Text Corpora as Concept Fields: Black-Box Hallucination and Novelty Measurement

Nicholas S. Kersting, Vittorio Castelli, Chieh Ting Yeh, Xinzhu Wang, Saad Taame · May 6, 2026 · Citations: 0

Llm As Judge

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

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

We introduce the **Concept Field** of a text corpus: a local drift field with pointwise uncertainty, estimated in sentence-embedding space from the deltas between consecutive sentences. Given a candidate sentence transition, we score its agreement with the field by $ζ$, the mean absolute z-distance between the observed delta and the field's local Gaussian estimate. The score is black-box (no model internals), corpus-attributable (every score traces to nearby corpus sentences), and admits a direct probabilistic reading. We support the computation with the introduction of a **Vector Sequence Database (VSDB)** that stores embeddings together with sequence-position and next-delta metadata. We evaluate this approach on two large-scale settings: hallucination-style groundedness detection over the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, and novelty detection over Project Gutenberg. Using controlled LLM-generated rewrites, Concept Fields achieve strong selective classification performance under a grounded / ungrounded / unsure triage policy, which unlike retrieval-centric baselines have similar coverage-risk behavior across both domains, supporting a probability-based interpretation that transfers across domains. We also sketch how divergence and curl of the Concept Field, computed on dense clusters, surface qualitatively meaningful semantic patterns (logic sources, sinks, and implicit topics), which we offer as hypothesis-generating rather than as a quantitative result. Concept Fields provide a fast, lightweight, and interpretable signal for groundedness and novelty, complementary to LLM-as-judge and white-box detectors.

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.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

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

0/100 • 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 30%

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.