PreprintCited by 1Adversarial Robustness in Machine LearningTopic ModelingNatural Language Processing Techniques

The Surprising Universality of LLM Outputs: A Real-Time Verification Primitive

Open access
Bogdan, Alex, de Valois-Franklin, Adrian·2026·arXiv

Abstract

We report a striking statistical regularity in frontier LLM outputs that enables a CPU-only scoring primitive running at 2.6 microseconds per token, with estimated latency up to 100,000$\times$ (five orders of magnitude) below existing sampling-based detectors. Across six contemporary models from five independent vendors, two generation sizes, and five held-out domains, token rank-frequency distributions converge to the same two-parameter Mandelbrot ranking distribution, with 34 of 36 model-by-domain fits exceeding $R^{2} = 0.94$ and 35 of 36 favoring Mandelbrot over Zipf by AIC. The shared family does not collapse the models into statistical duplicates. Fitted Mandelbrot parameters remain cleanly separable between models: the cross-model spread in $q$ (1.63 to 3.69) exceeds its per-model bootstrap standard deviation (0.03 to 0.10) by more than an order of magnitude, yielding tens of standard deviations of separation per few thousand output tokens. Two capabilities follow. First, statistical model fingerprinting: text from a vendor-delivered LLM can be tested against its claimed model family without cryptographic watermarks or access to model internals, supporting provenance verification and silent-substitution audits. Second, a model-agnostic reference distribution for black-box output assessment, from which we derive a single-pass scoring primitive that composes with model log probabilities when available and degrades to a rank-only mode usable on closed APIs. Pilot results on FRANK, TruthfulQA, and HaluEval map where the primitive helps (lexical anomalies, unsupported entities) and where it structurally cannot (reasoning errors in domain-appropriate vocabulary). We position the primitive as a first-pass triage layer in compound evaluation stacks, not as a replacement for sampling-based or source-conditioned verifiers.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2604.25634

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • If grounded and fabricated language differ in rank-frequency structure, entity distribution, or deviation from expected Zipf-Mandelbrot behavior, these deviations can serve as verification primitives.

    “If grounded and fabricated language differ in rank-frequency structure, entity distribution, or deviation from expected Zipf-Mandelbrot behavior, these deviations can serve as verification primitives [23].”
  • If LLM outputs exhibit stable rank-frequency regularities, deviations from those regularities can become part of an output-level trust signal.

    “if LLM outputs exhibit stable rank-frequency regularities, deviations from those regularities can become part of an output-level trust signal [23].”
  • The future Trust Engine is not a single algorithm; it is an ensemble of measurement layers.

    “The future Trust Engine is not a single algorithm. It is an ensemble of measurement layers: psychometric profiling; signal detection and abstention modeling; calibration analysis; source-monitoring probes; perturbation testing; sycophancy and suggestibility testing; distributional verification [23]; tool-call validation; longitudinal drift monitoring; and audit logging and escalation.”

