SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models
Open accessAbstract
Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-3 are capable of generating highly fluent responses to a wide variety of user prompts. However, LLMs are known to hallucinate facts and make non-factual statements which can undermine trust in their output. Existing fact-checking approaches either require access to the output probability distribution (which may not be available for systems such as ChatGPT) or external databases that are interfaced via separate, often complex, modules. In this work, we propose "SelfCheckGPT", a simple sampling-based approach that can be used to fact-check the responses of black-box models in a zero-resource fashion, i.e. without an external database. SelfCheckGPT leverages the simple idea that if an LLM has knowledge of a given concept, sampled responses are likely to be similar and contain consistent facts. However, for hallucinated facts, stochastically sampled responses are likely to diverge and contradict one another. We investigate this approach by using GPT-3 to generate passages about individuals from the WikiBio dataset, and manually annotate the factuality of the generated passages. We demonstrate that SelfCheckGPT can: i) detect non-factual and factual sentences; and ii) rank passages in terms of factuality. We compare our approach to several baselines and show that our approach has considerably higher AUC-PR scores in sentence-level hallucination detection and higher correlation scores in passage-level factuality assessment compared to grey-box methods.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
SelfCheckGPT is a dataset designed to evaluate the effectiveness of model editing methods in mitigating hallucinations in LLMs.
“SelfCheckGPT (Manakul et al., 2023) is a dataset designed to evaluate the effectiveness of model editing methods in mitigating hallucinations in LLMs.”
From Knowledge Decoupling via Orthogonal Projection for Lifelong Editing of Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Manakul et al., 2023
The Introduction and Section 5 identify SelfCheckGPT as a sampling-based, black-box hallucination detection method, not a dataset. The Conclusions distinguish the method from a separately released annotated dataset for GPT-3 hallucination detection; the cited passages do not describe evaluating model-editing methods. (LLM, conf=0.91)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe concept of calibration was introduced by Dawid and has been extensively studied in statistics, machine learning, and specifically for language models.
“As discussed in the introduction, the concept of calibration was introduced by Dawid [10] and has been extensively studied in statistics and machine learning and even specifically for LMs [7,17,38] and other related fields of deep learning and generative AI [21,28].”
From Calibrated Language Models Must Hallucinate (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
The Introduction and §2.2 discuss uncertainty metrics for generated language, and §8 describes the paper's hallucination-detection method for large language models. This supports citing the paper as related work in generative AI, but our copy does not show it studying calibration or address the claim about calibration's history and breadth of study. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMany studies focus on hallucination with respect to a specific source document given to a language model, such as in translation or summarization.
“Interestingly, many studies focus on hallucination with respect to a specific source document that is given to an LM, such as in translation [35] or summarization [21].”
From Calibrated Language Models Must Hallucinate (2024) · cites this paper as [21]
Section 2.1 says hallucination has been studied in summarization, supporting that example of the broader research area. But SelfCheckGPT does not study hallucination relative to a source document given to the model: Section 6 describes generating Wikipedia-style passages from a concept prompt, and the Introduction describes its focus as general LLM responses. The paper therefore does not itself exemplify the source-document-focused studies suggested by the citation placement. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredManakul et al. (2023) reports that Self-check without retrieval achieves performance close to that with retrieval.
“This is in contrast to Manakul et al. (2023) that reports that Self-check without retrieval achieves performance that is close to that with retrieval, likely because the data in Manakul et al. (2023) contains more frequent entities.”
From FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Manakul et al. (2023)
Section 7.3 (page not provided) reports that SelfCheckGPT with BERTScore or QA, using self-samples rather than a reference passage, achieved comparable or better performance. The claim overgeneralizes this result: the same section says NLI and Prompt benefited considerably from retrieved information. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredOther metrics such as token-level F1 score, sentence or passage-level AUC, and similarity to ground-truth can account for recall as well as precision but require human responses or judgements that serve as a ground-truth.
“Other metrics such as token-level F 1 score (Rajpurkar et al., 2016), sentence or passage-level AUC (Manakul et al., 2023), and similarity to ground-truth (Wieting et al., 2022) can account for recall as well as precision but require human responses or judgements that serve as a ground-truth.”
