Language Model Error Detection

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Language model error detection studies how to recognize mistakes such as hallucinated facts, faulty reasoning, incorrect code or tool calls, and errors in specialized domains. Methods use output signals such as token probabilities, entropy, and agreement across samples or models, as well as internal activations, probes, retrieval, execution tests, and formal verifiers. Benchmarks span question answering, mathematical reasoning, coding, clinical and legal tasks, and multilingual settings, but results can be distorted by benchmark artifacts or fail to transfer across models and domains. A central challenge is that detecting an error does not ensure that a system can correct it: confident mistakes may be hard to observe, while interventions can introduce new errors.

Latest papers

91 papers21 papers in the last four weeks, up 110% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Sep 10, 2026

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

Sep 5, 2026

Solving versus Verifying: Catching Contradictions in Tax Reasoning Systems

Large language models now compute correct tax liabilities on over 90% of well-formed cases in statutory benchmarks, which makes them candidates for the tax-advisory and compliance systems that consume such an answer directly. Real legal inputs, however, are frequently defective: required facts are missing, or stated facts contradict one another. Accuracy on clean benchmarks says nothing about how a model behaves then, and a system that computes straight through a defective input returns a confident number with no sign that anything is wrong. This raises two questions: does a model asked to solve a case abstain when the input is defective, and when it does not, can the same model catch the defect when asked instead to verify the input? We study six recent models on SARA-derived tax cases under missing-fact and contradictory-fact perturbations. The strongest models abstain when a fact is missing but compute through injected contradictions, returning the clean-input answer 63-76% of the time with no signal of the conflict; asked instead to verify the same input, they flag most of those contradictions. We wire that verification call into a simple contradiction gate: one extra call that abstains when the model reports a conflict. Across all six models it recovers most of the missed contradiction abstention at a clean-accuracy cost of at most about 5 percentage points, with no training and no external tooling. High accuracy on well-formed inputs is therefore an incomplete measure of reliability, and the detection the solver misses is cheaply recoverable with a single self-check.

Albert Sadowski, Jarosław A. Chudziak

Faculty of Electronics and Information Technology Warsaw University of Technology Warsaw, Poland

LLM Reliability Language Model Error Detection Reasoning Consistency in Language Models

Aug 29, 2026

MMPCBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Large Language Models on Proactive Critique of Flawed Inputs

As Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evolve into sophisticated interactive assistants, their reliability depends not only on following instructions but also on validating them. We define Proactive Critique as the model's autonomous ability to identify, analyze and fix faulty user inputs without extra prompts. However, evaluations mainly test models under ideal circumstances or simple refusal behaviors, largely ignoring active error processing. To fill this gap, we propose MMPCBench, a comprehensive framework for evaluating MLLMs' proactive critique competence. It features a fine-grained taxonomy of 4 primary error types spanning 12 subcategories, ranging from cross-modal contradictions to missing visual premises. We adopt a hierarchical evaluation protocol to measure models' error detection, diagnosis and resolution performance, and apply alignment-aware metrics to assess the coherence between internal reasoning and final responses. Tests on 14 mainstream MLLMs show obvious weaknesses in proactive critique, especially in dealing with subtle visual anomalies. Notably, we identify a pervasive "consistency gap": reasoning models can often correctly identify and analyze errors during internal reasoning yet suppress these valid insights in final outputs to prioritize response compliance. The code and data is available at https://github.com/ALIENS32/MMPCBench.

Jinzhe Li, Gengxu Li, Jinnan Li +2

School of Artificial Intelligence, Jilin University · International Center for Future Science, Jilin University · Engineering Research Center of Knowledge-Driven Human-Machine Intelligence, MOE, China

Language Model Error Detection Multimodal Large Language Models Multimodal Model Evaluation

Aug 27, 2026

The Calls are Coming from Inside the Model: Investigating Probe-based Detection of Tool-Calling Errors in LLMs

The hidden states of large language models (LLMs) are known to capture rich information relating to model knowledge and behavior that can be hard to extract from examination of input and output alone. As LLM-based systems increasingly interface with the external world, one area of concern is detecting incorrect or improper use of tools. Motivated by this, we study the effectiveness of using linear probes to detect incorrect tool-calls, measuring probe efficacy across 18 tool-calling LLMs evaluated on the Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard. Overall, we find that probing is an effective means to catch a range of different tool-calling errors, including errors arising from using an argument that has the wrong value but the correct type, which might not be recorded by standard logging frameworks. Important factors in success include model size, probing layer, and model post-training type. We also show that probes are capable of generalizing to novel types of errors, which is critical in real world deployments.

