Uncertainty Quantification for Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models: Foundations, Methodology, and Future Directions

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2510.12040
• Title: Uncertainty Quantification for Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models: Foundations, Methodology, and Future Directions
• Authors: Sungmin Kang, Yavuz Faruk Bakman, Duygu Nur Yaldiz, Baturalp Buyukates, Salman Avestimehr
• Classification: cs.CL (Computational Linguistics)
• Publication Date: October 15, 2025 (Preprint)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.12040

Abstract

The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) has transformed the landscape of natural language processing, achieving breakthroughs in question answering, machine translation, and text summarization. However, their deployment in real-world applications raises concerns about reliability and trustworthiness, as LLMs remain prone to generating hallucinated outputs that appear plausible but are factually incorrect. Uncertainty Quantification (UQ) has emerged as a core research direction to address this challenge, providing principled metrics for assessing the credibility of model-generated content. This paper first introduces the theoretical foundations of UQ, from formal definitions to the traditional distinction between aleatoric and epistemic uncertainty, then emphasizes how these concepts adapt to the LLM context. Building on this foundation, we investigate the role of UQ in hallucination detection, where quantifying uncertainty provides mechanisms for identifying unreliable generations and improving reliability. We systematically classify existing methods along multiple dimensions and present experimental results demonstrating several representative approaches. Finally, we discuss current limitations and outline promising future research directions.

Research Background and Motivation

Core Research Problems

The core problems this research addresses are how to effectively detect and quantify hallucination phenomena in Large Language Models. Specifically, these include:

1. Hallucination Detection Challenge: LLMs frequently produce outputs that appear reasonable but are factually incorrect, which is particularly dangerous in high-risk domains such as healthcare, law, and marketing
2. Credibility Assessment: Lack of effective mechanisms to evaluate the reliability and confidence of model outputs
3. Uncertainty Quantification Challenges: Traditional UQ methods are difficult to apply directly to autoregressive generation in LLMs

Problem Significance

1. Practical Value: In high-risk application scenarios, erroneous model outputs can lead to severe consequences
2. Model Trustworthiness: Improving the trustworthiness of LLMs is a prerequisite for their widespread application
3. Theoretical Significance: Provides theoretical foundations for uncertainty quantification in generative models

Limitations of Existing Methods

1. Inapplicability of Traditional UQ Methods: UQ methods for classification tasks cannot be directly applied to open-ended generation tasks
2. Lack of Systematic Framework: Existing hallucination detection methods lack a unified theoretical framework
3. Inconsistent Evaluation Standards: Different methods employ different evaluation metrics, making fair comparison difficult

Core Contributions

1. Theoretical Contribution: Systematically adapts traditional uncertainty quantification theory to the generative scenarios of LLMs, clearly distinguishing how epistemic and aleatoric uncertainty manifest in LLMs
2. Method Classification Framework: Proposes a four-dimensional classification system (conceptual methods, sampling requirements, model accessibility, training dependency), systematically organizing 30+ UQ methods
3. Experimental Evaluation: Conducts comprehensive experimental comparisons of representative methods across multiple datasets, providing benchmark evaluation results
4. Future Direction Guidance: Provides in-depth analysis of current method limitations and proposes seven specific future research directions

Methodology Details

Task Definition

Input: Query x and model-generated response y Output: Uncertainty score UQ(x,y), ideally negatively correlated with response correctness Objective: Maximize E1_{U(x₁,y₁)<U(x₂,y₂)} · 1_{y₁∈Y₁∧y₂∉Y₂}, meaning correct outputs should receive lower uncertainty scores

Four-Dimensional Classification Framework

1. Conceptual Methods Dimension

• Token Probability Methods: Based on conditional probabilities of generated sequences
  • Conditional Sequence Probability (CSP): CSP(y,x) = log P(y|x) = Σⱼ log P(yⱼ|y<ⱼ,x)
  • Length-Normalized Score (LNS): Average token log-probability
  • Semantic Entropy: Entropy calculation based on semantic clustering
• Output Consistency Methods: Checking output consistency through multiple sampling
  • Kernel Language Entropy (KLE): Quantifying semantic kernels using von Neumann entropy
  • Semantic Density: Estimating response support density in semantic space
• Internal State Inspection: Analyzing model internal representations
  • Mahalanobis Distance: Measuring distance of hidden states from training distribution
  • Attention Analysis: Detecting uncertainty using attention weight patterns
• Self-Checking Methods: Model self-evaluation
  • P(True): Model's probability estimate of its own output correctness
  • Verbalized Confidence: Directly querying the model for confidence scores

2. Sampling Requirements Dimension

• Single Sampling: Requires only one inference pass, computationally efficient
• Multiple Sampling: Requires multiple inference passes, estimating uncertainty through output diversity

3. Model Accessibility Dimension

• Black-box: Access only to output text
• Gray-box: Access to partial internal information such as token probabilities
• White-box: Complete access to model internal states and parameters

4. Training Dependency Dimension

• Supervised Methods: Require annotated data to train uncertainty estimators
• Unsupervised Methods: Directly estimate uncertainty from model behavior

Technical Innovations

1. Theoretical Adaptation: Successfully adapts Bayesian uncertainty decomposition theory to generative LLMs
2. Multi-Dimensional Classification: Provides finer-grained method classification framework than previous work
3. Unified Evaluation: Establishes consistent evaluation protocols and metric systems
4. Long-Text Extension: Extends UQ from short-text question answering to long-text generation scenarios

Experimental Setup

Datasets

1. TriviaQA: 1,000 open-domain question-answering samples, testing factual knowledge
2. GSM8K: 1,000 mathematical reasoning problems, testing logical reasoning ability
3. FactScore-Bio: Biographical long-text generation, testing accuracy of multiple factual claims