From Long-form factuality in large language models (2024) · cites this paper as Manakul et al., 2023
Table 2 reports sentence-level AUC-PR, a precision–recall measure, and §6 describes the human-annotated labels used as ground truth. But Table 2 measures passage-level performance with Pearson and Spearman correlations, not AUC; the passage-level AUC part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Large language models hallucinate factual content even when surface fluency is maintained.
“Large language models hallucinate factual content even when surface fluency is maintained, a failure mode characterized across model families, training regimes, and deployment settings in recent surveys [14, 29, 19] and in zero-resource detection work such as SelfCheckGPT [17].”
From Source or It Didn't Happen: A Multi-Agent Framework for Citation Hallucination Detection (2026) · cites this paper as [17]
Hallucinations are likely to appear in diverged and conflicting responses of large language models.
“According to recent work (Manakul et al., 2023), hallucinations are likely to appear in diverged and conflicting responses of LLMs.”
From HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models (2023) · cites this paper as Manakul et al., 2023
CoVe outperforms existing hallucination mitigation baselines (SelfCheckGPT NLI/LLM and ChatProtect) on longform generation.
“Our results in Table 3 show that COVE outperforms all these baselines.”
From Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models (2024) · cites this paper as Manakul et al., 2023
The contrast with Manakul et al. (2023) is likely because the data in Manakul et al. (2023) contains more frequent entities.
“This is in contrast to Manakul et al. (2023) that reports that Self-check without retrieval achieves performance that is close to that with retrieval, likely because the data in Manakul et al. (2023) contains more frequent entities.”
From FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Manakul et al. (2023)
Self-check LM outperforms no-context LM by 4-11% in F1MICRO.
“Self-check LM outperforms no-context LM by 4-11%, which confirms findings from Manakul et al. (2023).”
From FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation (2023) · cites this paper as Manakul et al. (2023)
Section 7.1 and the additional results report SelfCheckGPT performance using AUC-PR, not F1MICRO. The prompt-method and ablation passages describe checking sentences against sampled context, but our copy does not report a comparison with a “no-context LM” or a 4–11% F1MICRO improvement. Searched for those terms and the claimed comparison. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. 2023. The internal state of an llm knows when its lying. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734. · arXiv
- Iz Beltagy, Matthew E. Peters, and Arman Cohan. 2020. Longformer: The long-document transformer. · DOI · Paper page
- Sidney Black, Stella Biderman, Eric Hallahan, Quentin Anthony, Leo Gao, Laurence Golding, Horace He, Connor Leahy, Kyle McDonell, Jason Phang, Michael Pieler, Usvsn Sai Prashanth, Shivanshu Puro- hit, Laria Reynolds, Jonathan Tow, Ben Wang, and Samuel Weinbach. 2022. GPT-NeoX-20B: An open- source autoregressive language model. In Proceed- ings of BigScience Episode #5 -Workshop on Chal- lenges & Perspectives in Creating Large Language Models, pages 95-136, virtual+Dublin. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Tom Brown, Benjamin Mann, Nick Ryder, Melanie Subbiah, Jared D Kaplan, Prafulla Dhariwal, Arvind Neelakantan, Pranav Shyam, Girish Sastry, Amanda Askell, et al. 2020. Language models are few-shot learners. Advances in neural information processing systems, 33:1877-1901.
