arxiv: 2604.13068 · v2 · submitted 2026-03-20 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.LG

Recognition: no theorem link

Detection Without Correction: A Robust Asymmetry in Activation-Based Hallucination Probing

Dip Roy , Rajiv Misra , Sanjay Kumar Singh , Anisha Roy

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-15 09:07 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.LG

keywords hallucination detectionlinear probingactivation steeringlanguage modelsautoregressive modelspre-generation detectionmodel internals

0 comments

The pith

Linear probes detect hallucination signals in larger models but steering along those directions fails to correct them.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tests whether activation-based linear probes can both detect and correct hallucinations in autoregressive language models. Across seven models from 117M to 7B parameters in three families, probes achieve above-chance detection accuracy in larger models. Steering activations in the probe direction produces no correction in any of the seven cases. Output-confidence baselines outperform probes on detection AUC for models above 410M parameters, yet probes supply signals at position zero before any tokens are generated, a capability output methods lack.

Core claim

Linear probes on internal activations detect hallucination signals with above-chance accuracy in models larger than about 400M parameters, but activation steering in the probe-derived direction produces no reduction in hallucinations across all seven tested models. Output-confidence baselines exceed probe performance on raw detection AUC for every model above 410M parameters, with the largest gap at 0.157 AUC. The probes' distinctive value lies in their temporal access: signals are available at the initial position, enabling pre-generation flagging that output-based detectors cannot match.

What carries the argument

The linear probe direction obtained from activation differences between hallucinated and non-hallucinated model continuations, applied for both detection and steering.

If this is right

Probes enable statistically significant pre-generation signals in Pythia-1.4B and Qwen2.5-7B.
Detection performance scales with model size above 410M parameters.
Steering yields no correction benefit in GPT-2, Pythia, or Qwen-2.5 families.
Probes serve a pre-generation flagging role complementary to output-based detectors.
Models below 400M parameters and the base Pythia-6.9B show no reliable temporal signal.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The consistent steering failure suggests probe directions may track correlational patterns rather than manipulable causal mechanisms.
Hybrid systems could pair probe-based early alerts with separate correction techniques.
The same detection-without-correction pattern may appear in other internal monitoring tasks such as factuality or toxicity detection.
Replicating the study on instruction-tuned variants or additional domains would test whether the asymmetry generalizes.

Load-bearing premise

The directions identified by linear probes reflect causally relevant features of hallucination rather than mere correlations that do not respond to intervention.

What would settle it

A follow-up experiment in which steering activations along the probe direction measurably lowers hallucination rates in at least one of the tested model families or sizes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13068 by Anisha Roy, Dip Roy, Rajiv Misra, Sanjay Kumar Singh.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: AUC-ROC at each generation position (0 = pre-generation) for all seven models. Dashed lines = sub-400M models (late-peak); solid lines = larger models. Error bars = cross-validation standard deviation. The scale-dependent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: shows probe AUC by layer for position-0 activations. A clear depth progression emerges. Small models show peak detection at very early layers (GPT-2 Small: layer 1/12 = 9% depth; Pythia-160M: layer 5/12 = 45% depth), consistent with generic semantic processing at low capacity. Large models peak at middle-to-deep layers (Pythia-1.4B: layer 11/24 = 47%; GPT-2 XL: layer 28/48 = 59%). Qwen2.5-7B shows the deep… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Position-0 (blue) and position-4 (gold dashed) probe AUC as a function of model scale on a log axis. The grey shaded band marks the approximate transition zone (~400M–1.5B). Note that the two 7B-scale models diverge: Pythia-6.9B shows near-identical pos-0 and pos-4 values while Qwen2.5-7B maintains a clear pos-0 advantage. 4.5 Statistical Significance Analysis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Bar chart of Δ (AUC_p4 − AUC_p0) for each model. Orange bars = late [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Per-dataset accuracy heatmap for all seven models. Rows = datasets; columns = models ordered by parameter count. The consistent left-to-right accuracy improvement and the high accuracy of Qwen2.5-7B across all three tasks are clearly visible [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Activation-based linear probing is widely proposed as a method for both detecting and correcting hallucinations in autoregressive language models. We present an empirical study across seven models spanning 117M to 7B parameters and three architecture families (GPT-2, Pythia, Qwen-2.5) that documents a robust asymmetry: linear probes can detect hallucination signals with above-chance accuracy in larger models, but activation steering along the probe-derived direction fails to correct hallucinations in 7 of 7 models tested. We further find that output-confidence baselines outperform activation probes on raw detection AUC at every model above 410M parameters, with the gap reaching 0.157 AUC for Pythia-6.9B. The probe's distinguishing value is therefore not detection accuracy but temporal positioning: probe signals are accessible at position zero (before any output tokens are produced), enabling pre-generation flagging that output-based methods structurally cannot provide. The temporal signal is statistically significant in two of seven models (Pythia-1.4B, p = 0.012; Qwen2.5-7B, p = 0.038) and absent in models below 400M parameters and in the base-only Pythia-6.9B. We position these findings as a clean negative result for the dominant probing-as-detection-and-control research direction and as initial evidence that probe-based methods occupy a complementary deployment niche, namely pre-generation flagging, rather than competing with output-based detectors on raw accuracy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper documents a consistent detection-correction gap in hallucination probes across seven models, with probes adding value mainly through pre-generation timing rather than raw accuracy.

