Detection Hallucination in Language Models Language Model Calibration+1

May 27, 2026cs.LG

Learning the Error Patterns of Language Models

When generating outputs for domains with specific validity constraints (e.g., a program should compile), LLMs often fail in a small number of focused ways: for example, by using Python function names when generating TypeScript. We observe that these error patterns can be represented using a small number of constraints that can be learned in practice. We propose \emph{prefix filters}, which are per-domain-and-LLM symbolic functions, as objects to capture the error patterns, Palla as an algorithm to learn prefix filters efficiently in practice, and implement Palla. Prefix filters learned by Palla i) help us quantitatively analyze the error patterns of LLMs, and ii) can be used to constrain the outputs of a model via constrained sampling algorithms. For example, Palla boosts compile rates for Qwen2.5-1.5B on TypeScript generation, by over 60%, allowing Qwen2.5-1.5B to achieve similar performance to Llama3.1-8B unconstrained.

Jinwoo Kim, Taylor Berg-KirkPatrick, Loris D'Antoni

Constrained Decoding Language Model Error Detection LLM Code Generation

May 27, 2026cs.AI

Entropy Distribution as a Fingerprint for Hallucinations in Generative Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate factually incorrect outputs, commonly termed hallucinations, that undermine trust and limit deployment in high-stakes settings. Existing hallucination detection methods typically require multiple forward passes, or access to model internals. In this work, we provide theoretical background and empirical evidence that the distribution of token-level entropies, beyond the mean captured by perplexity or length-normalised entropy, serves as a fingerprint of hallucination, with distributional shape and tail behaviour carrying independent signal. We formalize hallucination detection as a statistical hypothesis test and propose the Calibrated Entropy Score (CES), a lightweight algorithm requiring only a single forward pass and black-box access to token logits. CES combines the mean signal with the maximum signal of the generated entropy through a calibrated reference CDF, producing scores that are directly comparable across models and tasks. We establish finite-sample calibration guarantees via a novel random-length Dvoretzky--Kiefer--Wolfowitz inequality, and also prove that CES detects hallucinations with probability converging to one exponentially fast in the generation length. Across eight QA benchmarks and ten generator models spanning open-source and API access models, CES achieves the highest detection performance among all single-pass black-box methods while providing formal error guarantees that existing heuristics lack. Remarkably, CES is statistically indistinguishable from multi-sample methods that require far greater computational cost, closing the gap between lightweight and expensive detection and making it suitable for real-time, large-scale deployment.

Mattia J. Villani, Pranav Deshpande, Akshay Seshadri +2

Global Technology Applied Research, JPMorganChase, New York, NY 10001, USA

Language Model Error Detection Language Model Generation Evaluation Hallucination Detection Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection+1

May 26, 2026cs.MA

Detection Without Correction: A Two-Parameter Decomposition of Multi-Stage LLM Pipelines

Multi-stage LLM pipelines that perform multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction, or retrieval-augmented verification exhibit puzzling aggregate behaviors: accuracy plateaus and reversals across rounds, non-replication of debate gains on contemporary frontier models, intrinsic self-correction degradation, and qualitative cross-provider divergence in debate dynamics. Downstream agent response can be operationalized as two coupled decisions: detection (whether to treat upstream content as authoritative) and conditional generation (what to produce if not). This decomposition yields four observable response regimes, of which detection-without-correction is the load-bearing failure mode. Across a nine-cell empirical grid spanning four model families, four benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH-500, GPQA-Diamond, AIME), and two methods (multi-agent debate, intrinsic self-correction), we find that the conditional miscorrection rate is consistently dominant (53-94% across cohorts) while detection rate varies contextually by more than an order of magnitude. The framework unifies the four phenomena above as signatures of a common mechanism and characterizes detection threshold as a stable model/protocol-level regularity that persists across methods at matched benchmark difficulty.

