Existing hallucination taxonomies classify LLM errors by what is wrong with the output — memorised misconceptions, reasoning failures, fluent fabrications — but cannot answer a different question: which uncertainty scorer would have caught this error? We propose a complementary taxonomy that classifies errors by their detectability signature, the signal a scorer family would read. The DECK taxonomy is a 2×2 partition along inter-sample consistency and token-level confidence into four regimes (Drift, Entrenched, Confabulation, Knotted) that yields a falsifiable blind-spot map: black-box consistency scorers have signal in D and C, white-box token-probability scorers in K and C, and only an LLM-as-a-Judge with independent pretraining can detect E. Across three models and four short-form QA datasets we test this map two ways: judge-involving scorer disagreements concentrate in each family’s predicted blind-spot cells, and external labels (SelfAware unanswerable, HaluEval adversarial, PopQA entity popularity) land in the predicted cells, robustly to cross-fitted thresholds. We further identify a universal blind spot of output-level UQ: on knowledge-gap inputs where the generator emits confident, repeatable fabrications, every output-level family collapses by construction. A linear probe on Llama-3-8B’s final-layer hidden states also falls to chance, with or without quantisation, though an intermediate layer retains weak signal.

Uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods are widely used for hallucination detection in large language models (LLMs) in closed-book settings where ground-truth evidence is unavailable at inference time. Prior work has proposed combining UQ signals via learned ensembles, but empirical investigations into the robustness of these ensembles are limited. We study a supervised ensembling framework that trains a classifier over heterogeneous UQ-based scorer outputs on a small, domain-specific dataset of labeled LLM responses, then applies it to out-of-sample hallucination classification without retrieval, tools, or reference documents. Across four LLMs, nine datasets, and three generation regimes (short-form QA, long-form generation, and code generation), we provide a systematic robustness analysis along three axes: sample efficiency, in-domain dataset transfer, and generation regime dependence. We find that supervised ensembles outperform the best individual scorer in 30 of 32 settings, with gains realized from as few as 100 labeled instances. Ensembles retain most of their advantage in cases of in-domain transfer under distribution shift, outperforming the best non-ensemble scorer in 23 of 28 transfer settings. Sampling-based black-box ensembles are nearly as effective as full ensembles, while single-generation white-box ensembles offer limited benefit.

Large language models have shown impressive capabilities in code generation, yet they often produce functionally incorrect code. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods have emerged as a promising approach for detecting hallucinations in natural language generation, but their effectiveness for code generation tasks remains underexplored. We systematically evaluate how UQ techniques transfer to code generation across three programming languages, five LLMs, and over 1,700 problems. We find that some token-probability-based methods generalize effectively without modification, while sampling-based methods relying on natural language inference (NLI) fail because NLI models cannot distinguish functionally different code, causing most responses to collapse into a single semantic cluster. To address this, we introduce functional equivalence methods, a family of code-specific methods that replace NLI-based semantic equivalence with an LLM-based functional equivalence assessment, including functional entropy, a code-specific analog of semantic entropy. Functional equivalence methods achieve top AUROC in 11 out of 15 model-benchmark combinations and the best calibration across most settings, consistently outperforming both NLI-based counterparts and all other methods evaluated.