Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A new expert-built benchmark pinpoints exactly where Arabic LLM answers go wrong, from single dates to fabricated citations.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

HalluTruthQA provides 2,400 expert-annotated Arabic QA examples with character-level hallucination spans, explanations, and verification candidates, and shows no single LLM excels at all four evaluation tasks.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-03 challenge →

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful Arabic hallucination resource with a real annotation weakness—single expert per domain—that should be fixed with independent re-annotation before the benchmark is treated as authoritative. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20219 v2 pith:XO6JDECG submitted 2026-07-22 cs.CL

HalluTruthQA: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Hallucination Detection, Localization, and Explanation in Arabic Question Answering

Abdessalam Bouchekif , Mohammed-En-Nadhir Zighem , Salah Eddine Bekhouche , Hichem Telli , Somaya Eltanbouly , Shahd Gaben , Heba Sbahi , Samer Rashwani
show 4 more authors
Mutaz Al-Khatib Emad Mohamed Mohammed Ghaly Abdenour Hadid
This is my paper
classification cs.CL
keywords Arabic QAhallucination detectionspan-level localizationexplanation evaluationfactual verificationLLM benchmarkfine-grained annotationzero-shot evaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

HalluTruthQA is an expert-curated benchmark for Arabic question answering that asks not only whether a model's answer is wrong, but where, why, and whether the model can recover the right fact. It contains 2,400 questions paired with model-generated answers, verified reference answers, binary hallucination labels, character-level erroneous spans, human explanations, and six candidate answers for factual verification. Evaluating four open LLMs, the paper shows that detection, localization, verification, and explanation are distinct capabilities: the best detector reaches 0.880 Macro-F1, the best localizer 0.516 F1-Sp, the best verifier 0.852 LO-Score, and the best explainer 0.644 — and no single model tops all four. The authors therefore argue that Arabic hallucination evaluation should move beyond response-level labels toward fine-grained localization, explanation, and factual verification.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that fine-grained hallucination dimensions in Arabic QA do not move together: models that detect hallucinated answers do not systematically localize the erroneous span, select the correct candidate answer, or produce faithful explanations. In a zero-shot, closed-book evaluation of ALLaM-7B, Falcon-H1R-7B, Qwen3-32B, and SILMA, the strongest detection, localization, and explanation performances belong to different models, and span localization (best F1-Sp 0.516) is substantially harder than detection (best Macro-F1 0.880). The paper also finds that error patterns are domain-dependent: Islamic knowledge is dominated by source-attribution and e

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the multi-layer annotation schema: each example pairs an Arabic question with a FANAR-9B-generated answer, a verified reference answer, a binary hallucination label, character-level erroneous spans (for hallucinated answers), human-written explanations, macro- and micro-level hallucination types, and six human-written candidate answers with a verified key. Two evaluation metrics carry the argument. F1-Sp is a partial-credit span-level F1 that rewards any overlap between predicted and gold token sets, so boundary drift is not treated as total failure. LO-Score jointly scores label correctness and option selection: 1.0 for a correct no-hallucination call, 1.0 for

Load-bearing premise

Everything the benchmark concludes rests on the human annotations — the reference answers, labels, error spans, explanations, and multiple-choice keys — being correct; because each domain was annotated by a single expert and then checked by two research assistants rather than by independent experts on the same items, one domain expert's systematic mistake would silently skew every model score.

