Quantifying Hallucinations in Language Language Models on Medical Textbooks

arXiv:2603.09986v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Hallucinations, the tendency for large language models to provide responses with factually incorrect and unsupported claims, is a serious problem within natural language processing for which we do not yet have an effective solution to mitigate against. Existing benchmarks for medical QA rarely evaluate this behavior against a fixed evidence source. We ask how often hallucinations occur on textbook-grounded QA and how responses to medical QA prompts vary across models. We conduct two experiments, the first experiment to determine the prevalence of hallucinations for a prominent open source large language model (LLaMA-70B-Instruct) in medical QA given closed-source zero-shot prompts, and the second experiment to determine the prevalence of hallucinations and clinician preference to model responses. We observed, in experiment one, with the passages provided, LLaMA-70B-Instruct hallucinated in 19.7\% of answers (95\% CI 18.6 to 20.7) even though 98.8\% of prompt responses received maximal plausibility, and observed in experiment two, across models, lower hallucination rates aligned with higher usefulness scores ($\rho=-0.71$, $p=0.058$). Clinicians produced high agreement (quadratic weighted $\kappa=0.92$) and ($\tau_b=0.06$ to $0.18$, $\kappa=0.57$ to $0.61$) for experiments 1 and 2 respectively. Our findings indicate that, across all scales and architectures tested, current large language models remain unfit for unsupervised clinical deployment, and that human expert oversight is both necessary and the dominant cost driver.

Abstract:Hallucinations, the tendency for large language models to provide responses with factually incorrect and unsupported claims, is a serious problem within natural language processing for which we do not yet have an effective solution to mitigate against. Existing benchmarks for medical QA rarely evaluate this behavior against a fixed evidence source. We ask how often hallucinations occur on textbook-grounded QA and how responses to medical QA prompts vary across models. We conduct two experiments, the first experiment to determine the prevalence of hallucinations for a prominent open source large language model (LLaMA-70B-Instruct) in medical QA given closed-source zero-shot prompts, and the second experiment to determine the prevalence of hallucinations and clinician preference to model responses. We observed, in experiment one, with the passages provided, LLaMA-70B-Instruct hallucinated in 19.7\% of answers (95\% CI 18.6 to 20.7) even though 98.8\% of prompt responses received maximal plausibility, and observed in experiment two, across models, lower hallucination rates aligned with higher usefulness scores ($\rho=-0.71$, $p=0.058$). Clinicians produced high agreement (quadratic weighted $\kappa=0.92$) and ($\tau_b=0.06$ to $0.18$, $\kappa=0.57$ to $0.61$) for experiments 1 and 2 respectively. Our findings indicate that, across all scales and architectures tested, current large language models remain unfit for unsupervised clinical deployment, and that human expert oversight is both necessary and the dominant cost driver.

Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2603.09986 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2603.09986v3 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.09986 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

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.

analiza aiqbench

Quantifying Hallucinations in Language Language Models on Medical Textbooks

Subiecte conexe