- Aakanksha Chowdhery, Sharan Narang, Jacob Devlin, Maarten Bosma, Gaurav Mishra, Adam Roberts, Paul Barham, Hyung Won Chung, Charles Sutton, Sebastian Gehrmann, et al. 2022. Palm: Scaling language modeling with pathways. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.02311. · arXiv
- Jinlan Fu, See-Kiong Ng, Zhengbao Jiang, and Pengfei Liu. 2023. Gptscore: Evaluate as you desire. · DOI · Paper page
- Zhijiang Guo, Michael Schlichtkrull, and Andreas Vla- chos. 2022. A survey on automated fact-checking. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 10:178-206. · DOI · Paper page
- Yichong Huang, Xiachong Feng, Xiaocheng Feng, and Bing Qin. 2021. The factual inconsistency problem in abstractive text summarization: A survey. · DOI · Paper page
- Ganesh Jawahar, Benoît Sagot, and Djamé Seddah. 2019. What does BERT learn about the structure of language? In Proceedings of the 57th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 3651-3657, Florence, Italy. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Ziwei Ji, Nayeon Lee, Rita Frieske, Tiezheng Yu, Dan Su, Yan Xu, Etsuko Ishii, Ye Jin Bang, Andrea Madotto, and Pascale Fung. 2023. Survey of halluci- nation in natural language generation. ACM Comput. Surv., 55(12). · DOI · Paper page
- Saurav Kadavath, Tom Conerly, Amanda Askell, Tom Henighan, Dawn Drain, Ethan Perez, Nicholas Schiefer, Zac Hatfield Dodds, Nova DasSarma, Eli Tran-Johnson, et al. 2022. Language models (mostly) know what they know. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221. · arXiv
- Wojciech Kryscinski, Bryan McCann, Caiming Xiong, and Richard Socher. 2020. Evaluating the factual consistency of abstractive text summarization. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pages 9332-9346, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Lorenz Kuhn, Yarin Gal, and Sebastian Farquhar. 2023. Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for un- certainty estimation in natural language generation. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learn- ing Representations.
- Guokun Lai, Qizhe Xie, Hanxiao Liu, Yiming Yang, and Eduard Hovy. 2017. RACE: Large-scale ReAd- ing comprehension dataset from examinations. In Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 785- 794, Copenhagen, Denmark. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Rémi Lebret, David Grangier, and Michael Auli. 2016. Generating text from structured data with application to the biography domain. CoRR, abs/1603.07771. · arXiv
- Tianyu Liu, Yizhe Zhang, Chris Brockett, Yi Mao, Zhifang Sui, Weizhu Chen, and Bill Dolan. 2022. A token-level reference-free hallucination detection benchmark for free-form text generation. In Proceed- ings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Pa- pers), pages 6723-6737, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Yinhan Liu, Myle Ott, Naman Goyal, Jingfei Du, Man- dar Joshi, Danqi Chen, Omer Levy, Mike Lewis, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Veselin Stoyanov. 2019. Roberta: A robustly optimized bert pretraining ap- proach. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.11692. · arXiv
- Adian Liusie, Vatsal Raina, and Mark Gales. 2023. "world knowledge" in multiple choice reading com- prehension. In Proceedings of the Sixth Fact Ex- traction and VERification Workshop (FEVER), pages 49-57, Dubrovnik, Croatia. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics.
- Zheheng Luo, Qianqian Xie, and Sophia Ananiadou. 2023. Chatgpt as a factual inconsistency evaluator for abstractive text summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.15621. · arXiv
- Andrey Malinin and Mark Gales. 2021. Uncertainty estimation in autoregressive structured prediction. In International Conference on Learning Representa- tions.
- Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark JF Gales. 2023. MQAG: Multiple-choice question answering and generation for assessing information consistency in summarization. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.12307. · arXiv
- Joshua Maynez, Shashi Narayan, Bernd Bohnet, and Ryan McDonald. 2020. On faithfulness and factu- ality in abstractive summarization. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 1906-1919, On- line. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Sewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Pang Wei Koh, Mohit Iyyer, Luke Zettlemoyer, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2023. Factscore: Fine-grained atomic evaluation of factual precision in long form text generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14251. · arXiv
- Colin Raffel, Noam Shazeer, Adam Roberts, Katherine Lee, Sharan Narang, Michael Matena, Yanqi Zhou, Wei Li, and Peter J Liu. 2020. Exploring the limits of transfer learning with a unified text-to-text trans- former. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 21(1):5485-5551.
- Vatsal Raina and Mark Gales. 2022. Answer uncertainty and unanswerability in multiple-choice machine read- ing comprehension. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2022, pages 1020-1034, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Compu- tational Linguistics. · DOI
- Pranav Rajpurkar, Jian Zhang, Konstantin Lopyrev, and Percy Liang. 2016. SQuAD: 100,000+ questions for machine comprehension of text. In Proceedings of the 2016 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natu- ral Language Processing, pages 2383-2392, Austin, Texas. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021. Retrieval augmentation reduces hallucination in conversation. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3784-3803, Punta Cana, Do- minican Republic. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Oana Cocarascu, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. The Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER) shared task. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER).
