Lynx: An Open Source Hallucination Evaluation Model
Open accessAbstract
Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) techniques aim to mitigate hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs). However, LLMs can still produce information that is unsupported or contradictory to the retrieved contexts. We introduce LYNX, a SOTA hallucination detection LLM that is capable of advanced reasoning on challenging real-world hallucination scenarios. To evaluate LYNX, we present HaluBench, a comprehensive hallucination evaluation benchmark, consisting of 15k samples sourced from various real-world domains. Our experiment results show that LYNX outperforms GPT-4o, Claude-3-Sonnet, and closed and open-source LLM-as-a-judge models on HaluBench. We release LYNX, HaluBench and our evaluation code for public access.
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?
HaluBench incorporates limited samples from the medical domain, but its domain-agnostic generation framework lacks medical curation.
“While recent efforts such as HaluBench (Ravi et al., 2024), incorporate limited samples from the medical domains, their domain-agnostic generation frameworks lack medical curation.”
From MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Ravi et al., 2024
Section 3.2 (page unavailable) shows that HaluBench includes samples from COVID-QA and PubMedQA alongside nonmedical datasets, and applies the same GPT-4o perturbation method across them. It does not establish that HaluBench lacks medical curation: COVID-QA's source questions were annotated by biomedical experts, and a subset of HaluBench examples received expert review, though the paper does not identify those reviewers as medical experts. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe Lynx study did not extend its evaluation to include LLMs fine-tuned for specialized domains, such as medicine or finance.
“Nevertheless, this study did not extend its evaluation to include LLMs fine-tuned for specialized domains, such as medicine or finance.”
From MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Ravi et al., 2024
Lynx, a model specifically designed for hallucination detection, has demonstrated superior performance over general-purpose LLMs across diverse datasets.
“Lynx (Ravi et al., 2024), a model specifically designed for hallucination detection, has demonstrated superior performance over general-purpose LLMs across diverse datasets.”
From MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Ravi et al., 2024
Performance differences between pre-trained LLMs and finetuned medical LLMs are sparsely documented.
“Additionally, the performance differences between pre-trained LLMs and finetuned medical LLMs are sparsely documented (Ravi et al., 2024; Li et al., 2023a; Pal et al., 2023).”
From MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models (2025) · cites this paper as Ravi et al., 2024
The Evaluation Results section compares LYNX with baseline Llama 3 models, including on medical-answer hallucination detection. Neither it nor the passages retrieved for comparisons of pre-trained and fine-tuned medical LLMs addresses whether performance differences between those models are sparsely documented. (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: 33
- Rami Aly, Christos Christodoulopoulos, Oana Co- carascu, Zhijiang Guo, Arpit Mittal, Michael Schlichtkrull, James Thorne, and Andreas Vlachos, editors. 2021. Proceedings of the Fourth Workshop on Fact Extraction and VERification (FEVER). As- sociation for Computational Linguistics, Dominican Republic.
- Amos Azaria and Tom Mitchell. 2023. The internal state of an llm knows when it's lying. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.13734. · arXiv
- Biplob Biswas, Renhao Cui, and Rajiv Ramnath. 2022. Retrieval based response letter generation for a cus- tomer care setting. In Proceedings of the 2022 Con- ference of the North American Chapter of the Asso- ciation for Computational Linguistics: Human Lan- guage Technologies: Industry Track, pages 168-175, Hybrid: Seattle, Washington + Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Meng Cao, Yue Dong, and Jackie Cheung. 2022. Hal- lucinated but factual! inspecting the factuality of hallucinations in abstractive summarization. In Pro- ceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3340-3354, Dublin, Ireland. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Qian Chen, Xiaodan Zhu, Zhen-Hua Ling, Diana Inkpen, and Si Wei. 2018. Neural natural language inference models enhanced with external knowledge. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2406-2417, Melbourne, Aus- tralia. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- Dheeru Dua, Yizhong Wang, Pradeep Dasigi, Gabriel Stanovsky, Sameer Singh, and Matt Gardner. 2019. Drop: A reading comprehension benchmark re- quiring discrete reasoning over paragraphs. arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.00161. · arXiv
- Nouha Dziri, Sivan Milton, Mo Yu, Osmar Zaiane, and Siva Reddy. 2022. On the origin of hallucinations in conversational models: Is it the datasets or the models? In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Tech- nologies, pages 5271-5285, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Nuno M Guerreiro, Elena Voita, and André FT Martins. 2022. Looking for a needle in a haystack: A com- prehensive study of hallucinations in neural machine translation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.05309. · arXiv
- Or Honovich, Roee Aharoni, Jonathan Herzig, Ha- gai Taitelbaum, Doron Kukliansy, Vered Cohen, Thomas Scialom, Idan Szpektor, Avinatan Has- sidim, and Yossi Matias. 2022. True: Re-evaluating factual consistency evaluation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.04991. · arXiv
- Pranab Islam, Anand Kannappan, Douwe Kiela, Re- becca Qian, Nino Scherrer, and Bertie Vidgen. 2023. Financebench: A new benchmark for financial ques- tion answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.11944. · arXiv
- 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- ing Surveys, 55(12):1-38.