What would settle it

Take a random sample of 100 examples and have three fresh independent domain experts re-annotate the labels and character spans; if agreement with the published ground truth falls well below the reported expert–reviewer agreement (κ=0.93 for labels, 0.89 character-F1 for spans), the benchmark's ground truth is not stable enough to support its rankings. A second check is to regenerate the 2,400 answers with a different Arabic LLM and see whether the domain-level statistics — such as 61.6% Context Inconsistency in Islamic knowledge — persist.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the benchmark is accurate, Arabic QA evaluation should report localization, verification, and explanation scores alongside detection accuracy, rather than relying on response-level labels alone.
  • Detection and localization are distinct skills: Qwen3-32B's localization (0.516 F1-Sp) is the best among independent models, yet its detection Macro-F1 (0.849) trails ALLaM-7B (0.880), which in turn localizes worse (0.449).
  • A large share of model errors (17.1%) are correct short answers with hallucinated supporting evidence or invented citations, so response-level correctness systematically overestimates factual reliability.
  • Source-sensitive domains like Islamic knowledge require attribution-aware evaluation: the dominant error there is wrong source or attribution (61.6% of spans), a category that binary detection cannot capture.
  • Temporal, numeric, and unit normalization failures account for 39.0% of model-level errors, meaning models still fail to equate equivalent expressions such as Hijri and Gregorian dates.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because all answers come from a single generator (FANAR-9B), the benchmark's difficulty is partly a property of that model's error patterns; regenerating answers with a different Arabic LLM could shift both the span statistics and the resulting model rankings.
  • Gold explanations are human-written, but model explanations are judged by an LLM with human review on only 25 samples per domain; a fully human-rated explanation subset would be a natural reliability check.
  • The character-level spans and six-option answer keys could be repurposed as training signal for fine-grained factual correction or retrieval-augmented generation, not just used as a static test set.
  • The identified error families (date/unit normalization, source attribution, correct-answer-with-false-support) suggest concrete, testable interventions, such as normalizing calendar formats before evaluation or adding a citation-verification step.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. HalluTruthQA introduces a 2,400-example Arabic QA hallucination benchmark spanning Islamic knowledge, history, science, and geography. Each item contains a FANAR-9B-generated answer, a human-verified reference answer, a binary hallucination label, and six MCQ candidates; hallucinated items additionally have character-level erroneous spans, human-written explanations, and macro/micro hallucination types. The paper reports a two-pass annotation process, a zero-shot evaluation of four open-source LLMs (plus FANAR-9B as a separated self-detection reference), and results on detection, span localization, factual verification, and explanation quality. The central claim is that HalluTruthQA supports fine-grained hallucination evaluation and that the four tasks capture distinct model abilities.