Prashanti Nilayam, Kiran Ramanna, Prashil Tumbade

Servicenow CA, USA

LLM Self-Correction LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Multi-Agent Debate LLM Agent Reliability

May 17, 2026cs.AI

CyberCorrect: A Cybernetic Framework for Closed-Loop Self-Correction in Large Language Models

Large language model (LLM) self-correction -- the ability to detect and fix errors in generated outputs -- remains largely ad hoc, relying on generic prompts such as "please reconsider your answer" without systematic error analysis or convergence guarantees. We propose CyberCorrect, a framework that formalizes LLM self-correction as a closed-loop control system grounded in cybernetic theory. The framework models the LLM generator as the plant and introduces a tri-modal Error Detector (combining self-consistency, verbalized confidence, and logic-chain verification) as the sensor. A type-directed Correction Controller generates targeted repair instructions based on diagnosed error categories, while a Convergence Judge determines iteration termination using stability criteria adapted from control theory. We further introduce three control-theoretic evaluation metrics -- convergence rate, overshoot rate, and oscillation rate -- that capture correction dynamics beyond final accuracy. Experiments on our constructed CyberCorrect-Bench (440 reasoning tasks with annotated error types and correction paths) show that CyberCorrect achieves 79.8% final accuracy, improving upon the best existing self-correction method by 6.2 percentage points, while reducing overshoot (erroneous over-correction) by 41% through its convergence control mechanism.

Yuning Wu, Yingmin Liu, Yang Shu

School of Software, Henan University, Kaifeng, China · 2Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

LLM Self-Correction LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Language Model-Based Control

May 16, 2026cs.CL

PARALLAX: Separating Genuine Hallucination Detection from Benchmark Construction Artifacts

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 \textsc{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 \textbf{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.

Khizar Hussain, Murat Kantarcioglu

Virginia Tech

LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection Language Model Probing

May 13, 2026cs.CL

Where Does Reasoning Break? Step-Level Hallucination Detection via Hidden-State Transport Geometry

Large language models hallucinate during multi-step reasoning, but most existing detectors operate at the trace level: they assign one confidence score to a full output, fail to localize the first error, and often require multiple sampled completions. We frame hallucination instead as a property of the hidden-state trajectory produced during a single forward pass. Correct reasoning moves through a stable manifold of locally coherent transitions; a first error appears as a localized excursion in transport cost away from this manifold. We operationalize this view with a label-conditioned teacher that builds a trace-specific contrastive PCA lens and scores each step with seven geometric transition features, and a deployable BiLSTM student distilled from the teacher that operates on raw hidden states without inference-time labels. We prove that contrastive PCA is the optimal projection for a transport-separation objective between first error and correct states, and that single-pass first error localization holds whenever the first error creates a positive transport margin over preceding correct transitions. On ProcessBench, PRM800K, HaluEval, and TruthfulQA, both models outperform entropy-based, probing-based, and attention-based baselines in-domain; the teacher transfers stably across language models and datasets, while the student collapses under shift, a gap our distillation theory predicts. These results recast step-level hallucination detection as a problem of trajectory dynamics and identify the central obstacle to deployment: preserving the contrastive transport margin under distribution shift.

Tyler Alvarez, Ali Baheri

Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY, USA.

Language Model Error Detection Hallucination Detection Hallucination in Language Models LLM Hallucination Detection

May 7, 2026cs.LG

Delulu: A Verified Multi-Lingual Benchmark for Code Hallucination Detection in Fill-in-the-Middle Tasks

Large Language Models for code generation frequently produce hallucinations in Fill-in-the-Middle (FIM) tasks -- plausible but incorrect completions such as invented API methods, invalid parameters, undefined variables, or non-existent imports. These failures pass superficial review yet introduce runtime errors. We introduce Delulu, a verified multi-lingual benchmark of 1,951 FIM samples across 7 languages and 4 hallucination types. Samples are curated through an adversarial pipeline: a frontier LLM generates plausible hallucinations, four diverse judge models evaluate them, embedding-based clustering mines progressively harder examples, self-contained Docker containers verify that golden completions compile while hallucinated variants produce the expected runtime error, and a final human-expert review removes any remaining biased or trivially decidable samples. We evaluate 11 open-weight FIM models from five families spanning 0.5B-32B parameters: a six-point Qwen2.5-Coder scaling slate, plus a cross-family slate (CodeLlama, DeepSeek-Coder-V2, StarCoder2). The strongest model reaches only 84.5% pass@1, no family exceeds 0.77 Edit Similarity, and every family produces hallucination-aligned completions on a non-trivial share of samples, confirming that the difficulty exposed by Delulu is task-intrinsic rather than family-specific. We release the benchmark, containers, and evaluation framework at https://github.com/microsoft/delulu.