- Yiren Jian, Chongyang Gao, and Soroush Vosoughi. 2022. Embedding hallucination for few-shot lan- guage fine-tuning. In Proceedings of the 2022 Con- ference of the North American Chapter of the As- sociation for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, pages 5522-5530, Seattle, United States. Association for Computational Lin- guistics. · DOI
- Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William W Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. 2019. Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06146. · arXiv
- Seungone Kim, Jamin Shin, Yejin Cho, Joel Jang, Shayne Longpre, Hwaran Lee, Sangdoo Yun, Seongjin Shin, Sungdong Kim, James Thorne, et al. 2023. Prometheus: Inducing fine-grained evaluation capability in language models. In The Twelfth Inter- national Conference on Learning Representations.
- Junyi Li, Xiaoxue Cheng, Wayne Xin Zhao, Jian-Yun Nie, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023. Halueval: A large- scale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.11747. · arXiv
- Stephanie Lin, Jacob Hilton, and Owain Evans. 2022. TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meet- ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 3214-3252, Dublin, Ireland. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
- Yen-Ting Lin and Yun-Nung Chen. 2023. Llm-eval: Unified multi-dimensional automatic evaluation for open-domain conversations with large language mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13711. · arXiv
- Alex Mallen, Akari Asai, Victor Zhong, Rajarshi Das, Daniel Khashabi, and Hannaneh Hajishirzi. 2022. When not to trust language models: Investigating effectiveness of parametric and non-parametric mem- ories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.10511. · arXiv
- Potsawee Manakul, Adian Liusie, and Mark JF Gales. 2023. Selfcheckgpt: Zero-resource black-box hal- lucination detection for generative large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08896. · arXiv
- Timo Möller, Anthony Reina, Raghavan Jayakumar, and Malte Pietsch. 2020. Covid-qa: A question answer- ing dataset for covid-19. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for COVID-19 at ACL 2020.
- Fabio Petroni, Tim Rocktäschel, Patrick Lewis, An- ton Bakhtin, Yuxiang Wu, Alexander H Miller, and Sebastian Riedel. 2019. Language models as knowl- edge bases? arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01066. · arXiv
- Stephen Roller, Emily Dinan, Naman Goyal, Da Ju, Mary Williamson, Yinhan Liu, Jing Xu, Myle Ott, Kurt Shuster, Eric M Smith, et al. 2020. Recipes for building an open-domain chatbot. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.13637. · arXiv
- David P Sander and Laura Dietz. 2021. Exam: How to evaluate retrieve-and-generate systems for users who do not (yet) know what they want. In DESIRES, pages 136-146.
- Kurt Shuster, Spencer Poff, Moya Chen, Douwe Kiela, and Jason Weston. 2021a. 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
- Kurt Shuster, Jack Urbanek, Emily Dinan, Arthur Szlam, and Jason Weston. 2021b. Dialogue in the wild: Learning from a deployed role-playing game with humans and bots. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL-IJCNLP 2021, pages 611-624, Online. Association for Computa- tional Linguistics. · DOI
- Jason Wei, Maarten Bosma, Vincent Y Zhao, Kelvin Guu, Adams Wei Yu, Brian Lester, Nan Du, An- drew M Dai, and Quoc V Le. 2021. Finetuned lan- guage models are zero-shot learners. arXiv preprint arXiv:2109.01652. · arXiv
- Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits rea- soning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824-24837.
- Yuanhao Wu, Juno Zhu, Siliang Xu, Kashun Shum, Cheng Niu, Randy Zhong, Juntong Song, and Tong Zhang. 2023b. Ragtruth: A hallucination corpus for developing trustworthy retrieval-augmented language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.00396. · arXiv
- Wenhao Yu. 2022. Retrieval-augmented generation across heterogeneous knowledge. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chap- ter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies: Student Research Workshop, pages 52-58, Hybrid: Seattle, Washington + Online. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
- 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.
- Wei Zhao, Maxime Peyrard, Fei Liu, Yang Gao, Chris- tian M Meyer, and Steffen Eger. 2019. Moverscore: Text generation evaluating with contextualized em- beddings and earth mover distance. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.02622. · arXiv
- Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric Xing, et al. 2024. Judging llm-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
- Lianghui Zhu, Xinggang Wang, and Xinlong Wang. 2023. Judgelm: Fine-tuned large language models are scalable judges. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.17631. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Authors
- Ravi, S. S., Mielczarek, B., Kannappan, A., Kiela, D., & Qian, R.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2407.08488
- OpenAlex
- W4400611869
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 4
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- Nvidia
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- hallucination detection, retrieval-augmented generation, large language models, LLM-as-a-judge, open-source models, lynx
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
