Is There No Such Thing as a Bad Question? H4R: HalluciBot For Ratiocination, Rewriting, Ranking, and Routing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hallucination continues to be one of the most critical challenges in the institutional adoption journey of Large Language Models (LLMs). While prior studies have primarily focused on the post-generation analysis and refinement of outputs, this paper centers on the effectiveness of queries in eliciting accurate responses from LLMs. We present HalluciBot, a model that estimates the query's propensity to hallucinate before generation, without invoking any LLMs during inference. HalluciBot can serve as a proxy reward model for query rewriting, offering a general framework to estimate query quality based on accuracy and consensus. In essence, HalluciBot investigates how poorly constructed queries can lead to erroneous outputs - moreover, by employing query rewriting guided by HalluciBot's empirical estimates, we demonstrate that 95.7% output accuracy can be achieved for Multiple Choice questions. The training procedure for HalluciBot consists of perturbing 369,837 queries n times, employing n+1 independent LLM agents, sampling an output from each query, conducting a Multi-Agent Monte Carlo simulation on the sampled outputs, and training an encoder classifier. The idea of perturbation is the outcome of our ablation studies that measures the increase in output diversity (+12.5 agreement spread) by perturbing a query in lexically different but semantically similar ways. Therefore, HalluciBot paves the way to ratiocinate (76.0% test F1 score, 46.6% in saved computation on hallucinatory queries), rewrite (+30.2% positive class transition from hallucinatory to non-hallucinatory), rank (+50.6% positive class transition from hallucinatory to non-hallucinatory), and route queries to effective pipelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".