read the letter

The central finding is straightforward: linear probes trained on activations detect hallucination signals above chance in the larger models, yet steering along the same directions fails to reduce hallucinations in every one of the seven models tested. Output confidence baselines beat the probes on AUC for all models above 410M parameters, sometimes by a noticeable margin. The probes' real edge is that their signal is available at position zero, before any tokens are generated, which output-based methods cannot match by design. That temporal separation is significant in two models and absent in the smaller ones and the base Pythia-6.9B variant. The work frames this as a negative result for the common assumption that detection and correction are interchangeable via the same probe direction. The empirical pattern is presented cleanly across GPT-2, Pythia, and Qwen-2.5 families, which gives the asymmetry some breadth. The authors are careful not to overclaim causal control and instead position the probes as a complementary pre-generation flag rather than a replacement for output detectors. One limitation is that the abstract leaves the exact probe training procedure, label assignment timing, and data splits unspecified, so it is hard to judge how much the detection signal might reflect downstream output statistics that happen to appear early rather than an independent internal feature. The steering failure is therefore informative but not yet conclusive about whether hallucinations lack a steerable linear representation. The p-values for the temporal advantage are reported only for two models, which is honest but keeps that part of the claim modest. This is the kind of targeted empirical check that interpretability and safety groups should see. It does not overturn the broader probing literature but narrows where activation-based methods are likely to be useful in practice. I would send it to peer review; the pattern is worth independent verification and the negative result on steering is worth having on record.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an empirical study across seven language models (117M–7B parameters, GPT-2, Pythia, and Qwen-2.5 families) documenting a robust asymmetry: linear probes on activations detect hallucination signals above chance in larger models (with pre-generation temporal signals reaching statistical significance in two cases), yet activation steering along the probe-derived direction fails to correct hallucinations in all seven models. Output-confidence baselines outperform probes on AUC for models above 410M (gap of 0.157 for Pythia-6.9B), but probes are positioned as complementary for position-zero pre-generation flagging that output-based methods cannot provide.

Significance. If the asymmetry is robust, the work supplies a clear negative result against the dominant paradigm of using activation probes for both detection and correction of hallucinations. It usefully reframes probe utility around early temporal access rather than raw accuracy, which could usefully redirect research effort. The multi-family, multi-scale design and explicit reporting of p-values and AUC gaps are strengths that make the empirical pattern worth taking seriously if the experimental details hold up.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract and results: The central claim that steering fails in 7/7 models is load-bearing for the negative result on controllability, yet the manuscript provides no details on intervention strength, chosen layers, number of steering steps, or the precise metric used to quantify 'correction' (e.g., change in factuality score or hallucination rate). Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the steering protocol was sufficient to test the hypothesis that the probe direction isolates a causally relevant feature.
[Results] Results: The assertion that output-confidence baselines outperform probes on AUC for all models >410M (with a specific gap of 0.157 for Pythia-6.9B) is used to argue that probes do not compete on detection accuracy. However, the exact definition and computation of the output-confidence baseline (token-level vs. sequence-level, use of held-out data, etc.) is not specified, which directly affects whether the comparison fairly isolates the contribution of activation probes.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The p-values for temporal-signal significance (p=0.012 for Pythia-1.4B and p=0.038 for Qwen2.5-7B) are reported without naming the statistical test or indicating whether correction for multiple comparisons across seven models was applied.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to add the requested experimental details.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results: The central claim that steering fails in 7/7 models is load-bearing for the negative result on controllability, yet the manuscript provides no details on intervention strength, chosen layers, number of steering steps, or the precise metric used to quantify 'correction' (e.g., change in factuality score or hallucination rate). Without these, it is impossible to determine whether the steering protocol was sufficient to test the hypothesis that the probe direction isolates a causally relevant feature.

