Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper investigates the correlation between various uncertainty estimation (UE) methods and hallucination in LLMs across intrinsic and extrinsic hallucination benchmarks. They evaluate information-theoretic, sampling-based, and reflexive uncertainty estimators on benchmarks like RAGTruth and HalluLens. The key finding is that the association between uncertainty and hallucination is inconsistent and often weak, varying significantly based on the type of hallucination and the specific LLM.
Uncertainty scores, often touted as a solution for detecting LLM hallucinations, are surprisingly unreliable and inconsistent in practice.
Large language models (LLMs) are prone to hallucinations, i.e., statements unsupported by the input or training data, hindering reliable deployment. In parallel, numerous uncertainty estimation (UE) methods have been proposed to quantify model confidence and are often implicitly treated as proxies for model failure. However, the relationship between uncertainty and hallucinations remains insufficiently characterized. We present a systematic empirical study of the association between uncertainty estimators and hallucinations in LLMs. Rather than assuming this association, we evaluate directly when and to what extent it holds. We consider a diverse set of uncertainty estimators, including information-theoretic, sampling-based, and reflexive estimators, and examine their behavior across hallucination settings. Our experiments cover both intrinsic hallucinations (violations of input faithfulness) and extrinsic hallucinations (unsupported claims relative to training data), using four complementary benchmarks, including RAGTruth and HalluLens. We find that the association is highly variable and often weak, depending on the hallucination type and the LLM under evaluation. These results challenge the use of uncertainty as a direct signal of hallucination and clarify when it provides actionable information.