Eric Yeats, Brendan Kennedy, Loc Truong +5

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory · National Security Agency

Language Model Error Detection LLM Tool Use LLM Evaluation Language Model Probing

Aug 27, 2026

Prediction of Prediction (PoP): Inter-Layer Activation Fusion for Single-Pass Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models

Autoregressive large language models (LLMs) routinely generate factually incorrect outputs with high decoding confidence, limiting their deployment in high-stakes workflows. Existing output-stage uncertainty metrics can fail when models are overconfident on false assertions, while multi-sample verification pipelines introduce substantial memory and latency overhead. This work evaluates whether internal hidden-state transition dynamics during generation can signal factual errors without auxiliary decoding calls. We introduce Prediction of Prediction (PoP), a mechanism that captures layer-transition uncertainty by fusing intermediate hidden representations across depth during a single forward pass. Evaluated on the TruthfulQA benchmark using autoregressive transformer backbones, PoP achieves an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 75.5% for factual-correctness classification. The mechanism operates within the base forward pass, adding less than 1.2% runtime latency and requiring zero additional generation passes. The numerical results are reported from the author-verified experimental implementation and are bounded by the evaluation scope described below.

Himal Badu

Language Model Error Detection LLM Hallucination Detection Uncertainty Quantification Confidence Estimation in Language Models

Aug 27, 2026

Not Just Reason, Not Just Scan: Reinforcement Learning for Proactive Scientific Error Verification over Academic Paper

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly capable scientific assistants, yet they remain far from fully autonomous research. This transition requires models to actively inspect academic papers, build global evidence views, and make traceable judgments without prespecified issues or evidence. However, existing work provides limited task paradigms or training studies for such issue- and evidence-absent verification. We study this challenge through scientific error detection, where models must determine whether errors exist and justify them with evidence-based reasoning. To fill this gap, we present VERA-RL, a reinforcement-learning formulation for scientific error detection over academic papers. Following a Reason--Verify--Scan progression, we construct VERA-13K, a 12,900-sample dataset organized into 4,300 matched chains, covering 6 scientific-error categories across the research workflow and broad natural-science domains. We further introduce fine-grained rewards for reasoning completeness, evidence alignment, and error precision. Training Qwen3-VL-8B with VERA-RL substantially improves verifiable reasoning, approaching flagship MLLMs such as Gemini 3 Pro and Qwen3-VL-235B-A22B on Scan.

Rongjin Li, Yuanxin Liu, Hao Zhou +3

Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications · State Key Laboratory for Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · WeChat AI, Tencent Inc., China

Language Model Error Detection Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards

Aug 26, 2026

FaithSieve: Fine-Grained Evaluation of Math Proofs with Faithful Formal Evidence

Large language models can now generate complex, multi-step mathematical proofs, but reliably determining their correctness and localizing early logical errors remains a critical challenge. Existing evaluation approaches largely depend on model-based natural-language judgments, which often overlook local reasoning gaps. While formal theorem provers like Lean offer a path to rigorous verification, using them to evaluate informal text requires solving locality and semantic mismatches: a prover might bypass a local flaw by proving an overly broad target, or validate an auto-formalized statement that drifts from the original mathematical intent. To address this, we introduce FaithSieve, a Lean-assisted framework for fine-grained evaluation of natural-language mathematical proofs. FaithSieve decomposes coarse proof steps into local reasoning units, extracts typed proof obligations, and verifies them through a formal evaluation agent. Formal validation is gated by semantic alignment scoring, so Lean evidence is incorporated only when the formal statement faithfully preserves the context, objects, and logical form of the original claim. We construct two expert-verified datasets, ProofLoc-Olympiad and ProofLoc-University, to benchmark first-error localization. On the 350-problem Olympiad dataset, FaithSieve using a GPT-5.4 backbone achieves 81.43% exact first-error accuracy, outperforming the direct-judging baseline of 72.29%. Furthermore, on the 200-problem ProofLoc-University benchmark spanning six advanced domains, FaithSieve reaches 84.5% exact accuracy, compared to 75.0% for the direct judge. Our work demonstrates that decomposing proofs into fine-grained units and grounding them with faithful formal evidence significantly improves reliable evaluation of natural-language reasoning.