Significance. If the annotations are reliable, HalluTruthQA is a valuable and timely resource: it is, to my knowledge, the first Arabic hallucination benchmark to jointly provide response-level labels, exact character-level spans, human-written explanations, and a factual-verification MCQ setting. The resource, code, prompts, and evaluation scripts are released, which is a concrete strength. The evaluation is honest about the single-generator design and the pipeline nature of the downstream metrics. The headline result—that detection, localization, verification, and explanation do not rank models identically—is interesting and plausible. However, the benchmark’s reuse value depends on the correctness of the human ground truth, and that correctness is not yet established as strongly as the paper implies.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1 and Appendix C] The load-bearing validity claim rests on the expert annotations, but the design uses one domain expert per domain, with verification by two research assistants and adjudication by the same original expert. Appendix C explicitly states that agreement was not computed among the four experts on shared items. Expert–reviewer agreement (κ=0.93 for labels, 0.89 char-F1 for spans, 97.9% for the answer key) cannot detect a systematic error by a single domain expert: wrong reference answers, biased distractor sets, or consistent span-boundary mistakes in one domain would propagate into every model score. This is not an internal contradiction; it is missing evidence. Please add an independent second-expert re-annotation of a random, per-domain sample (e.g., 10–15% of each domain), report per-domain agreement on labels, spans, answer keys, and explanations, and describe how disagreements with the f
  2. [§4.3, Explanation Evaluation] Explanation quality is scored by GPT-5.5 as an LLM judge, with only 25 explanations per domain manually reviewed and no quantitative agreement metric. Since explanation quality is one of the four headline tasks and is used to claim ALLaM-7B is the best explainer (Final Score 0.644), the reliability of the judge matters. The statement that the human review 'did not reveal systematic disagreement' is too vague. Please report a correlation or agreement coefficient between judge scores and human scores (e.g., Pearson/Spearman on the 100-example sample, or κ on discretized scores), and ideally enlarge the human validation sample or use a second judge.
  3. [§4.3 and Table 2, pipeline metrics] Span-level F1-Sp is computed with detection-label mismatches receiving zero, and MCQ Correct/LO-Score are computed only after hallucination prediction. The paper acknowledges this is a pipeline setting, but the cross-model comparison is still presented as 'localization ability' (e.g., Qwen3-32B best F1-Sp 0.516). A model that detects fewer hallucinations is doubly penalized, so its localization score reflects detection behavior as much as span accuracy. This partially confounds the paper's claim that the tasks are distinct. Please also report localization F1 conditional on correctly detected hallucinated instances (true positives), together with detection recall, so readers can separate the two factors.
  4. [§4.2 and §4.4, model ranking] The reported differences between top detection models are small (global Macro-F1: ALLaM-7B 0.880, Falcon-H1R-7B 0.859, Qwen3-32B 0.849), and no confidence intervals or significance tests are given. The claim that 'no single model performs best across all tasks' is load-bearing. Please provide bootstrap confidence intervals over the 2,400 examples (and per domain), or at least a per-example variance estimate, so readers can judge whether the reported rankings are within sampling noise. This also applies to the F1-Sp and explanation-score comparisons.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§4.3 / Table 2] The 'Final Score' in Table 2 is not defined in the text; the prompt in Appendix F defines Error Identification and Factual Correction as separate 0–1 scores, but the aggregation into Final Score is missing. State whether it is an average or a weighted combination.
  2. [References] Huang et al. 2025a and 2025b appear to be the same survey with slightly different author lists; please consolidate or clarify the distinction.
  3. [Appendix A.1] The phrase 'verified reference answer' in the abstract and data description is strong. Appendix A.1 lists consulted sources but no source-audit protocol or per-example source links. Consider documenting the verification protocol in more detail, or softening the wording.
  4. [Table 2] Model ordering is inconsistent across domain blocks (e.g., Qwen3-32B appears first in Islamic/Geography/History but second in Science). Use a fixed ordering to improve readability.
  5. [General] The paper would benefit from a short 'dataset statistics' table beyond Table 1, e.g., average response length, average span length per domain, and number of multi-span examples, to help users understand the localization difficulty.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: benchmark annotations and model scores are externally grounded; self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

HalluTruthQA is a dataset-construction and evaluation paper, not a derivation. The load-bearing claims are (i) the 2,400 examples are correctly annotated and (ii) the reported zero-shot model scores measure the four abilities. Neither reduces to its inputs. The labels, spans, options, and explanations were constructed by domain experts against external reference sources (§3.1; Appendix A.1: 'All questions were manually prepared by domain experts based on their knowledge and experience... the expert verified the reference answer using reliable sources'). Model predictions are generated zero-shot with temperature 0 and scored with external metrics (Macro-F1, F1-Sp, LO-Score, GPT-5.5 judge). No metric is defined in terms of the model's own outputs in a way that would force the reported rankings. FANAR-9B's self-detection is the closest potential concern, but the paper explicitly isolates it: 'These results are reported separately, rather than as evidence that FANAR-9B is superior to the other models.' The gold labels are independent of the model, so this is a legitimate reference setting rather than a circular prediction. The self-citations (Bouchekif et al. 2025a,b, 2026a,b) appear only as related-work pointers or motivation, as in 'Prior work shows that LLMs can misquote Qur'anic verses or generate unsupported evidence in Islamic answers'; they do not provide evidence for the benchmark's correctness. The limitation disclosed in Appendix C — 'Since the four domain experts annotated disjoint domain-specific subsets, agreement was not computed among the four experts on shared items' — is a real validity gap for the benchmark's reuse claim, but it concerns annotation independence, not circularity: no result is true by construction because of this gap. The paper is self-contained against external benchmarks, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on trust in the human annotations and on an LLM judge for explanations; no formal mathematical axioms or free parameters are involved. The most consequential assumptions are that expert facts are correct and that agreement between one expert and two reviewers is enough to certify the dataset.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Domain-expert reference answers and hallucination labels are factually correct ground truth.
    Stated in §3.1 and Appendix A.1: each expert verified reference answers using sources; no independent gold standard exists for many Islamic and historical facts.
  • domain assumption Expert-reviewer agreement (κ=0.93 for labels, 0.89 character-F1 for spans) is sufficient evidence of annotation reliability.
    Agreement was computed between the original domain expert and the verification pass, not between independent experts on shared items; Appendix C.
  • domain assumption GPT-5.5 judge scores of explanation quality correlate with human judgment.
    Used as the explanation evaluation metric in §4.3; only a small human review sample (25 per domain) was checked qualitatively, with no quantitative agreement metric reported.
  • domain assumption Hallucinated answers generated by a single model (FANAR-9B) are representative of Arabic LLM hallucinations.
    All benchmark answers are generated by FANAR-9B (§3); the Limitations section acknowledges this may limit diversity of patterns.
  • domain assumption The six MCQ options contain one unambiguous correct answer and five plausible distractors.
    Annotators constructed the options; pre-adjudication answer-key agreement is 97.9% (§3.1, Appendix C), but plausibility is not independently measured.

