about
Domain-Specific Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models (arxiv.org)
2 points by Betelbuddy 21 days ago | hide | past | pdf | 1 comment on HN

In plain words: A detector combines a fine-tuned text classifier with repeated-run uncertainty checks and calibrated confidence to flag unfaithful claims in AI answers. It scores 0.915 on general tasks but just 0.52 on biomedical text, showing detectors need retraining for each domain.

Abstract

Large language models generate fluent text that can contain unfaithful claims -- a phenomenon known as hallucination. We present a multi-signal detection pipeline combining fine-tuned DeBERTa-v3 classification, Monte Carlo (MC) Dropout uncertainty quantification, and temperature-scaled calibration for response-level hallucination detection. Evaluated on the HaluEval benchmark, our pipeline achieves F1=0.915 and AUROC=0.977 on general-domain tasks, with per-task F1 scores of 0.97 (QA), 0.96 (Summarization), and 0.82 (Dialogue). MC Dropout inference further improves accuracy to 93.2%. A context ablation study confirms the model performs genuine entailment reasoning rather than exploiting surface patterns, with summarization F1 dropping 24% when knowledge context is removed. Learning curve analysis reveals that 25% of training data captures 77% of full-data performance. Beyond detection, we apply Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) to a Qwen2.5-0.5B generator, reducing its hallucination rate from 85.5% to 37.7% (55.9% relative reduction) as measured by our detector. Cross-domain evaluation on the SciFact biomedical benchmark shows that general-domain training transfers poorly (F1=0.52), motivating domain-specific fine-tuning. PubMedBERT fine-tuned on SciFact achieves F1=0.63 and AUROC=0.81, demonstrating that domain-matched pre-training is the strongest adaptation strategy. Code and models are available at https://github.com/varunteja99/hallucination-detection-nlp

Varun Teja Chundru, Debasmita Biswas
arXiv:2609.11878 · cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG · submitted Sep 10, 2026
abstract · pdf · html · 6 pages, 3 figures, 5 tables

add comment on HN

I skipped to the conclusion to get the overall jist. I think these sorts of studies are important going forward; the prompts efficiency in making for clear, guided instructions the ML can then efficiently handle is exponentially important as context grows. If you are asking the right questions the right way, you can get more back. But if you are causing the LLM to struggle routing its chain of thought it will only get so far along until you can no longer extract anything useful from it (and may well be getting gaslit in the process).

Obvious to some, but it's definitely overlooked by many.