Ziyu Wang, Qiming Dai, Yishan Wu +1

Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies Peking University · School of Mathematical Sciences Peking University · Theory Lab, 2012 Labs Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. +1

LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection LLM Mathematical Reasoning

Aug 26, 2026

From Passive Response to Proactive Correction: Enhancing LLM Robustness Against Input Fact Perturbations

Large language models (LLMs) frequently produce confident yet factually incorrect responses when user inputs contain misleading premises, a phenomenon we attribute to fact perturbations in the input. Existing approaches to hallucination mitigation typically assume reliable user inputs, overlooking how such factual errors can actively mislead model reasoning. To address this vulnerability, we propose DEDUCE, a three-stage framework that transforms LLMs from passive responders into proactive error correctors. DEDUCE operates in three stages: (1) detect errors through fine-grained fact extraction and verification; (2) devise correction strategies via multi perspective deliberation; and (3) correct misconceptions while delivering reliable answers. We also present MisFactQA, a dataset containing factual errors of varying degrees, and propose new metrics for evaluating model robustness. Experiments on TruthfulQA, FalseQA, and our MisFactQA benchmark demonstrate that DEDUCE significantly improves both accuracy and error correction capability. Consistent gains across Qwen, LLaMA, and Gemma families confirm its effectiveness and scalability.

Ping Wang, Xiangguo Sun, Bingbing Xu +2

Renmin University of China · Southeast University · Zhejiang University

Language Model Robustness LLM Hallucination Mitigation LLM Self-Correction Language Model Error Detection

Aug 24, 2026

Confidently Wrong, Silently So: Auditing Undetectable Failures of a Deployed On-Device Language Model

Aligning deployed language models requires knowing when their outputs can be trusted, yet on-device models now ship to hundreds of millions of devices with no server-side moderation, and the configuration developers can actually deploy is rarely audited independently. We present a reproducible reliability audit of the developer-accessible on-device foundation model, framed as an oversight question: can a user or a resource-constrained developer tell when the model is wrong? Red-teaming it on calibration, confident confabulation on false-premise questions, and over-refusal of benign prompts, we find a task-asymmetric miscalibration: its guardrails fail in opposite directions across tasks (confabulating on 69% of false premises while refusing 18% of entirely benign inputs), atop a self-reported confidence that is saturated and non-discriminative (AUROC 0.47; ECE 70, worst among comparable small models). Crucially, confident-correct and confident-wrong outputs are surface-indistinguishable: a classifier over 15 user-visible features separates them at AUROC only 0.55 (equivalence-confirmed), leaving no signal for oversight at inference time. No cheap single-generation signal flags these failures (

\le

0.68 AUROC), whereas a black-box consistency wrapper requiring no model access recovers reliability (confident confabulation 75%

\to

3%; selective accuracy 43%

\to

83%) at a tunable cost. We contribute a model-agnostic audit protocol, a surface-indistinguishability test, and released code and frozen evaluation items as reusable infrastructure for auditing deployed models.

Shashwat Pandey, Satwik Pandey, Suresh Raghu

University of California, Santa Cruz · Independent Researcher

LLM Auditing LLM Reliability Language Model Error Detection Language Model Calibration On-Device Language Model Inference Black-Box Model Auditing

Aug 17, 2026

Toward Better Assessment of LLMs' Performance in Clinical Error Detection

Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart. Aggregate discriminative metrics (e.g., balanced accuracy or F1) do not exploit this structure. We show that this omission is consequential. In particular, evaluating 15 diverse LLMs on 4 standardized clinical error-detection test sets across 3 languages, we find that 13 of 15 models fall below the level of random pairwise discrimination, even while achieving F1 scores that standard practice would read as moderate. We also observe that the underlying bias patterns differ across languages: the same model can default to "no error" on one language and over-flag errors on another. To diagnose where discrimination breaks down, we further introduce a procedure to score the evidence models cite in their outputs. We find that while models consistently locate error-relevant content, they fail to produce the corresponding correct verdict on the clean counterpart. Finally, we show that F1 and pairwise accuracy are driven in opposite directions by the same underlying bias, so that ranking models by F1 may systematically promote the weakest discriminators. For safety-critical clinical NLP applications, we advocate for supplementing aggregate metrics with paired evaluations in benchmark reporting. Code and analysis scripts are available at https://github.com/healthylaife/paired-clinical-eval.

