PapersSelected73°

Hallucination Detection in Black-Box LLMs

From Tokens to Semantics: Leveraging Complementary Signals for Hallucination Detection in Black-Box LLMs

Why we picked it

The methods help detect hallucinations in high-stakes applications without access to model internals, crucial for financial and public sector AI deployments.

Researchers evaluated seven benchmarks using four language models to detect hallucinations in black-box LLMs. The study compared five public benchmarks and two constructed benchmarks across different models and datasets. Stacked method performed best in nearly half of cases, while TopK and CoCoA showed competitive performance without supervised training labels.

Original · arXiv cs.AI

From Tokens to Semantics: Leveraging Complementary Signals for Hallucination Detection in Black-Box LLMs

When LLMs support public-facing or high-stakes workflows, missed fabrications can harm users and institutions, while false alarms consume limited human-review capacity. When no trusted context or reference document is available, we study two signals accessible through black-box model APIs: semantic entropy, which measures disagreement among sampled response meanings, and uncertainty derived from token log-probabilities. Their failure modes can be complementary: semantic entropy becomes uninformative when responses form one semantic cluster, while token uncertainty can miss consistently confident errors. We extend token-based uncertainty detection by aggregating token-level signals across sampled responses through our TopK method, evaluate the hybrid CoCoA method, which combines target-response uncertainty with semantic dissimilarity, and propose and study two supervised methods: Gated, which routes single-cluster cases to an aggregated-token-feature classifier, and Stacked, which learns jointly from semantic uncertainty and broader token features. We evaluate seven benchmarks, including five public benchmarks (four text datasets and multimodal handwritten-cheque extraction) and two constructed benchmarks (Financial Summaries and Long-Text QA), using four language models. In our evaluation across models and datasets, Stacked gave the best performance in nearly half of the cases, while TopK and CoCoA remain competitive without supervised training labels, although their thresholds require careful calibration. No method is universally strongest. We therefore evaluate performance at false-positive-rate budgets from 1% to 15%, assess their sensitivity to generation and calibration choices, and examine variation across dataset characteristics.