- Hugo Touvron, Thibaut Lavril, Gautier Izacard, Xavier Martinet, Marie-Anne Lachaux, Timothée Lacroix, Baptiste Rozière, Naman Goyal, Eric Hambro, Faisal Azhar, et al. 2023. Llama: Open and effi- cient foundation language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.13971. · arXiv
- Anthony J Viera, Joanne M Garrett, et al. 2005. Under- standing interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam med, 37(5):360-363.
- Xuezhi Wang, Jason Wei, Dale Schuurmans, Quoc V Le, Ed H. Chi, Sharan Narang, Aakanksha Chowdhery, and Denny Zhou. 2023. Self-consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in language models. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations.
- Adina Williams, Nikita Nangia, and Samuel Bowman. 2018. A broad-coverage challenge corpus for sen- tence understanding through inference. In Proceed- ings of the 2018 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long Papers), pages 1112-1122, New Orleans, Louisiana. Association for Computational Linguis- tics. · DOI · Paper page
- Yijun Xiao and William Yang Wang. 2021. On hal- lucination and predictive uncertainty in conditional language generation. In Proceedings of the 16th Con- ference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Main Volume, pages 2734-2744, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Weizhe Yuan, Graham Neubig, and Pengfei Liu. 2021. Bartscore: Evaluating generated text as text gener- ation. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:27263-27277.
- Susan Zhang, Stephen Roller, Naman Goyal, Mikel Artetxe, Moya Chen, Shuohui Chen, Christopher De- wan, Mona Diab, Xian Li, Xi Victoria Lin, et al. 2022. Opt: Open pre-trained transformer language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.01068. · arXiv
- Zhuosheng Zhang, Yuwei Wu, Hai Zhao, Zuchao Li, Shuailiang Zhang, Xi Zhou, and Xiang Zhou. 2020. Semantics-aware bert for language understanding. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 34, pages 9628-9635.
- Wanjun Zhong, Jingjing Xu, Duyu Tang, Zenan Xu, Nan Duan, Ming Zhou, Jiahai Wang, and Jian Yin. 2020. Reasoning over semantic-level graph for fact check- ing. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 6170-6180, Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation
Ji, Z., Lee, N., Frieske, R., Yu, T., Su, D., Xu, Y., Ishii, E., Bang, Y. J., Madotto, A., & Fung, P. (2023) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3571730 · Cited by 5,025 · see citing works
A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models
Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al. (2024) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/3641289 · Cited by 2,842 · see citing works
“[124] operated on two hypotheses regarding how LLMs generate factual or hallucinated responses.”
BackgroundHuang, L., Yu, W., Ma, W., Zhong, W., Feng, Z., Wang, H., Chen, Q., Peng, W., Feng, X., Qin, B., et al. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/3703155 · Cited by 2,142 · see citing works
Alqahtani, T., Badreldin, H. A., Alrashed, M., Alshaya, A. I., Alghamdi, S. S., bin Saleh, K., Alowais, S. A., Alshaya, O. A., Rahman, I., Al Yami, M. S., et al. (2023) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2023.05.016 · Cited by 565 · see citing works
RAGAs: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation
Es, S., James, J., Espinosa Anke, L., & Schockaert, S. (2024) · Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.eacl-demo.16 · Cited by 651 · see citing works
FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation
Min, S., Krishna, K., Lyu, X., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Koh, P., Iyyer, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Hajishirzi, H. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.741 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
HaluEval: A Large-Scale Hallucination Evaluation Benchmark for Large Language Models
Li, J., Cheng, X., Zhao, X., Nie, J.-Y., & Wen, J.-R. (2023) · Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.397 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Dahl, M., Magesh, V., Suzgun, M., & Ho, D. E. (2024) · Journal of Legal Analysis · doi:10.1093/jla/laae003 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
The Rise and Potential of Large Language Model Based Agents: A Survey
Xi, Z., Chen, W., Guo, X., He, W., Ding, Y., Hong, B., Zhang, M., Wang, J., Jin, S., Zhou, E., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.07864 · Cited by 972 · see citing works
Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models
