The Detectability Gap: Hidden Heterogeneity in Hallucination Detection Across Language Models

arXiv:2609.35860v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Sampling based consistency is widely used for hallucination detection, yet aggregate performance can conceal systematic differences in which errors are detectable. This work studies that heterogeneity across four language models and three factual question answering datasets. Partitioning hallucinations by answer agreement reveals high agreement (Ghost) and low agreement (Flickering) regimes with an apparent detectability gap of $0.35$ to $0.46$ AUC. Because the statistics used to define the regimes and measure this gap are strongly coupled ($|\rho|\approx0.94$ to $1.00$), the raw result is treated as a property of agreement based detection rather than independent evidence. After freezing regime assignments, lexical and semantic response dispersion preserve the asymmetry, with bootstrap $95\%$ intervals excluding zero in all $12$ model and dataset settings. A stricter test using individual diffusion trajectories and no cross seed information preserves the asymmetry across all three LLaDA datasets ($p<0.005$) and directionally across all three Dream datasets, with one reaching significance. The hard regime varies substantially in prevalence across models ($16\%$ to $77\%$), and matched prompts frequently change regimes between models. These findings show that aggregate detection metrics conceal persistent, model dependent heterogeneity in language model failures and motivate regime conditioned evaluation.

Abstract:Sampling based consistency is widely used for hallucination detection, yet aggregate performance can conceal systematic differences in which errors are detectable. This work studies that heterogeneity across four language models and three factual question answering datasets. Partitioning hallucinations by answer agreement reveals high agreement (Ghost) and low agreement (Flickering) regimes with an apparent detectability gap of $0.35$ to $0.46$ AUC. Because the statistics used to define the regimes and measure this gap are strongly coupled ($|\rho|\approx0.94$ to $1.00$), the raw result is treated as a property of agreement based detection rather than independent evidence. After freezing regime assignments, lexical and semantic response dispersion preserve the asymmetry, with bootstrap $95\%$ intervals excluding zero in all $12$ model and dataset settings. A stricter test using individual diffusion trajectories and no cross seed information preserves the asymmetry across all three LLaDA datasets ($p<0.005$) and directionally across all three Dream datasets, with one reaching significance. The hard regime varies substantially in prevalence across models ($16\%$ to $77\%$), and matched prompts frequently change regimes between models. These findings show that aggregate detection metrics conceal persistent, model dependent heterogeneity in language model failures and motivate regime conditioned evaluation.

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

arXiv:2609.35860 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2609.35860v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.35860 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

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

The Detectability Gap: Hidden Heterogeneity in Hallucination Detection Across Language Models

Subiecte conexe