Yifan Zhang, Rahmatollah Beheshti

University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

Clinical Language Model Evaluation LLM Evaluation Language Model Error Detection Language Model Bias Evaluation Multilingual Language Model Evaluation

Aug 17, 2026

Prior Audit-Repair Context Shifts LLM Verifier Thresholds Toward Leniency

Automated checking pipelines increasingly place one language model as the checker and another (or the same one) as the fixer. We ask whether that wiring changes what the checker reports. Measuring false alarms on human-verified-correct ProcessBench traces with the present task held byte-identical, we find that a completed audit -> repair episode already in the model's context lowers false alarms in 15 of 15 model x wording combinations, by 2.8 to 11.5 percentage points against a length-matched non-audit control, a 9 to 25% reduction relative to that control. The direction contradicts what the accumulated-message literature predicts: an episode whose audit reported an error lowers false alarms further still, at all five wordings on the model where that manipulation lands cleanly, though a negativity asymmetry predicts more flagging. Decomposing the episode finds repair content and audit verdict complementary: different components carry the effect on different model families. Signal-detection analysis locates the change in the threshold rather than in discrimination -- the criterion moves in 15 of 15 combinations and survives correction in 13 while d' survives in none, though the d' test is half as sensitive by construction -- and a hand audit of 50 false alarms finds 82% simply wrong, so at this operating point the shift need not be harmful. With reasoning enabled the effect keeps its relative size on both models tested, and the threshold reading holds there too.

Parsa Mazaheri, Kasra Mazaheri

University of California, Santa Cruz · Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Language Model Error Detection Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge LLM Evaluation Language Model Auditing

Aug 15, 2026

ACTS-SQL: Agentic and Critic-Oriented Tree-Structured SQL Correctness with Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) have been increasingly adopted in Text-to-SQL systems, yet SQL errors remain a major obstacle in real-world Text-to-SQL inference pipelines. Existing SQL correction approaches either rely on large-scale, high-quality training data with substantial overhead, or adopt single-path agentic workflows that are brittle to early mistakes and prone to error propagation. To develop a practical SQL correctness system for industrial scenarios, we present a training-free framework that formulates SQL correction as a plan-guided, tree-structured debugging process. By maintaining multiple correction strategies and enabling backtracking, the framework mitigates error accumulation during iterative refinement. We further integrate execution-based verification and clause-level diagnostic tools to support strategy pruning and precise error localization. We evaluate the system on the BIRD-Critic benchmark and observe consistent accuracy gains over strong LLM backbones and representative agent-based baselines, achieving a 9.42% improvement over the previous state-of-the-art method. The framework is also deployed in the Torch Log Service (TLS) of Volcano Engine to support an online Text-to-TLS API. In production, it improves execution accuracy from 36.77% to 53.61% on real user queries with a representative strong LLM backbone (GPT-5). These results demonstrate the effectiveness and stability of our approach in real-world deployments.

Xinmei Huang, Jie Song, Peng Li +10

Renmin University of China · ByteDance Inc.

Text-to-SQL LLM Self-Correction Language Model Error Detection

Aug 11, 2026

No Universal Signal Predicts Sample-Level LLM Regression under Version Updates

Frontier LLMs are updated frequently and typically outperform their predecessors in aggregate. But aggregate gains say little about individual samples: an update can still cause sample-level regression, where a response correct under the old model becomes incorrect under the new one. This paper studies how to predict such regressions from signals available at inference time. We compare single-model signals (confidence, logit margin, attention entropy) against cross-version signals (output KL divergence, likelihood drift, token-level KL, representation drift) under a unified added-value test that isolates each signal's gain over a confidence baseline. Across six benchmarks in three task families (multiple-choice question answering, or MCQ; math reasoning; code generation) and six model update pairs, we find that (1) signal effectiveness is task-dependent: confidence is strongest on MCQ and simpler math, while likelihood/KL signals give the most frequent gains on harder math and code; (2) no signal is universally best across model updates either; and (3) some cross-version signals stay informative even when confidence fails, including without labels, which supports a proof-of-concept selective fallback that routes high-risk samples back to the old model. Practitioners can use these task-level patterns to choose which regression signal to trust for a given update. Code is available at https://github.com/jiashengsally/llm-regression-signals.

Jia Sheng, Yiwei Lu

University of Ottawa · Vector Institute

Language Model Error Detection LLM Reliability Selective Prediction Confidence Estimation in Language Models

Aug 6, 2026

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, 2026

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 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. 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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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

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

May 27, 2026

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 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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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 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.

Khizar Hussain, Murat Kantarcioglu

Virginia Tech

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