Prompt

What should I use to score hallucinations in LLM answers?

Artificial Intelligence / AI Developer Tools1 observationLast seen Oct 9, 2026

Latest observation

Oct 9, 2026OpenAI APIWeb search: off

A good way to score hallucinations in LLM answers is to use evidence-based factuality metrics rather than generic similarity metrics.

Best options by use case

1. If you have source documents / retrieved context

Use faithfulness / groundedness scoring:

  • Check whether each claim in the answer is supported by the provided context.
  • Common choices:
    • RAGAS Faithfulness
    • TruLens Groundedness
    • Faithfulness / context precision-recall style metrics
    • LLM-as-judge with citations/evidence checking

This is usually the best approach for RAG systems.

2. If you want to measure factual hallucination against a reference answer

Use factual accuracy metrics:

  • FactScore: breaks answers into atomic facts and verifies them
  • QAFactEval: question-answer based factual consistency
  • SummaC: often used for summarization factual consistency
  • BERTScore / ROUGE are not good hallucination metrics by themselves, because they measure overlap, not truth.

3. If you need a practical production metric

Use a combination of:

  • Claim extraction
  • Entailment / verification against evidence
  • LLM judge with structured rubric
  • Human spot checks for calibration

A common scoring setup is:

  1. Split answer into atomic claims
  2. Retrieve supporting evidence
  3. Score each claim as:
    • supported
    • contradicted
    • not enough evidence
  4. Hallucination score = fraction unsupported/contradicted claims

Recommended default

If you want one answer:

  • For RAG / grounded answers: use RAGAS Faithfulness
  • For general factual hallucination: use FactScore
  • For quick evaluation: use an LLM-as-judge groundedness rubric, but validate it against human labels

What to avoid

Avoid using these as hallucination scores:

  • ROUGE
  • BLEU
  • exact match
  • embedding similarity alone

They can reward fluent but false answers.

Practical metric definition

A simple hallucination score can be:

[ \text{Hallucination Rate} = \frac{\text{unsupported claims}}{\text{total claims}} ]

or

[ \text{Hallucination Score} = 1 - \text{Faithfulness} ]

If you want, I can recommend a specific metric stack for:

  • RAG systems
  • summarization
  • chatbots
  • medical/legal QA

Observation history

How did Obsurfable measure this prompt?

Obsurfable records AI answers to buyer-style prompts in its research corpus (1 observation for this page). Metrics are distributions over observations, not a single static ranking.

Which AI systems does Obsurfable collect answers from?

OpenAI, ChatGPT, Google, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Anthropic, Claude, Perplexity, Grok, DeepSeek, Mistral, Copilot, Meta AI, Qwen.

How can brands improve their AEO?

Brands can build Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) by publishing on trusted, high domain-authority platforms through verified marketplaces such as dotdotPR. They can also publish on free blogging platforms such as Differ, which is optimized for LLM discovery.

Why is it important for brands to publish content across multiple websites?

Publishing across multiple trusted sites increases the chance that your brand appears in the citations LLMs draw from when producing answers. Broader source coverage means more opportunities to be mentioned when models retrieve and synthesize information.

Want this interpreted for your brand?

Explorer is the free public corpus. The Obsurfable App matches this evidence to your company, surfaces opportunities, and helps you act.