Mahdi Erfanian, Nelson Daniel Troncoso, Aashna Garg +4

University of Illinois Chicago · Microsoft

Language Model Error Detection Language Model Generation Evaluation Hallucination in Language Models Code Generation LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection+2

May 6, 2026cs.CL

Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Models via Internal Attention Divergence Signals

We propose a lightweight and single-pass uncertainty quantification method for detecting hallucinations in Large Language Models. The method uses attention matrices to estimate uncertainty without requiring repeated sampling or external models. Specifically, we measure the Kullback-Leibler divergence between each attention head's distribution and a uniform reference distribution, and use these features in a logistic regression probe. Across multiple datasets, task types, and model families, attention divergence is highly predictive of answer correctness and performs competitively with existing uncertainty estimation methods. We find that this signal is concentrated in middle layers and on factual tokens such as named entities and numbers, suggesting that attention dynamics provides an efficient and interpretable white-box signal of model uncertainty.

Gijs van Dijk

Utrecht University

Language Model Error Detection Confidence Estimation in Language Models LLM Interpretability Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection+1

May 4, 2026cs.CL

A multilingual hallucination benchmark: MultiWikiQHalluA

Most hallucination evaluations focus on English, leaving it unclear whether findings transfer to lower-resource languages. We investigate faithfulness hallucinations, defined as model-generated content that is fluent and plausible but diverges from the provided input or is internally inconsistent. Leveraging the multilingual MultiWikiQA dataset, we utilize the LettuceDetect framework to create synthetic hallucination datasets for 306 languages, from which we train token-level hallucination classifiers for 30 European languages. In this work, we present evaluations of model hallucinations on a selection of languages: English, Danish, German, and Icelandic. Using these classifiers, we evaluate the hallucination rates for Qwen3-0.6B, Qwen3-14B, Gemma-3-12B-IT, cogito-v1-preview-qwen-32B, and cogito-v1-preview-llama-70B. Our classifiers reveal notably higher hallucination rates for Qwen3-0.6B (up to 60% of answers containing at least one hallucination, peaking in Icelandic) and generally lower rates for larger models, with cogito-v1-preview-qwen-32B and cogito-v1-preview-llama-70B performing best on most languages. Hallucination rates are consistently higher for lower-resource languages, particularly Icelandic.

Freja Thoresen, Dan Saattrup Smart

Alexandra Institute · Rued Langgaards Vej 7, 2300 København

Multilingual Language Models Multilingual Language Model Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Language Model Generation Evaluation Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability+1

May 3, 2026cs.CL

Prompt Framing Distorts Count-Based Evaluation of LLM Error Detection: Evidence from Numeric Anchoring

Count-based F1 is widely used as a proxy for LLM error-detection quality, but this paper shows that it can rise dramatically without a corresponding improvement in span localization, a gap termed F1 Inflation. The paper introduces ErrorBench, a controlled stress-test protocol for prompt-induced count distortion. ErrorBench evaluates six contemporary LLMs under five prompt conditions over 4,290 responses from 143 CoNLL-2014 passages. Under CoNLL-2014 M2-style scoring, anchored prompts produce up to 0.79 points of F1 Inflation, and up to 0.96 under strict matching. A 100-passage replication using the official ERRANT 3.0.0 pipeline and multi-reference scoring reproduces the pattern: averaged over six models, the Blind-to-Anchored prompt shift raises Count-F1 by +0.21 while raising multi-reference ERRANT F0.5 by only +0.04. The study finds larger count responses in highly instruction-compliant GPT/Claude systems and smaller responses in the Gemini family under this stress-test protocol. The findings suggest that LLM proofreading and document-review evaluations should avoid pre-populated error counts and should report span-aware metrics alongside count-based metrics.

Dekun Yang

Zhejiang University

Prompt Sensitivity LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection

Apr 27, 2026cs.LG

Architecture Determines Observability of Transformers

Autoregressive transformers make confident errors that output-confidence monitoring cannot catch. Activation monitors catch them only when training leaves a decision-quality signal beyond what the output already exposes. This signal is an architectural property of the trained model, fixed upstream of any monitor. Controlling for output confidence removes 60.3% of the raw activation-probe signal on average across 14 models. Raw probe signal is mostly output confidence, and output-side readouts cannot recover the residual. What remains depends on architecture and training. In Pythia's controlled training, both matched-width configurations form the signal early. One preserves it through convergence while another erases it as perplexity continues to improve. Capability and observability are not inherently in tension. Across independently trained families this pattern persists, even as the collapse point shifts. Where the signal survives, monitoring catches what confidence cannot. On downstream QA, a WikiText-trained probe with no task-specific tuning catches about one in eight confident errors that output-confidence monitoring misses, at a 20% flag rate. These results establish signal engineering as a training-time design axis alongside loss and capability. Architecture sets the conditions for observability, and training determines what remains readable.