Dhuliawala, S., Komeili, M., Xu, J., Raileanu, R., Li, X., Celikyilmaz, A., & Weston, J. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.212 · Cited by 282 · see citing works
Hallucination‐Free? Assessing the Reliability of Leading <scp>AI</scp> Legal Research Tools
Magesh, V., Surani, F., Dahl, M., Suzgun, M., Manning, C. D., & Ho, D. E. (2025) · Journal of Empirical Legal Studies · doi:10.1111/jels.12413 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
From local to global: a graph rag approach to query-focused summarization
Edge, D., Trinh, H., Cheng, N., Bradley, J., Chao, A., Mody, A., Truitt, S., Metropolitansky, D., Ness, R. O., & Larson, J. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2404.16130 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
McIntosh, T. R., Susnjak, T., Liu, T., Watters, P., Xu, D., Liu, D., & Halgamuge, M. N. (2025) · Technologies · doi:10.3390/technologies13020051 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Savage, T., Wang, J., Gallo, R., Boukil, A., Patel, V., Safavi-Naini, S. A. A., Soroush, A., & Chen, J. H. (2025) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocae254 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Calibrated Language Models Must Hallucinate
Kalai, A. T., & Vempala, S. S. (2024) · Proceedings of the 56th Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing · doi:10.1145/3618260.3649777 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
RAGAs: Automated Evaluation of Retrieval Augmented Generation
Es, S., James, J., Espinosa-Anke, L., & Schockaert, S. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.15217 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Limitations of large language models in clinical problem-solving arising from inflexible reasoning
Kim, J., Podlasek, A., Shidara, K., Liu, F., Alaa, A., & Bernardo, D. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-22940-0 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?
Gekhman, Z., Yona, G., Aharoni, R., Eyal, M., Feder, A., Reichart, R., & Herzig, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.444 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
The Dawn After the Dark: An Empirical Study on Factuality Hallucination in Large Language Models
Li, J., Chen, J., Ren, R., Cheng, X., Zhao, X., Nie, J.-Y., & Wen, J.-R. (2024) · Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.586 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Liu, Y., Chen, S., Cheng, H., Yu, M., Ran, X., Mo, A., Tang, Y., & Huang, Y. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642698 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Cognitive Mirage: A Review of Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Ye, H., Liu, T., Zhang, A., Hua, W., & Jia, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.06794 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing
Gou, Z., Shao, Z., Gong, Y., Shen, Y., Yang, Y., Duan, N., & Chen, W. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.11738 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
“Norm Entropy (Malinin & Gales, 2021) leverages geometric mean token probability, where we calculate confidence as the arithmetic mean negative log-probability, given by ConfNorm Entropy = − 1N ∑N i log p(yi|y i).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialChain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Models
Dhuliawala, S., Komeili, M., Xu, J., Raileanu, R., Li, X., Celikyilmaz, A., & Weston, J. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.11495 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Long-form factuality in large language models
Wei, J., Yang, C., Song, X., Lu, Y., Hu, N., Huang, J., Tran, D., Peng, D., Liu, R., Huang, D., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2403.18802 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
ExpertQA: Expert-Curated Questions and Attributed Answers
Malaviya, C., Lee, S., Chen, S., Sieber, E., Yatskar, M., & Roth, D. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.naacl-long.167 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
DoLa: Decoding by Contrasting Layers Improves Factuality in Large Language Models
Chuang, Y.-S., Xie, Y., Luo, H., Kim, Y., Glass, J., & He, P. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2309.03883 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
“Recent strategies involve inference-time self-consistency checks (Manakul et al., 2023), multi-agent debating (Du et al., 2023; Liang et al., 2023), and inference-time intervention using human labels (Li et al., 2023).”
