Confidently Wrong: Detecting Hallucinations in Financial Question Answering from LLM Internal States

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.11414v1
• Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2026 11:22:25 GMT
• Title: Confidently Wrong: Detecting Hallucinations in Financial Question Answering from LLM Internal States
• Abstract summary: Hedged, uncertain answers invite scrutiny, whereas confident errors silently degrade downstream decisions without warning.<n>We ask how reliably such confidently wrong answers, or confident hallucinations, can be detected from a model's internal activations.<n>We train linear probes on the residual stream and evaluate them on two established question-answering benchmarks.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) in financial applications fail most consequentially when they are confidently wrong. Hedged, uncertain answers invite scrutiny, whereas confident errors silently degrade downstream decisions without warning. We ask how reliably such confidently wrong answers, or confident hallucinations, can be detected from a model's internal activations, and whether those activations carry information beyond its observable outputs. We train linear probes on the residual stream and evaluate them on two established question-answering (QA) benchmarks built from real filings, FinQA and TAT-QA. Behavioral confidence is measured as the agreement among eight resampled answers to the same question, and probe effectiveness is compared against baselines, such as token log-probabilities and the model's own True/False self-assessment of its answer. Our findings show that among confident answers, those for which all eight resamples agree, 15-23% are wrong on FinQA. There the probes have a significant advantage over baseline methods in detecting hallucinations, holding 0.68-0.77 AUROC while the best baselines fall to 0.55-0.63, across Qwen3-8B, Llama-3.1-8B, and Gemma-2-9B. Our results suggest that probing can be a cost-effective triage mechanism for routing LLM answers to human review and quality control procedures in high-stakes financial applications.

Related papers

• One Human, $N$ Agents: Audit-Budget Allocation for LLM Agent Fleets under Miscalibrated, Correlated Confidence [41.99844472131922]
  A single human must audit $N$ LLM agents under a budget of $B ll N$ audits per round.<n>We model this as budgeted noisy inspection over a two-level Gaussian copula and locate the miscalibration threshold $*$ past which confidence-ranked auditing is emphworse than random.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-30T14:52:36Z)
• SELFDOUBT: Uncertainty Quantification for Reasoning LLMs via the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio [0.038379177968040606]
  We propose SELFDOUBT, a single-pass uncertainty framework for reasoning language models.<n>Our key signal, the Hedge-to-Verify Ratio (HVR), detects whether a reasoning trace contains uncertainty markers and, if so, whether they are offset by explicit selfchecking behavior.<n> SELFDOUBT operates on a single observed reasoning trajectory, making it suitable for latency- and cost-constrained deployment over any proprietary API.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T19:19:29Z)
• Fact-Checking with Large Language Models via Probabilistic Certainty and Consistency [7.806516365113592]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in applications requiring factual accuracy.<n>While fact-checking can mitigate these errors, existing methods typically retrieve external evidence indiscriminately.<n>We introduce Probabilistic Certainty and Consistency (PCC), a framework that estimates factual confidence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-05T21:57:41Z)
• RefineBench: Evaluating Refinement Capability of Language Models via Checklists [71.02281792867531]
  We evaluate two refinement modes: guided refinement and self-refinement.<n>In guided refinement, both proprietary LMs and large open-weight LMs can leverage targeted feedback to refine responses to near-perfect levels within five turns.<n>These findings suggest that frontier LMs require breakthroughs to self-refine their incorrect responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T07:20:52Z)
• LACIE: Listener-Aware Finetuning for Confidence Calibration in Large Language Models [69.68379406317682]
  We introduce a listener-aware finetuning method (LACIE) to calibrate implicit and explicit confidence markers. We show that LACIE models the listener, considering not only whether an answer is right, but whether it will be accepted by a listener. We find that training with LACIE results in 47% fewer incorrect answers being accepted while maintaining the same level of acceptance for correct answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-31T17:16:38Z)
• Uncertainty-Based Abstention in LLMs Improves Safety and Reduces Hallucinations [63.330182403615886]
  A major barrier towards the practical deployment of large language models (LLMs) is their lack of reliability. Three situations where this is particularly apparent are correctness, hallucinations when given unanswerable questions, and safety. In all three cases, models should ideally abstain from responding, much like humans, whose ability to understand uncertainty makes us refrain from answering questions we don't know.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-16T23:56:38Z)
• Uncertainty in Language Models: Assessment through Rank-Calibration [65.10149293133846]
  Language Models (LMs) have shown promising performance in natural language generation. It is crucial to correctly quantify their uncertainty in responding to given inputs. We develop a novel and practical framework, termed $Rank$-$Calibration$, to assess uncertainty and confidence measures for LMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-04T02:31:05Z)
• Reconfidencing LLMs from the Grouping Loss Perspective [56.801251926946485]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are susceptible to generating hallucinated answers in a confident tone. Recent findings show that controlling uncertainty must go beyond calibration. We construct a new evaluation dataset derived from a knowledge base to assess confidence scores given to answers of Mistral and LLaMA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-07T15:40:22Z)
• Eliciting Latent Knowledge from Quirky Language Models [1.8035046415192353]
  Eliciting Latent Knowledge aims to find patterns in a capable neural network's activations that robustly track the true state of the world. We introduce 12 datasets and a suite of "quirky" language models (LMs) that are finetuned to make systematic errors when answering questions. We find that, especially in middle layers, linear probes usually report an LM's knowledge independently of what the LM outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-02T05:47:22Z)
• Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedback [91.22679548111127]
  A trustworthy real-world prediction system should produce well-calibrated confidence scores. We show that verbalized confidences emitted as output tokens are typically better-calibrated than the model's conditional probabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T10:12:33Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.