Evaluation Metrics

1. Threshold-Independent Metrics (primarily used):
   • AUROC: Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic curve, range 0.5-1.0
   • PRR: Prediction-Rejection Ratio, measuring effectiveness of filtering low-confidence predictions
   • AUPRC: Area Under the Precision-Recall curve
2. Threshold-Dependent Metrics:
   • Accuracy, Precision, Recall, F1 Score (requiring calibration)

Comparison Methods

Evaluated 17 representative UQ methods, including:

• LARS, MARS, SAPLMA (supervised methods)
• Semantic Entropy, SAR, KLE (unsupervised methods)
• P(True), Cross-Examination (self-checking methods)

Implementation Details

• Used LLaMA-3-8B (open-source) and GPT-4o-mini (closed-source) models
• Unified evaluation through TruthTorchLM library
• Applied multiple calibration methods to ensure fair comparison

Experimental Results

Main Results

Key Findings

1. Supervised Method Advantages: Supervised methods such as LARS and SAPLMA demonstrate superior performance on most tasks
2. Task Heterogeneity: Optimal methods vary across different tasks; for example, Multi-LLM Collab performs best on GPT-4o-mini for GSM8K (0.933 AUROC)
3. Long-Text Challenges: All methods show significant performance degradation on FactScore-Bio, indicating that long-text UQ remains challenging
4. Model Dependency: The same method shows substantial performance variation across different models

Ablation Study Findings

1. Impact of Sampling Quantity: Multi-sampling method performance improves with increased sampling, but with diminishing marginal effects
2. Importance of Calibration: Appropriate calibration significantly enhances comparability across different methods
3. Feature Importance: In internal state methods, intermediate layer features are more effective than output layer features

Related Work

Major Research Directions

1. Traditional UQ Theory: Bayesian neural networks, ensemble learning, calibration methods
2. LLM Hallucination Detection: Fact verification, consistency checking, external tool assistance
3. Generative Model Uncertainty: Sequence-level uncertainty quantification methods

Relative Advantages of This Work

1. Systematicity: First comprehensive survey and classification of LLM UQ
2. Practicality: Focuses on practical application scenarios for hallucination detection
3. Comprehensiveness: Covers theoretical foundations, method classification, experimental evaluation, and future directions

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

1. UQ Effectiveness: Uncertainty quantification is an effective tool for detecting LLM hallucinations
2. Method Diversity: Different types of UQ methods have respective advantages and disadvantages, applicable to different scenarios
3. Evaluation Importance: Unified evaluation frameworks are crucial for method comparison
4. Development Space: The field still has numerous unresolved theoretical and practical problems

Limitations

1. Knowledge Boundary Problem: LLM knowledge has temporal constraints; UQ cannot address outdated information
2. Score Interpretability: Most UQ methods produce scores lacking intuitive probabilistic interpretation
3. Computational Cost: Ensemble methods incur prohibitive computational costs at LLM scale
4. Long-Text Challenges: Long-text generation UQ still lacks effective solutions

Future Directions

1. Theoretical Foundations: Develop more rigorous UQ theory for generative models
2. Long-Text UQ: Develop claim-level uncertainty quantification for long-text generation
3. Decoding Strategy Impact: Investigate effects of different decoding strategies on UQ
4. Novel Uncertainty Decomposition: Move beyond traditional epistemic/aleatoric dichotomy
5. Practical Applications: Integrate UQ into practical systems such as reasoning and dialogue

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Theoretical Depth: Systematically adapts classical UQ theory to LLM scenarios with solid theoretical foundations
2. Comprehensive Classification: Four-dimensional classification framework is clear and comprehensive, facilitating understanding of method characteristics
3. Sufficient Experimentation: Comprehensive experimental comparisons across multiple datasets and models
4. Practical Value: Provides readily usable evaluation libraries and benchmark results
5. Forward-Looking Perspective: Provides in-depth analysis of limitations and proposes specific research directions

Weaknesses

1. Limited Methodological Innovation: Primarily a survey work with relatively limited original method contributions
2. Insufficient Long-Text Experiments: Long-text UQ experiments are relatively simple with insufficient in-depth analysis
3. Limited Theoretical Analysis Depth: Theoretical characteristics of different methods could be analyzed more deeply
4. Lack of Computational Efficiency Analysis: Missing systematic analysis of computational complexity for different methods

Impact and Significance

1. Academic Value: Provides important theoretical framework and experimental benchmarks for LLM UQ research
2. Practical Value: Offers practical guidance for industrial application of LLM UQ
3. Reproducibility: Open-sourced evaluation library facilitates reproducibility and comparison in subsequent research
4. Field Advancement: Likely to become an important reference in the field

Applicable Scenarios

1. Research Reference: Suitable as introductory and reference material for LLM uncertainty quantification research
2. Method Selection: Provides guidance for selecting appropriate UQ methods in practical applications
3. Benchmark Evaluation: Provides standardized evaluation framework for new methods
4. Educational Resource: Can serve as teaching material for relevant courses

References

The paper cites abundant relevant literature, primarily including:

• Classical uncertainty quantification theory (Bayesian methods, ensemble learning)
• LLM hallucination detection methods (fact verification, consistency checking)
• Evaluation methods and datasets (TriviaQA, GSM8K, FactScore, etc.)
• State-of-the-art UQ methods (Semantic Entropy, MARS, LARS, etc.)

This paper provides a comprehensive and in-depth survey of the LLM uncertainty quantification field, not only systematizing theoretical foundations and existing methods but also providing valuable benchmark results through experimentation and pointing future research directions. For researchers and practitioners in this field, this is an invaluable reference resource.