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: 36

  1. L. Kuhn, Y. Gal, and S. Farquhar, "Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation," in Proc. Int. Conf. Learn. Representations (ICLR), 2023, arXiv:2302.09664. · arXiv
  2. S. Farquhar, J. Kossen, L. Kuhn, and Y. Gal, "Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy," Nature, vol. 630, pp. 625-630, 2024, doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07421-0. · DOI · Paper page
  3. P. Manakul, A. Liusie, and M. J. F. Gales, "SelfCheckGPT: Zero-resource black-box hallucination detection for generative large language models," in Proc. Conf. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2023, arXiv:2303.08896. · arXiv
  4. Y.-S. Chuang, L. Qiu, C.-Y. Hsieh, R. Krishna, Y. Kim, and J. Glass, "Lookback Lens: Detecting and mitigating contextual hallucinations in large language models using only attention maps," arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.07071, 2024. · arXiv
  5. J. Kossen, J. Han, M. A. Razzak, L. Schut, S. Malik, and Y. Gal, "Semantic entropy probes: Robust and cheap hallucination detection in LLMs," arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.15927, 2024. · arXiv
  6. B. B. Mandelbrot, "An informational theory of the statistical structure of language," in Communication Theory, W. Jackson, Ed. London, U.K.: Butterworths, 1953, pp. 486-502.
  7. C. E. Shannon, "A mathematical theory of communication," Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 379-423, 1948; vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 623-656, 1948.
  8. B. B. Mandelbrot, "Information theory and psycholinguistics: A theory of word frequencies," in Readings in Mathematical Social Science, P. F. Lazarsfeld and N. W. Henry, Eds. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1966, pp. 151-168.
  9. K. Friston, "The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory?," Nature Reviews Neuroscience, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 127-138, 2010.
  10. R. Bogacz, "A tutorial on the free-energy framework for modelling perception and learning," Journal of Mathe- matical Psychology, vol. 76, pp. 198-211, 2017.
  11. I. Shumailov, Z. Shumaylov, Y. Zhao, N. Papernot, R. Anderson, and Y. Gal, "AI models collapse when trained on recursively generated data," Nature, vol. 631, pp. 755-759, 2024.
  12. R. Kirk, B. Vidgen, P. Röttger, and S. A. Hale, "Understanding the effects of RLHF on LLM generalisation and diversity," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06452, 2023. · arXiv
  13. A. Pagnoni, V. Balachandran, and Y. Tsvetkov, "Understanding factuality in abstractive summarization with FRANK: A benchmark for factuality metrics," in Proc. North American Chapter of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT), 2021.
  14. S. Lin, J. Hilton, and O. Evans, "TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods," in Proc. 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2022.
  15. J. Li, X. Cheng, X. Zhao, J.-Y. Nie, and J.-R. Wen, "HaluEval: A large-scale hallucination evaluation benchmark for large language models," in Proc. Conf. Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), 2023.
  16. S. T. Piantadosi, "Zipf's word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions," Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 1112-1130, 2014.
  17. I. Nikkarinen, T. Pimentel, A. Williams, and R. Cotterell, "Modeling the unigram distribution," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL, 2022, arXiv:2106.02289. · arXiv
  18. X. L. Li, A. Holtzman, D. Fried, P. Liang, J. Eisner, T. Hashimoto, L. Zettlemoyer, and M. Lewis, "Contrastive decoding: Open-ended text generation as optimization," in Proc. 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), 2023.
  19. C.-Y. Lin, "ROUGE: A package for automatic evaluation of summaries," in Proc. ACL Workshop on Text Summarization Branches Out, 2004, pp. 74-81.
  20. P. Laban, T. Schnabel, P. N. Bennett, and M. A. Hearst, "SummaC: Re-visiting NLI-based models for inconsistency detection in summarization," Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 10, pp. 163-177, 2022.
  21. Z. Ji, N. Lee, R. Frieske, T. Yu, D. Su, Y. Xu, E. Ishii, Y. J. Bang, A. Madotto, and P. Fung, "Survey of hallucination in natural language generation," ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 1-38, 2023.
  22. L. Huang, W. Yu, W. Ma, W. Zhong, Z. Feng, H. Wang, Q. Chen, W. Peng, X. Feng, B. Qin, and T. Liu, "A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions," arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232, 2023. · arXiv
  23. Y. Zhang, Y. Li, L. Cui, D. Cai, L. Liu, T. Fu, X. Huang, E. Zhao, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen, L. Wang, A. T. Luu, W. Bi, F. Shi, and S. Shi, "Siren's song in the AI ocean: A survey on hallucination in large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.01219, 2023. · arXiv
  24. J. Kirchenbauer, J. Geiping, Y. Wen, J. Katz, I. Miers, and T. Goldstein, "A watermark for large language models," in Proc. 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 2023.
  25. D. Cugini, A. Timpanaro, G. Livan, and G. Guarnieri, "Universal emergence of local Zipf-Mandelbrot law," arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.15946, 2024. · arXiv
  26. Z. Wang, G. Xu, and M. Ren, "LLM-generated natural language meets scaling laws: New explorations and data augmentation methods," arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00322, 2024. · arXiv
  27. Y. I. Manin, "Mandelbrot's model for Zipf's law: Can Mandelbrot's model be justified?," Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 274-285, 2009.
  28. H. McGovern, R. Stureborg, Y. Suhara, and D. Alikaniotis, "Your large language models are leaving fingerprints," arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.14057, 2024. · arXiv
  29. Z. Fu, J. Chen, L. Zhang, T. Yang, J. Niu, H. Sun, R. Li, P. Liu, J. Wang, F. He, Q. Yue, and Y. Zhang, "FDLLM: A dedicated detector for black-box LLMs fingerprinting," arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.16029, 2025. · arXiv
  30. C. Moslonka, H. Randrianarivo, A. Garnier, and E. Malherbe, "Learned hallucination detection in black-box LLMs using token-level entropy production rate," arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.04492, 2025. · arXiv
  31. A. H. Mir, "The geometry of truth: Layer-wise semantic dynamics for hallucination detection in large language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.04933, 2025. · arXiv
  32. A. Clauset, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman, "Power-law distributions in empirical data," SIAM Review, vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 661-703, 2009.
  33. Y. Zhu, L. Cai, Y. Lu, Y. Zhang, and J. Ye, "Analysis of the discrete distribution patterns of AI-generated content based on the Zipf-Mandelbrot law," Journal of Modern Information, vol. 45, no. 11, pp. 167-177, 2025.
  34. M. Vu, B. K. Tran, S. A. Shah, G. Zollicoffer, X. N. Hoang, and M. Bhattarai, "HalluField: Detecting LLM hallucinations via field-theoretic modeling," arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.10753, 2025. · arXiv
  35. N. Mikhaylovskiy, "Zipf's and Heaps' laws for tokens and LLM-generated texts," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pp. 15469-15481, 2025.
  36. M. Huh, B. Cheung, T. Wang, and P. Isola, "Position: The Platonic Representation Hypothesis," in Proc. 41st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), vol. 235, pp. 20617-20642, 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bogdan, A., & de Valois-Franklin, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2026
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7157939549
Cited by
0
References
0
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
Zipf's law, LLM evaluation

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