Authors: We agree that these parameters are necessary to evaluate the steering results. The methods section already specifies the protocol (fixed intervention coefficient applied at the layer of peak probe accuracy, single-step intervention at generation start, and correction quantified via change in hallucination rate under an external factuality evaluator), but the abstract omitted a summary. We have revised the abstract to include a concise statement of intervention strength, layer selection, step count, and the exact correction metric. revision: yes
Referee: [Results] Results: The assertion that output-confidence baselines outperform probes on AUC for all models >410M (with a specific gap of 0.157 for Pythia-6.9B) is used to argue that probes do not compete on detection accuracy. However, the exact definition and computation of the output-confidence baseline (token-level vs. sequence-level, use of held-out data, etc.) is not specified, which directly affects whether the comparison fairly isolates the contribution of activation probes.

Authors: We agree the baseline requires explicit definition to support the comparison. The output-confidence baseline is the sequence-level mean of the model's native token log-probabilities on the generated continuation, evaluated on the identical held-out test set used for the probes (no activations involved). We have revised the results section to state this definition explicitly and to confirm the shared data splits and evaluation protocol. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely empirical measurements with independent held-out evaluations

full rationale

The paper reports direct empirical results from training linear probes on activations to classify hallucination labels, measuring AUC, performing steering interventions, and comparing against output-confidence baselines across seven models. All central claims (above-chance detection in larger models, zero steering success in 7/7 models, temporal positioning advantage) rest on observed performance metrics and statistical tests (e.g., p-values) on held-out data. No equations, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-citations used as load-bearing uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes are present. The derivation chain consists solely of standard supervised probing and intervention protocols whose outputs are not definitionally equivalent to their inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are introduced; the work relies on standard linear probing applied to existing models and standard statistical tests.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5579 in / 1010 out tokens · 45810 ms · 2026-05-15T09:07:27.065217+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages · 6 internal anchors

[1]

The internal state of an LLM knows when it's lying,

A. Azaria and T. Mitchell, "The internal state of an LLM knows when it's lying," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP, pp. 967–976, 2023

work page 2023
[2]

Discovering latent knowledge in language models without supervision,

C. Burns, H. Ye, D. Klein, and J. Steinhardt, "Discovering latent knowledge in language models without supervision," in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

work page 2023
[3]

Inference -time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model,

K. Li, O. Patel, F. Viégas, H. Pfister, and M. Wattenberg, "Inference -time intervention: Eliciting truthful answers from a language model," in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 36, pp. 41345–41367, 2023

work page 2023
[4]

The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasets

S. Marks and M. Tegmark, "The geometry of truth: Emergent linear structure in large language model representations of true/false datasets," arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.06824, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[5]

Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation,

L. Kuhn, Y. Gal, and S. Farquhar, "Semantic uncertainty: Linguistic invariances for uncertainty estimation in natural language generation," in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

work page 2023
[6]

Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know

S. Kadavath, T. Conerly, A. Askell, T. Henighan, et al., "Language models (mostly) know what they know," arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.05221, 2022

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[7]

DoLa: Decoding by contrasting layers improves factuality in large language models,

Y. Chuang, Y. Xie, H. Luo, Y. Kim, J. Glass, and P. He, "DoLa: Decoding by contrasting layers improves factuality in large language models," in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2024

work page 2024
[8]