Thomas Carmichael

Independent Researcher

Transformer Interpretability Language Model Error Detection Language Model Auditing

Apr 24, 2026cs.LG

How LLMs Detect and Correct Their Own Errors: The Role of Internal Confidence Signals

Large language models can detect their own errors and sometimes correct them without external feedback, but the underlying mechanisms remain unknown. We investigate this through the lens of second-order models of confidence from decision neuroscience. In a first-order system, confidence derives from the generation signal itself and is therefore maximal for the chosen response, precluding error detection. Second-order models posit a partially independent evaluative signal that can disagree with the committed response, providing the basis for error detection. Kumaran et al. (2026) showed that LLMs cache a confidence representation at a token immediately following the answer (i.e. post-answer newline: PANL) -- that causally drives verbal confidence and dissociates from log-probabilities. Here we test whether this PANL signal extends beyond confidence to support error detection and self-correction. Here we test whether this signal supports error detection and self-correction, deriving predictions from the second-order framework. Using a verify-then-correct paradigm, we show that: (i) verbal confidence predicts error detection far beyond token log-probabilities, ruling out a first-order account; (ii) PANL activations predict error detection beyond verbal confidence itself; and (iii) PANL predicts which errors the model can correct -- where all behavioural signals fail. Causal interventions confirm that PANL signals rescue error detection behavior when answer information is corrupted. All findings replicate across models (Gemma 3 27B and Qwen 2.5 7B) and tasks (TriviaQA and MNLI). These results reveal that LLMs naturally implement a second-order confidence architecture whose internal evaluative signal encodes not only whether an answer is likely wrong but whether the model has the knowledge to fix it.

Dharshan Kumaran, Viorica Patraucean, Simon Osindero +2

Google DeepMind · Princeton University

LLM Self-Correction Language Model Error Detection Confidence Estimation in Language Models LLM Interpretability LLM Uncertainty Estimation Metacognition in Language Models

Apr 20, 2026cs.LG

Latent Phase-Shift Rollback: Inference-Time Error Correction via Residual Stream Monitoring and KV-Cache Steering

Large language models frequently commit unrecoverable reasoning errors mid-generation: once a wrong step is taken, subsequent tokens compound the mistake rather than correct it. We introduce

\textbf{Latent Phase-Shift Rollback}

(LPSR): at each generation step, we monitor the residual stream at a critical layer lcrit, detect abrupt directional reversals (phase shifts) via a cosine-similarity

+

entropy dual gate, and respond by rolling back the KV-cache and injecting a pre-computed steering vector. No fine-tuning, gradient computation, or additional forward passes are required. LPSR achieves

\mathbf{44.0\%}

on MATH-500 with an 8B model versus

28.8\%

for standard AR (

+15.2

pp; McNemar

χ^2 = 66.96

,

p < 10^{-15}

). Critically, prompted self-correction, the most natural inference-time baseline, scores only

19.8\%

, below standard AR; LPSR exceeds it by

+24.2

pp (

χ^2 = 89.4

,

p \approx 0

). LPSR also outperforms Best-of-16 (

+7.8

pp) at

5.4\times

lower token cost, and surpasses a standard 70B model (

35.2\%

) with

8.75\times

fewer parameters at

{\sim}3\times

the token budget. A 32-layer sweep reveals a novel \textbf{detection-correction dissociation}: error-detection AUC peaks at layer~~14 ( $0.718$ ) but task accuracy peaks at layer~~16 (

44.0\%

vs.\

29.2\%

), demonstrating that optimal monitoring depth differs for detection and correction.

Manan Gupta, Dhruv Kumar

1BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus, India

LLM Self-Correction Language Model Error Detection LLM Inference Causal Interventions in Language Models

Feb 2, 2026cs.CL

HALT: Hallucination Assessment via Log-probs as Time series

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.

Ahmad Shapiro, Karan Taneja, Ashok Goel

Georgia Institute of Technology · Microsoft

Language Model Error Detection Hallucination Detection Hallucination in Language Models LLM Reliability LLM Hallucination Detection