Weakly Supervised Distillation of Hallucination Signals into Transformer Representations
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Existing hallucination detection methods for large language models (LLMs) rely on external verification at inference time, requiring gold answers, retrieval systems, or auxiliary judge models. We ask whether this external supervision can instead be distilled into the model's own representations during training, enabling hallucination detection from internal activations alone at inference time. We introduce a weak supervision framework that combines three complementary grounding signals: substring matching, sentence embedding similarity, and an LLM as a judge verdict to label generated responses as grounded or hallucinated without human annotation. Using this framework, we construct a 15000-sample dataset from SQuAD v2 (10500 train/development samples and a separate 5000-sample test set), where each example pairs a LLaMA-2-7B generated answer with its full per-layer hidden states and structured hallucination labels. We then train five probing classifiers: ProbeMLP (M0), LayerWiseMLP (M1), CrossLayerTransformer (M2), HierarchicalTransformer (M3), and CrossLayerAttentionTransformerV2 (M4), directly on these hidden states, treating external grounding signals as training-time supervision only. Our central hypothesis is that hallucination detection signals can be distilled into transformer representations, enabling internal detection without any external verification at inference time. Results support this hypothesis. Transformer-based probes achieve the strongest discrimination, with M2 performing best on 5-fold average AUC/F1, and M3 performing best on both single-fold validation and held-out test evaluation. We also benchmark inference efficiency: probe latency ranges from 0.15 to 5.62 ms (batched) and 1.55 to 6.66 ms (single sample), while end-to-end generation plus probe throughput remains approximately 0.231 queries per second, indicating negligible practical overhead.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 17 of its 18 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 7 Apr 2026.
Builds on
17 of 18 references.
References · 17
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 12,865
- 2019Sentence-BERT: Sentence Embeddings using Siamese BERT-Networkscited by 9,049
- 2023Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arenacited by 8,393
- 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
- 2023Mistral 7Bcited by 3,065
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,056
- 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
- 2016Understanding intermediate layers using linear classifier probescited by 1,279
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
- 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 895
5 more
- 2019How Contextual are Contextualized Word Representations? Comparing the Geometry of BERT, ELMo, and GPT-2 Embeddingscited by 770
- 2022Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervisioncited by 733
- 2023The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lyingcited by 644
- 2019What do you learn from context? Probing for sentence structure in contextualized word representationscited by 436
- 2025ConSens: Assessing context grounding in open-book question answeringcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.