BackgroundCreating Trustworthy LLMs: Dealing with Hallucinations in Healthcare AI
Ahmad, M. A., Yaramis, I., & Roy, T. D. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.01463 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation
Min, S., Krishna, K., Lyu, X., Lewis, M., Yih, W.-T., Koh, P. W., Iyyer, M., Zettlemoyer, L., & Hajishirzi, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2305.14251 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
“We also compare with Self-check LM , a method from a concurrent work by Manakul et al. (2023).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialCan Large Language Models Faithfully Express Their Intrinsic Uncertainty in Words?
Yona, G., Aharoni, R., & Geva, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.443 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Sparks of Large Audio Models: A Survey and Outlook
Latif, S., Shoukat, M., Shamshad, F., Usama, M., Ren, Y., Cuayáhuitl, H., Wang, W., Zhang, X., Togneri, R., Cambria, E., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2308.12792 · Cited by 17 · see citing works
“To mitigate this issue, the literature suggests several strategies, including adversarial training, diversification in training data, human feedback incorporation, contrastive learning, and enhanced regularisation [88, 295–298].”
BackgroundDo Language Models Know When They’re Hallucinating References?
Agrawal, A., Suzgun, M., Mackey, L., & Kalai, A. (2024) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2024 · doi:10.18653/v1/2024.findings-eacl.62 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers
Wang, Y., Reddy, R. G., Mujahid, Z. M., Arora, A., Rubashevskii, A., Geng, J., Afzal, O. M., Pan, L., Borenstein, N., Pillai, A., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.09000 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Pandit, S., Xu, J., Hong, J., Wang, Z., Chen, T., Xu, K., & Ding, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14302 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
uMedSum: A Unified Framework for Clinical Abstractive Summarization
Nagar, A., Liu, Y., Liu, A. T., Schlegel, V., Dwivedi, V. P., Kaliya-Perumal, A.-K., Kalanchiam, G. P., Tang, Y., & Tan, R. T. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.134 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Do as We Do, Not as You Think: the Conformity of Large Language Models
Weng, Z., Chen, G., & Wang, W. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13381 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“…considerable research focuses on improving the overall performance of multi-agent systems ( e . g ., enhancing the expertise of individual agents [23–25] and integrating external knowledge [26–29]), a critical question remains unexplored: Do multi-agent systems function as expected, and more…”
Knowledge Decoupling via Orthogonal Projection for Lifelong Editing of Large Language Models
Xu, H., Lan, P., Yang, E., Guo, G., Zhao, J., Jiang, L., & Wang, X. (2025) · Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/2025.acl-long.646
“We utilize two widely used lifelong model editing datasets, ZsRE (Levy et al., 2017) and SelfCheckGPT (Manakul et al., 2023), to train and evaluate the performance of KDE.”
InfluentialFadeMem: Biologically-Inspired Forgetting for Efficient Agent Memory
Wei, L., Peng, X., Dong, X., Xie, N., & Wang, B. (2026) · arXiv
Source or It Didn't Happen: A Multi-Agent Framework for Citation Hallucination Detection
Li, M., Lin, Z., & Ma, S. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.08583
“Large language models hallucinate factual content even when surface fluency is maintained, a failure mode characterized across model families, training regimes, and deployment settings in recent surveys [14, 29, 19] and in zero-resource detection work such as SelfCheckGPT [17].”
HalluHard: A Hard Multi-Turn Hallucination Benchmark
Fan, D., Delsad, S., Flammarion, N., & Andriushchenko, M. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2602.01031
“…factual prompts (e.g., QA-style queries) (Lin et al., 2022; Wei et al., 2024a; Agrawal et al., 2024; Pandit et al., 2025), and also via long-form generation where responses are broken into atomic facts that can be verified one by one (Min et al., 2023a; Manakul et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2024b).”
From Illusion to Insight: A Taxonomic Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in LLMs
Kazlaris, I., Antoniou, E., Diamantaras, K., & Bratsas, C. (2025) · doi:10.20944/preprints202508.1942.v1 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
- Authors
- Manakul, P., Liusie, A., & Gales, M. J. F.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2023
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2303.08896
- OpenAlex
- W4327810286
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- University of Cambridge
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- hallucination detection, fact-checking, large language models, black-box models, GPT-3
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
