<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Model Generation: A Token Probability Approach · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2405.19648/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2405.19648/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Model Generation: A Token Probability Approach — mentioned by scottmu</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47535700</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2405.19648:47535700</guid><pubDate>Thu, 26 Mar 2026 21:04:24 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I want to clarify what Ken meant by &amp;quot;entropy in the output token probability distributions.&amp;quot; Whenever an LLM outputs a token, it&amp;#x27;s choosing that token out of all possible tokens. Every possible output token has a probability assigned by the model (typically a logarithm of the probability). This is a probability distribution (the output token probabilities sum to 1). Entropy is a measure of uncertainty and can quantify if a token probability distribution is certain (1 token has a 99.9% probability, and the rest share the leftover 0.1% probability) or uncertain (every token has roughly the same…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2405.19648/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item><item><title>Detecting Hallucinations in Large Language Model Generation: A Token Probability Approach — mentioned by viraptor</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41777071</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2405.19648:41777071</guid><pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2024 13:20:24 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Doesn&amp;#x27;t an LLM pick the &amp;quot;most probable next symbol&amp;quot; Yes, but that very rarely matters. (Almost never when it&amp;#x27;s brought up in discussions) &amp;gt; Couldn&amp;#x27;t it then, if the probability falls below some threshold, say &amp;quot;I don&amp;#x27;t know&amp;quot; instead of giving what it knows is a low-probability answer? A low probability doesn&amp;#x27;t necessarily mean something&amp;#x27;s incorrect. Responding to your question in French would also have very low probability, even if it&amp;#x27;s correct. There&amp;#x27;s also some nuance around what&amp;#x27;s classified as a hallucination... Maybe something in the training data did suggest that answer as correct.…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2405.19648/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