reviewed 2026-08-03 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of HalluTruthQA: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Hallucination Detection, Localization, and Explanation in Arabic Question Answering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XO6JDECG

@misc{pith2026260720219,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: HalluTruthQA: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Hallucination Detection, Localization, and Explanation in Arabic Question Answering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XO6JDECG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20219}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent Arabic answers, yet factual errors remain difficult to detect, localize, explain, and verify. Existing hallucination benchmarks often provide response-level labels, with limited support for identifying the exact erroneous content, explaining why it is incorrect, or selecting the correct factual answer. We introduce HalluTruthQA, a fine-grained benchmark for hallucination evaluation in Arabic question answering. The benchmark contains 2,400 expert-curated examples across four knowledge-intensive domains: Islamic knowledge, history, science, and geography. Each example pairs an Arabic question and a model-generated answer with a verified reference answer, a binary hallucination label, and six candidate answers for factual verification. Hallucinated answers additionally include character-level erroneous spans, human-written explanations, and macro- and micro-level hallucination types. We evaluate four open-source LLMs, ALLaM-7B, Falcon-H1R-7B, Qwen3-32B, and SILMA, in a zero-shot setting across hallucination detection, span-level localization, factual verification, and explanation evaluation. Results show that these tasks capture different abilities: no single model performs best across all tasks. The best scores are 0.880 Macro-F1 for detection, 0.516 F1-Sp for localization, 0.852 LO-Score for factual verification, and 0.644 for explanation evaluation. These findings show that hallucination evaluation should move beyond response-level detection toward the localization, verification, and explanation of factual errors.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20219 by Abdenour Hadid, Abdessalam Bouchekif, Emad Mohamed, Heba Sbahi, Hichem Telli, Mohammed-En-Nadhir Zighem, Mohammed Ghaly, Mutaz Al-Khatib, Salah Eddine Bekhouche, Samer Rashwani, Shahd Gaben, Somaya Eltanbouly.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Hallucination macro-type distribution across domains. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the HalluTruthQA construction pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Overview of the HalluTruthQA construction pipeline. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Hierarchical taxonomy of hallucination macro-types and observed micro-types. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Hierarchical taxonomy of hallucination macro-types and observed micro-types. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Detecting Hallucinations and Recovering Verified Answers in Arabic Islamic Question Answering

    cs.CL 2026-08 conditional novelty 4.0

    Fine-tuned Gemma-4-12B-it achieves 0.928 Macro-F1 for hallucination detection and 0.895 option accuracy on the Arabic Islamic HalluScoring 2026 task.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages =

