# Do Benchmarks Underestimate LLM Performance? Evaluating Hallucination Detection With LLM-First Human-Adjudicated Assessment

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08462 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.08462/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Medical and scientific domain agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 13 of its 16 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 8 May 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Medical and scientific domain agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/medical-and-scientific-domain-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 13 of 13)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03629/) (2022)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.00661/) (2020)
- [SummEval: Re-evaluating Summarization Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2007.12626/) (2020)
- [Evaluating the Factual Consistency of Abstractive Text Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1910.12840/) (2019)
- [SummaC: Re-Visiting NLI-based Models for Inconsistency Detection in Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2111.09525/) (2021)
- [Asking and Answering Questions to Evaluate the Factual Consistency of Summaries](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.04228/) (2020)
- [FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.03754/) (2020)
- [RAGTruth: A Hallucination Corpus for Developing Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.00396/) (2023)
- [TrueTeacher: Learning Factual Consistency Evaluation with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.11171/) (2023)
- [LettuceDetect: A Hallucination Detection Framework for RAG Applications](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.17125/) (2025)
- [Are LLMs Better than Reported? Detecting Label Errors and Mitigating Their Effect on Model Performance](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.18889/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Hallucination remains a persistent challenge in Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly in context-grounded settings such as RAG and agentic AI systems. This study focuses on contextual hallucination detection in summarization tasks. We analyze the QAGS-C and SummEval datasets by comparing original benchmark annotations with reason and span-based predictions from Gemini 2.5 Flash and GPT-5 Mini. To address systematic divergences between human labels and LLM judgments, we re-evaluated all conflicted samples through a human adjudication process involving 2 cross-cultural adjudicators. Following this re-evaluation, triple agreement (between human, GPT, and Gemini) increased by 6.38% for QAGS-C and 7.62% for SummEval. Similarly, model accuracy improved, with GPT increasing by 4.25% on QAGS-C and 2.34% on SummEval, while Gemini showed gains of 8.51% and 3.80%, respectively. Notably, adjudicators frequently sided with the models' judgments over original human annotations when LLMs provided explicit reasoning. Overall human adjudicator agreement ranged between 83% and 87%. These findings suggest that for ambiguity-prone tasks, single-pass annotations may be insufficient, and model-assisted re-evaluation yields more reliable benchmarks.