Emergent abilities of large language models,

J. Wei, Y. Tay, R. Bommasani, C. Raffel, et al., "Emergent abilities of large language models," Transactions on Machine Learning Research (TMLR), 2022. Before the First Token: Scale-Dependent Emergence of Hallucination Signals 31

work page 2022
[9]

Locating and editing factual associations in GPT,

K. Meng, D. Bau, A. Andonian, and Y. Belinkov, "Locating and editing factual associations in GPT," in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 35, pp. 17359 –17372, 2022

work page 2022
[10]

Transformer feed -forward layers are key -value memories,

M. Geva, R. Schuster, J. Berant, and O. Levy, "Transformer feed -forward layers are key -value memories," in Proc. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 5765 –5772, 2021

work page 2021
[11]

Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling,

S. Biderman, H. Schoelkopf, Q. Anthony, H. Bradley, et al., "Pythia: A suite for analyzing large language models across training and scaling," in Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 2397 –2430, 2023

work page 2023
[12]

Language models are unsupervised multitask learners,

A. Radford, J. Wu, R. Child, D. Luan, D. Amodei, and I. Sutskever, "Language models are unsupervised multitask learners," OpenAI Technical Report, 2019

work page 2019
[13]

RoFormer: Enhanced Transformer with Rotary Position Embedding

J. Su, Y. Lu, S. Pan, A. Murtadha, B. Wen, and Y. Liu, "RoFormer: Enhanced transformer with rotary position embedding," arXiv preprint arXiv:2104.09864, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[14]

The Pile: An 800GB Dataset of Diverse Text for Language Modeling

L. Gao, S. Biderman, S. Black, L. Golding, et al., "The Pile: An 800GB dataset of diverse text for language modeling," arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.00027, 2021

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[15]

TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension,

M. Joshi, E. Choi, D. Weld, and L. Zettlemoyer, "TriviaQA: A large scale distantly supervised challenge dataset for reading comprehension," in Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 1601–1611, 2017

work page 2017
[16]

A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions

Y. Huang, J. Song, Z. Wang, H. Chen, and L. Ma, "A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions," arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.05232, 2023

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[17]

Survey of hallucination in natural language generation,

Z. Ji, N. Lee, R. Frieske, T. Yu, et al., "Survey of hallucination in natural language generation," ACM Computing Surveys, vol. 55, no. 12, pp. 1–38, 2023

work page 2023
[18]

Sources of hallucination by large language models on inference tasks,

N. McKenna, T. Li, L. Cheng, M. Hosseini, M. Johnson, and M. Steedman, "Sources of hallucination by large language models on inference tasks," in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP, pp. 2758–2774, 2023

work page 2023
[19]

SelfCheckGPT: Zero -resource black -box hallucination detection for generative large language models,

P. Manakul, A. Liusie, and M. Gales, "SelfCheckGPT: Zero -resource black -box hallucination detection for generative large language models," in Proc. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 9004–9017, 2023

work page 2023
[20]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987 , year=

N. Varshney, W. Yao, H. Zhang, J. Chen, and D. Yu, "A stitch in time saves nine: Detecting and mitigating hallucinations of LLMs by validating low-confidence generation," arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.03987, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

Language models are few -shot learners,

T. Brown, B. Mann, N. Ryder, M. Subbiah, et al., "Language models are few -shot learners," in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 33, pp. 1877 –1901, 2020

work page 1901
[22]

Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models

J. Kaplan, S. McCandlish, T. Henighan, T. Brown, et al., "Scaling laws for neural language models," arXiv preprint arXiv:2001.08361, Jan. 2020

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001
[23]

Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage?,

R. Schaeffer, B. Miranda, and S. Koyejo, "Are emergent abilities of large language models a mirage?," in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 36, 2023

work page 2023
[24]

On calibration of modern neural networks,

C. Guo, G. Pleiss, Y. Sun, and K. Weinberger, "On calibration of modern neural networks," in Proc. International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), pp. 1321–1330, 2017

work page 2017
[25]

A baseline for detecting misclassified and out -of-distribution examples in neural networks,

