Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Do LLM Recommenders Know When They're Hallucinating? Auditing Confidence Calibration in Catalog Faithfulness

Srijith Ravikumar · Aug 7, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the exact study setup in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

LLM recommenders for top-K item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog. Prior audits report a binary out-of-domain rate; none ask whether the model knew. We jointly audit hallucination rate (OOD@10) and verbalized-confidence calibration (ECE, Brier, reliability) for four zero-shot LLM recommenders from four independent vendors (Mistral Large, Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-OSS-120B, Claude Sonnet 4.6), not grounded or fine-tuned systems, across three catalogs (MovieLens-25M, Amazon Reviews 2023 Toys, Yelp Open Dataset), stratified by item popularity. Measuring catalog membership is itself the hard part: on identical outputs the reported rate moves by an order of magnitude with the string matcher used, and F1 cannot separate the candidates. We validate the instrument against 201 human judgments and select on net bias, where the adopted one is off by -0.040 against +0.144 for the common fuzzy rule. Hallucination is then strongly catalog-dependent (0.6-2.7% on MovieLens, 11.6-38.7% on Yelp, 49.3-61.0% on Amazon Toys). Each model holds a near-constant confidence level barely responsive to the catalog, while the catalog-hit rate swings 60 points, so the sign of the error is set by where a model's constant lands against a catalog's accuracy: 7 of the twelve cells are under-confident and 5 over-confident, all four under-confident on MovieLens, all four over-confident on Amazon Toys. We read this as an elicitation mismatch: "Just Ask" elicits a generic quality rating, not a catalog-membership probability. A conformal abstention threshold over verbalized confidence changes hallucination by at most 1.65 pp across four alpha levels, because the channel cannot separate correct items from hallucinations. We recommend that audits report calibration alongside OOD, validate the matcher producing the OOD number, and use catalog-anchored elicitation.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

15/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"LLM recommenders for top-K item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"LLM recommenders for top-K item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog."

Quality Controls

partial

Calibration

Calibration/adjudication style controls detected.

"We jointly audit hallucination rate (OOD@10) and verbalized-confidence calibration (ECE, Brier, reliability) for four zero-shot LLM recommenders from four independent vendors (Mistral Large, Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-OSS-120B, Claude Sonnet 4.6), not grounded or fine-tuned systems, across three catalogs (MovieLens-25M, Amazon Reviews 2023 Toys, Yelp Open Dataset), stratified by item popularity."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"LLM recommenders for top-K item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy, F1, Brier score, Calibration error, Hallucination rate, Faithfulness

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"We jointly audit hallucination rate (OOD@10) and verbalized-confidence calibration (ECE, Brier, reliability) for four zero-shot LLM recommenders from four independent vendors (Mistral Large, Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-OSS-120B, Claude Sonnet 4.6), not grounded or fine-tuned systems, across three catalogs (MovieLens-25M, Amazon Reviews 2023 Toys, Yelp Open Dataset), stratified by item popularity."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Calibration
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracyf1brier scorecalibration errorhallucination ratefaithfulness

Research Brief

Metadata summary

LLM recommenders for top-K item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • LLM recommenders for top-K item suggestion regularly emit titles outside the target catalog.
  • Prior audits report a binary out-of-domain rate; none ask whether the model knew.
  • We jointly audit hallucination rate (OOD@10) and verbalized-confidence calibration (ECE, Brier, reliability) for four zero-shot LLM recommenders from four independent vendors (Mistral Large, Llama-3.3-70B, GPT-OSS-120B, Claude Sonnet 4.6), not grounded or fine-tuned systems, across three catalogs (MovieLens-25M, Amazon Reviews 2023 Toys, Yelp Open Dataset), stratified by item popularity.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Measuring catalog membership is itself the hard part: on identical outputs the reported rate moves by an order of magnitude with the string matcher used, and F1 cannot separate the candidates.
  • We validate the instrument against 201 human judgments and select on net bias, where the adopted one is off by -0.040 against +0.144 for the common fuzzy rule.
  • Hallucination is then strongly catalog-dependent (0.6-2.7% on MovieLens, 11.6-38.7% on Yelp, 49.3-61.0% on Amazon Toys).

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We validate the instrument against 201 human judgments and select on net bias, where the adopted one is off by -0.040 against +0.144 for the common fuzzy rule.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Pass: Quality control reporting appears

    Detected: Calibration

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy, f1, brier score, calibration error

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.