Home/Evaluation & Observability/awesome-hallucination-detection
awesome-hallucination-detection logo

awesome-hallucination-detection

EdinburghNLP/awesome-hallucination-detection

List of papers on hallucination detection in LLMs.

GraphCanon updated 2w · GitHub synced 2w

1.1k stars91 forksLast push 4w Apache-2.0

Decision brief

awesome-hallucination-detection provides a curated list of research papers focused on techniques to detect and mitigate hallucinations in large language models (LLMs), including process supervision methods for factual QA

Good fit when

  • - When focusing on specific methodologies like Corpus Verify (CorVer) from the paper 'Verifiable Rewards Beyond Math and Code' which utilizes lightweight, process-based rewards to mitigate hallucinat
  • - For scientific critique tasks requiring calibrated and evidence-grounded judgment as per REFUTE benchmark

Avoid when

  • When immediate implementation or code is needed rather than research papers, this repository is not suitable as it only curates information on methodologies and benchmarks.
  • - If your focus is on general LLM training techniques without a specific emphasis on hallucination detection or calibration

Observed Jul 11, 2026 · Source: enrich:decision_facts

Verify the decision

Maintenance and security

Full trust report
Maintenance
Active (12d since push)
As of 2w
Provenance
Not a fork · Organization account
As of 2w
Security (OSV)
No lockfile
As of 1mo

Public GitHub metadata and optional OSV scans. Signals, not a guarantee. Trust methodology.

Install

git clone https://github.com/EdinburghNLP/awesome-hallucination-detection

Similar tools

Same-category neighbours. No typed graph edges are catalogued for this tool yet.

Evidence and technical details

Sourced facts, taxonomy, compatibility claims, README excerpt, and machine-readable endpoints.

Overview

Repository containing a curated list of research papers focused on methods to detect and mitigate hallucinations generated by large language models (LLMs), including specific techniques like process supervision for factual QA tasks and calibration benchmarks for scientific critiques.

Capability facts

No sourced capability facts yet. Facts appear after ingest scans repo manifests (Dockerfile, package.json, MCP configs).

Categories

Tags

README

awesome-hallucination-detection

Papers and Summaries

Verifiable Rewards Beyond Math and Code: Lightweight Corpus-Grounded Process Supervision for Factual Question Answering

  • Metrics: Exact Match (EM); training cost / wall-clock speedup (×) vs. neural-verifier baselines
  • Datasets: Five knowledge-intensive / factual QA benchmarks (incl. TriviaQA; 30 model×benchmark cells over six 3B–14B instruction-tuned models)
  • Comments: Proposes CorVer (Corpus Verify), a lightweight, plug-in process reward for RL fine-tuning (GRPO) of LLMs on factual QA that replaces neural verifiers (NLI, LLM-as-judge, retrieve-and-grade) with a corpus-grounded signal derived from Wikipedia co-occurrence counts. A small (0.5B) extractor turns each generated sentence into entity/claim spans whose corpus co-occurrence — queried via an Infini-gram index — yields sentence-level credit, which is mapped to token-level advantages and combined with response-level judge and format rewards in a GRPO update. Beats the raw baseline in every one of 30 cells (six instruction-tuned models, 3B–14B; five QA benchmarks), with an average +4.1 EM on TriviaQA, and outperforms four neural-verifier baselines in 18/20 cells at 4.8–8.4× lower training cost. Code at https://github.com/shichengf/CorVer. (arXiv 2026)

REFUTE: Scientific Critique & Epistemic Calibration Benchmark

  • Metrics: Truth Score (composite), critique skill, calibration/Brier, forced-choice flaw accuracy, planted-flaw soundness accuracy, missing-evidence refusal rate
  • Datasets: REFUTE v3 (BGPT-OFFICIAL/refute; 320 scored questions from recent science paper summaries)
  • Comments: Open Apache-2.0 benchmark from BGPT for whether LLMs critique recent science summaries without quietly overclaiming. Core finding: scientific-sounding ≠ scientifically honest — critique skill and calibration dissociate. Current complete board tops out around 74.5 Truth Score. Judge-free Inspect / lm-eval adapters. Complements factuality/hallucination suites by testing overclaim correction and missing-evidence refusal on science summaries. (Site, Dataset, Leaderboard, Preprint package) (2026)

QuCo-RAG: Quantifying Uncertainty from the Pre-training Corpus for Dynamic Retrieval-Augmented Generation

  • Metrics: Exact Match (EM), token-level F1
  • Datasets: HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihopQA, ASQA (long-form), PubMedQA (biomedical)
  • Comments: Proposes QuCo-RAG, a dynamic RAG framework that determines when to retrieve by quantifying uncertainty from objective pre-training-corpus statistics rather than ill-calibrated model-internal signals (logits, entropy). Two-stage detection: (1) Pre-Generation Knowledge Assessment — queries entity frequencies in the pre-training corpus and triggers retrieval when entities are low-frequency (long-tail knowledge risk); (2) Runtime Claim Verification — extracts knowledge triplets from each generated sentence and verifies entity co-occurrence in the corpus, where zero co-occurrence triggers retrieval and regeneration. Both stages leverage Infini-gram for millisecond-latency queries over a 4-trillion-token corpus. On OLMo-2 (7B/13B/32B, matched corpus), achieves +5–12 EM over state-of-the-art dynamic-RAG baselines including DRAGIN. Cross-model transfer to Llama-3, Qwen2.5, GPT-4.1, and GPT-5-chat — which have undisclosed pre-training data — yields up to +14 EM by exploiting web-scale corpus overlap. Best performance on ASQA long-form QA and PubMedQA, while internal-signal methods show limitations in either efficiency or effectiveness. Code at https://github.com/ZhishanQ/QuCo-

For agents

This page has a .md twin and JSON over the API.

Was this helpful?

Anonymous feedback helps us improve pages and translations.