# Evaluating LLMs at Detecting Errors in LLM Responses

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.03602 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.03602/

## Key facts

- Cited by 50 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 56 of its 74 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 4 Apr 2024.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 56)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2307.09288/) (2023)
- [Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2201.11903/) (2022)
- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [Self-Consistency Improves Chain of Thought Reasoning in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.11171/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are Zero-Shot Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2205.11916/) (2022)
- [Reflexion: Language Agents with Verbal Reinforcement Learning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.11366/) (2023)
- [On the Opportunities and Risks of Foundation Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2108.07258/) (2021)
- [Let's Verify Step by Step](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.20050/) (2023)
- [Finetuned Language Models Are Zero-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.01652/) (2021)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [Self-Refine: Iterative Refinement with Self-Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.17651/) (2023)
- [Qwen Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.16609/) (2023)
- [Constitutional AI: Harmlessness from AI Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.08073/) (2022)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Beyond the Imitation Game: Quantifying and extrapolating the capabilities of language models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2206.04615/) (2022)
- [Mixtral of Experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.04088/) (2024)
- [Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuAD](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.03822/) (2018)
- [FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14251/) (2023)
- [Instruction-Following Evaluation for Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.07911/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Large Language Models Cannot Self-Correct Reasoning Yet](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.01798/) (2023)
- [Teaching Large Language Models to Self-Debug](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.05128/) (2023)
- [SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08896/) (2023)
- [CRITIC: Large Language Models Can Self-Correct with Tool-Interactive Critiquing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11738/) (2023)
- [AlpacaFarm: A Simulation Framework for Methods that Learn from Human Feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14387/) (2023)

## Built on by (most cited first, 30 of 50)

- [From System 1 to System 2: A Survey of Reasoning Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17419/) (2025)
- [When Can LLMs Actually Correct Their Own Mistakes? A Critical Survey of Self-Correction of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01297/) (2024)
- [Sample, Scrutinize and Scale: Effective Inference-Time Search by Scaling Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01839/) (2025)
- [Correlated Errors in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.07962/) (2025)
- [Finding Blind Spots in Evaluator LLMs with Interpretable Checklists](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.13439/) (2024)
- [Where Did It All Go Wrong? A Hierarchical Look into Multi-Agent Error Attribution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.04886/) (2025)
- [WildHallucinations: Evaluating Long-form Factuality in LLMs with Real-World Entity Queries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.17468/) (2024)
- [Self-Correction Bench: Uncovering and Addressing the Self-Correction Blind Spot in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.02778/) (2025)
- [Beyond Consensus: Mitigating the Agreeableness Bias in LLM Judge Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.11822/) (2025)
- [(Im)possibility of Automated Hallucination Detection in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.17004/) (2025)
- [Can LLMs Correct Themselves? A Benchmark of Self-Correction in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.16062/) (2025)
- [FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.21843/) (2025)
- [Hallucination to Truth: A Review of Fact-Checking and Factuality Evaluation in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.03860/) (2025)
- [Beyond the Comfort Zone: Emerging Solutions to Overcome Challenges in Integrating LLMs into Software Products](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12071/) (2024)
- [Can Vision-Language Models Evaluate Handwritten Math?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.07244/) (2025)
- [The Validation Gap: A Mechanistic Analysis of How Language Models Compute Arithmetic but Fail to Validate It](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11771/) (2025)
- [Understanding Reasoning in LLMs through Strategic Information Allocation under Uncertainty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.15500/) (2026)
- [Divide-Verify-Refine: Can LLMs Self-Align with Complex Instructions?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.12207/) (2024)
- [Two Heads Are Better Than One: Dual-Model Verbal Reflection at Inference-Time](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.19230/) (2025)
- [Evaluation of LLMs for mathematical problem solving](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.00309/) (2025)
- [Improving Human Verification of LLM Reasoning through Interactive Explanation Interfaces](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.22922/) (2025)
- [Position: LLMs Can be Good Tutors in English Education](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.05467/) (2025)
- [ErrorMap and ErrorAtlas: Charting the Failure Landscape of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.15812/) (2026)
- [MAATS: A Multi-Agent Automated Translation System Based on MQM Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.14848/) (2025)
- [Is my Meeting Summary Good? Estimating Quality with a Multi-LLM Evaluator](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.18444/) (2024)
- [When and Why Does Multi-Agent Debate Fail and Does It Really Underperform?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2510.20963/) (2025)
- [IF-CRITIC: Towards a Fine-Grained LLM Critic for Instruction-Following Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.01014/) (2025)
- [Catching One in Five: LLM-as-Judge Blind Spots in Production Multi-Turn Transaction Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.10315/) (2026)
- [Diagnosing Failures in Large Language Models' Answers: Integrating Error Attribution into Evaluation Framework](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.08459/) (2025)
- [Hop, Skip, and Overthink: Diagnosing Why Reasoning Models Fumble during Multi-Hop Analysis](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.04699/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

With Large Language Models (LLMs) being widely used across various tasks, detecting errors in their responses is increasingly crucial. However, little research has been conducted on error detection of LLM responses. Collecting error annotations on LLM responses is challenging due to the subjective nature of many NLP tasks, and thus previous research focuses on tasks of little practical value (e.g., word sorting) or limited error types (e.g., faithfulness in summarization). This work introduces ReaLMistake, the first error detection benchmark consisting of objective, realistic, and diverse errors made by LLMs. ReaLMistake contains three challenging and meaningful tasks that introduce objectively assessable errors in four categories (reasoning correctness, instruction-following, context-faithfulness, and parameterized knowledge), eliciting naturally observed and diverse errors in responses of GPT-4 and Llama 2 70B annotated by experts. We use ReaLMistake to evaluate error detectors based on 12 LLMs. Our findings show: 1) Top LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude 3 detect errors made by LLMs at very low recall, and all LLM-based error detectors perform much worse than humans. 2) Explanations by LLM-based error detectors lack reliability. 3) LLMs-based error detection is sensitive to small changes in prompts but remains challenging to improve. 4) Popular approaches to improving LLMs, including self-consistency and majority vote, do not improve the error detection performance. Our benchmark and code are provided at https://github.com/psunlpgroup/ReaLMistake.