aiqbench analysis
This paper tests whether linear probes on an LLM's internal activations can flag confident hallucinations in numerical financial QA, where all eight resampled answers agree but are still wrong 15-23% of the time on FinQA. Probes reach 0.68-0.77 AUROC against 0.55-0.63 for output-level baselines like log-probabilities and self-assessment, across three 8B-9B open models. The results are limited to two benchmarks and open-weight models, but they suggest activation-based triage could help route high-stakes answers to human review.
Confidently Wrong: Detecting Hallucinations in Financial Question Answering from LLM Internal States
arXiv:2607.11414v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) in financial applications fail most consequentially when they are confidently wrong. Hedged, uncertain answers invite scrutiny, whereas confident errors silently degrade downstream decisions without warning. We ask how reliably such confidently wrong answers, or confident hallucinations, can be detected from a model's internal activations, and whether those activations carry information beyond its output-level confidence signals. We train linear probes on the residual stream and evaluate them on two established numerical question-answering (QA) benchmarks built from real filings, FinQA and TAT-QA. Behavioral confidence is measured as the agreement among eight resampled answers to the same question, and probe effectiveness is compared against baselines, such as token log-probabilities and the model's own True/False self-assessment of its answer. Our findings show that among confident answers, those for which all eight resamples agree, 15-23% are wrong on FinQA. There the probes have a significant advantage over output-level baselines in detecting hallucinations, holding 0.68-0.77 AUROC while the best baselines fall to 0.55-0.63, across Qwen3-8B, Llama-3.1-8B, and Gemma-2-9B. Our results suggest that probing can be a cost-effective triage mechanism for routing LLM answers to human review and quality control procedures in high-stakes financial applications. Code and data are available at https://github.com/richardzhewang/confidently-wrong.
Abstract:Large language models (LLMs) in financial applications fail most consequentially when they are confidently wrong. Hedged, uncertain answers invite scrutiny, whereas confident errors silently degrade downstream decisions without warning. We ask how reliably such confidently wrong answers, or confident hallucinations, can be detected from a model's internal activations, and whether those activations carry information beyond its output-level confidence signals. We train linear probes on the residual stream and evaluate them on two established numerical question-answering (QA) benchmarks built from real filings, FinQA and TAT-QA. Behavioral confidence is measured as the agreement among eight resampled answers to the same question, and probe effectiveness is compared against baselines, such as token log-probabilities and the model's own True/False self-assessment of its answer. Our findings show that among confident answers, those for which all eight resamples agree, 15-23% are wrong on FinQA. There the probes have a significant advantage over output-level baselines in detecting hallucinations, holding 0.68-0.77 AUROC while the best baselines fall to 0.55-0.63, across Qwen3-8B, Llama-3.1-8B, and Gemma-2-9B. Our results suggest that probing can be a cost-effective triage mechanism for routing LLM answers to human review and quality control procedures in high-stakes financial applications. Code and data are available at this https URL.
Accepted at the 7th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance (ICAIF '26), Milan, Italy, November 14-17, 2026. 8 pages, 2 figures, 5 tables
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2607.11414 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2607.11414v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.11414 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
https://doi.org/10.1145/3858063.3858685 Focus to learn more DOI(s) linking to related resources
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 328 words
Related coverage

Building trust in AI agents: A production-ready evaluation framework with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Oct 16, 2026

Underwriting Superintelligence: Backing Agents you can Sue — Rune Kvist, AIUC
Latent Space · Sep 16, 2026

What are AI Hallucinations?
Databricks · Aug 13, 2026

Building an AI-powered contract intelligence platform with Amazon Quick and Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · Sep 29, 2026