    On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization , author =. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics , pages =

  2. [2]

    ACM Transactions on Information Systems , volume=

    A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, taxonomy, challenges, and open questions , author=. ACM Transactions on Information Systems , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  3. [3]

    ACM Computing Surveys , volume =

    Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation , author =. ACM Computing Surveys , volume =. 2023 , doi =

    2023

  4. [4]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23750 , year=

    IslamicMMLU: a benchmark for evaluating LLMs on Islamic knowledge , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.23750 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  5. [5]

    Manakul, Potsawee and Liusie, Adian and Gales, Mark J. F. , booktitle =

  6. [6]

    QIAS 2025: Overview of the Shared Task on Islamic Inheritance Reasoning and Knowledge Assessment

    Bouchekif, Abdessalam and Rashwani, Samer and Mohamed, Emad Soliman Ali and Alkhatib, Mutaz and Sbahi, Heba and Gaben, Shahd and Zaghouani, Wajdi and Erbad, Aiman and Ghaly, Mohammed. QIAS 2025: Overview of the Shared Task on Islamic Inheritance Reasoning and Knowledge Assessment. Proceedings of The Third Arabic Natural Language Processing Conference: Sha...

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.arabicnlp-sharedtasks.117 2025

  7. [7]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07539 , year=

    MAWARITH: A Dataset and Benchmark for Legal Inheritance Reasoning with LLMs , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.07539 , year=

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13756 , year=

    QIAS 2026: Overview of the Shared Task on Islamic Inheritance Reasoning , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.13756 , year=

    arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    2010 , publisher =

    Introduction to Arabic Natural Language Processing , author =. 2010 , publisher =. doi:10.2200/S00277ED1V01Y201008HLT010 , url =

    doi:10.2200/s00277ed1v01y201008hlt010 2010

  10. [10]

    ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing , volume =

    Arabic Natural Language Processing: Challenges and Solutions , author =. ACM Transactions on Asian Language Information Processing , volume =. 2009 , publisher =

    2009

  11. [11]

    Halwasa: Quantify and Analyze Hallucinations in Large Language Models:

    Mubarak, Hamdy and Al-Khalifa, Hend and Alkhalefah, Khaloud Suliman , booktitle =. Halwasa: Quantify and Analyze Hallucinations in Large Language Models:. 2024 , month = may, address =

    2024

  12. [12]

    2025 , month = nov, address =

    Alansari, Aisha and Luqman, Hamzah , booktitle =. 2025 , month = nov, address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.arabicnlp-main.12 , url =

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.arabicnlp-main.12 2025

  13. [13]

    Proceedings of The Third Arabic Natural Language Processing Conference: Shared Tasks , pages=

    IslamicEval 2025: The First Shared Task of Capturing LLMs Hallucination in Islamic Content , author=. Proceedings of The Third Arabic Natural Language Processing Conference: Shared Tasks , pages=

    2025

  14. [14]

    Hallucination Detectives at

    Elchafei, Passant and Abu-Elkheir, Mervat , booktitle =. Hallucination Detectives at. 2025 , month = jul, address =

    2025

  15. [15]

    2022 , month = may, address =

    Lin, Stephanie and Hilton, Jacob and Evans, Owain , booktitle =. 2022 , month = may, address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.229 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2022.acl-long.229 2022

  16. [16]

    2023 , month = dec, address =

    Li, Junyi and Cheng, Xiaoxue and Zhao, Xin and Nie, Jian-Yun and Wen, Ji-Rong , booktitle =. 2023 , month = dec, address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.397 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.397 2023

  17. [17]

    2023 , url =

    Chen, Shiqi and Zhao, Yiran and Zhang, Jinghan and Chern, I-Chun and Gao, Siyang and Liu, Pengfei and He, Junxian , booktitle =. 2023 , url =

    2023

  18. [18]