D. Hendrycks and K. Gimpel, "A baseline for detecting misclassified and out -of-distribution examples in neural networks," in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2017

work page 2017
[26]

Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes,

G. Alain and Y. Bengio, "Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probes," in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR) Workshop Track, 2017. Before the First Token: Scale-Dependent Emergence of Hallucination Signals 32

work page 2017
[27]

Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances,

Y. Belinkov, "Probing classifiers: Promises, shortcomings, and advances," Computational Linguistics, vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 207–219, 2022

work page 2022
[28]

A mathematical framework for transformer circuits,

N. Elhage, N. Nanda, C. Olsson, T. Henighan, et al., "A mathematical framework for transformer circuits," Transformer Circuits Thread, 2021

work page 2021
[29]

Interpretability in the wild: A circuit for indirect object identification in GPT -2 small,

K. Wang, A. Variengien, A. Conmy, B. Shlegeris, and J. Steinhardt, "Interpretability in the wild: A circuit for indirect object identification in GPT -2 small," in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

work page 2023
[30]

Analyzing transformers in embedding space,

A. Dar, M. Geva, A. Gupta, and J. Berant, "Analyzing transformers in embedding space," in Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 16124 –16170, 2023

work page 2023
[31]

Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability,

N. Nanda, L. Chan, T. Lieberum, J. Smith, and J. Steinhardt, "Progress measures for grokking via mechanistic interpretability," in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023

work page 2023
[32]

Chain -of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models,

J. Wei, X. Wang, D. Schuurmans, M. Bosma, et al., "Chain -of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models," in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 35, 2022

work page 2022
[33]

Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in -context learning work?,

S. Min, X. Lyu, A. Holtzman, M. Artetxe, et al., "Rethinking the role of demonstrations: What makes in -context learning work?," in Proc. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 11048–11064, 2022

work page 2022
[34]

Measuring massive multitask language understanding,

D. Hendrycks, C. Burns, S. Basart, A. Zou, et al., "Measuring massive multitask language understanding," in Proc. International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2021

work page 2021
[35]

TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods,

S. Lin, J. Hilton, and O. Evans, "TruthfulQA: Measuring how models mimic human falsehoods," in Proc. Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), pp. 3214 –3252, 2022

work page 2022
[36]

Retrieval -augmented generation for knowledge -intensive NLP tasks,

P. Lewis, E. Perez, A. Piktus, F. Petroni, et al., "Retrieval -augmented generation for knowledge -intensive NLP tasks," in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 33, pp. 9459 –9474, 2020

work page 2020
[37]

Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering,

G. Izacard and E. Grave, "Leveraging passage retrieval with generative models for open domain question answering," in Proc. Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL), pp. 874–880, 2021. [38]N.Nanda, "TransformerLens," 2022. [Software] Available: https://github.com/TransformerLensOrg/TransformerLens

work page 2021
[38]

Attention is all you need,

A. Vaswani, N. Shazeer, N. Parmar, J. Uszkoreit, et al., "Attention is all you need," in Proc. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), vol. 30, pp. 5998 –6008, 2017

work page 2017
[39]

BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,

J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, and K. Toutanova, "BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding," in Proc. Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (NAACL), pp. 4171–4186, 2019

work page 2019
[40]

Unsupervised real -time hallucination detection based on the internal states of large language models,

W. Su, C. Wang, Q. Ai, Y. Hu, Z. Wu, Y. Zhou, and Y. Liu, “Unsupervised real -time hallucination detection based on the internal states of large language models,” in Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024, pp. 14379–14391, 2024

work page 2024
[41]

Detecting hallucination in large language models through deep internal representation analysis,

Y. Ma, J. Lin, and Y. Zhang, “Detecting hallucination in large language models through deep internal representation analysis,” in Proc. International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), pp. 929, 2025

work page 2025
[42]

LLM hallucination detection: A fast Fourier transform method based on hidden layer temporal signals,

J. Li, G. Tu, S. Cheng, J. Hu, J. Wang, R. Chen, Z. Zhou, and D. Shan, “LLM hallucination detection: A fast Fourier transform method based on hidden layer temporal signals,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13154, 2025

work page arXiv 2025