    2023 , month = dec, address =

    Min, Sewon and Krishna, Kalpesh and Lyu, Xinxi and Lewis, Mike and Yih, Wen-tau and Koh, Pang and Iyyer, Mohit and Zettlemoyer, Luke and Hajishirzi, Hannaneh , booktitle =. 2023 , month = dec, address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.741 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.741 2023

  19. [19]

    2024 , month = aug, address =

    Niu, Cheng and Wu, Yuanhao and Zhu, Juno and Xu, Siliang and Shum, KaShun and Zhong, Randy and Song, Juntong and Zhang, Tong , booktitle =. 2024 , month = aug, address =. doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.585 , url =

    doi:10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.585 2024

  20. [20]

    2026 1st International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Engineering Systems (

    Detecting Hallucinations in Arabic Large Language Models Using Automatic Fact-Verification Signals , author =. 2026 1st International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Engineering Systems (. 2026 , publisher =

    2026

  21. [21]

    Hallucination Analysis in Large Language Models for Arabic Question Answering , author =. Ing. 2026 , doi =

    2026

  22. [22]

    Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (

    Vazquez, Raul and Mickus, Timothee and Zosa, Elaine and Vahtola, Teemu and Tiedemann, J. Proceedings of the 19th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation (. 2025 , month = jul, address =

    2025

  23. [23]

    Proceedings of The Third Arabic Natural Language Processing Conference: Shared Tasks , pages=

    PalmX 2025: The first shared task on benchmarking llms on arabic and islamic culture , author=. Proceedings of The Third Arabic Natural Language Processing Conference: Shared Tasks , pages=

    2025

  24. [24]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.17007 , year=

    HalluScore: Large Language Model Hallucination Question Answering Benchmark , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.17007 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  25. [25]

    Halluverse-M\^

    Abdaljalil, Samir and Sharma, Parichit and Serpedin, Erchin and Kurban, Hasan , journal=. Halluverse-M\^

  26. [26]

    Neural Computing and Applications , volume=

    Aftina: enhancing stability and preventing hallucination in ai-based islamic fatwa generation using llms and rag , author=. Neural Computing and Applications , volume=. 2025 , publisher=

    2025

  27. [27]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07833 , year=

    Halluverse25: Fine-grained multilingual benchmark dataset for llm hallucinations , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07833 , year=

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  28. [28]

    ACM Transactions on Information Systems , volume =

    A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions , author =. ACM Transactions on Information Systems , volume =. 2025 , doi =

    2025

  29. [29]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06265 , year =

    Large Language Models Hallucination: A Comprehensive Survey , author =. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06265 , year =

    arXiv

  30. [30]

    Nature Machine Intelligence , volume =

    Factuality Challenges in the Era of Large Language Models and Opportunities for Fact-Checking , author =. Nature Machine Intelligence , volume =. 2024 , doi =

    2024

  31. [31]

    Assessing Large Language Models on Islamic Legal Reasoning: Evidence from Inheritance Law Evaluation

    Bouchekif, Abdessalam and Rashwani, Samer and Sbahi, Heba and Gaben, Shahd and Al Khatib, Mutaz and Ghaly, Mohammed. Assessing Large Language Models on Islamic Legal Reasoning: Evidence from Inheritance Law Evaluation. Proceedings of The Third Arabic Natural Language Processing Conference. 2025. doi:10.18653/v1/2025.arabicnlp-main.20

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2025.arabicnlp-main.20 2025

  32. [32]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24012 , year=

    CVPD at QIAS 2026: RAG-Guided LLM Reasoning for Al-Mawarith Share Computation and Heir Allocation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.24012 , year=

    arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages=

    Do androids know they’re only dreaming of electric sheep? , author=. Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2024 , pages=

    2024

  34. [34]

    Fanar : An Arabic-Centric Multimodal Generative AI Platform. 2025. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2501.13944. arXiv:2501.13944

    Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2501.13944 2025

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 3, 2026.