Detecting Correcting Hallucinations LLM Generated

Detecting and Correcting Hallucinations in LLM-Generated Code via AST Analysis

This skill enables Claude to apply a deterministic, static-analysis post-processing pipeline to LLM-generated Python code. Rather than relying on execution or probabilistic LLM self-repair, the technique parses code into an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST), builds a Knowledge Base (KB) of legitimate API signatures via Python introspection (inspect, dir(), getattr()), and uses deterministic rules to detect and auto-correct Knowledge Conflicting Hallucinations (KCHs) — subtle semantic errors like non-existent parameters, fabricated method names, and wrong argument counts that pass linters but cause runtime failures.

When to Use

• When the user asks you to validate generated Python code against actual library APIs before running it
• When code uses third-party libraries (pandas, numpy, requests, sklearn, etc.) and the user suspects hallucinated parameters or methods
• When debugging a TypeError: unexpected keyword argument or AttributeError: has no attribute that came from generated code
• When the user wants a pre-execution safety check on code snippets produced by an LLM
• When reviewing code that makes many API calls and the user asks "are all these parameters real?"
• When auto-correcting code that has plausible-looking but non-existent API arguments (e.g., pd.read_csv(file, delimeter=',') — misspelled delimiter)

Key Technique

Knowledge Conflicting Hallucinations (KCHs) are the most dangerous class of LLM code errors because they are syntactically valid and survive linting. An LLM might generate requests.get(url, auth_token='abc') — this parses fine, but auth_token is not a real parameter of requests.get(). The real parameter is auth. These errors only surface at runtime, often in production.

The core insight of this framework is that most KCHs can be caught deterministically by comparing AST nodes against ground-truth API specifications extracted via Python introspection. You build a Knowledge Base by importing the target library and using inspect.signature() to extract every function's parameter names, types, defaults, and whether they accept **kwargs. Then you parse the generated code into an AST, walk every ast.Call node, resolve the callee to a KB entry, and check: (1) do all keyword arguments exist in the real signature? (2) are positional argument counts within bounds? (3) does the method/attribute actually exist on the object? Mismatches are flagged as hallucinations.

Auto-correction uses edit-distance similarity matching. When a hallucinated parameter like delimeter is detected, the framework computes string similarity against all valid parameters of that function and proposes delimiter as the fix. Non-existent parameters with no close match are removed. Missing required parameters are injected with sensible defaults. This deterministic repair achieves a 77% auto-correction rate without any LLM in the loop.

Step-by-Step Workflow

1. Identify target libraries. Scan the code for import statements and from X import Y patterns. Extract every library, module, and imported name. These define the scope of the KB.

2. Build the Knowledge Base via introspection. For each imported library/module, use inspect.signature() on all public functions and methods to capture parameter names, type annotations, default values, and whether *args/**kwargs are accepted. Use dir() and getattr() to enumerate class attributes, constants, and enum values. Store this as a dictionary keyed by fully-qualified name (e.g., pandas.DataFrame.merge).

3. Parse the generated code into an AST. Use ast.parse() on the code string. Handle SyntaxError gracefully — if parsing fails, report the syntax issue before hallucination analysis can proceed.

4. Walk all ast.Call nodes. For each function/method call in the AST, resolve the callee:

   • ast.Name nodes → direct function calls (e.g., open(...))
   • ast.Attribute nodes → method calls (e.g., df.merge(...))
   • Chain attribute access to build the fully-qualified name and look it up in the KB.

5. Validate keyword arguments. For each call, compare every keyword argument name against the KB entry's parameter list. If the function does NOT accept **kwargs, any unrecognized keyword is a hallucination. If it does accept **kwargs, skip keyword validation for that call (the function is designed to accept arbitrary keywords).

6. Validate positional argument counts. Count positional arguments and compare against the function's minimum (required params) and maximum (total params before *args). Flag calls with too many or too few positional arguments.

7. Validate attribute/method existence. For ast.Attribute nodes, check whether the attribute exists on the resolved object/class in the KB. Flag references to non-existent methods, properties, or constants.

8. Auto-correct detected hallucinations. For each flagged issue:

   • Misspelled parameter: Compute edit distance (Levenshtein or difflib.get_close_matches) against valid parameters. If a match scores above 0.8 similarity, propose the substitution.
   • Non-existent parameter with no close match: Remove the argument.
   • Missing required parameter: Insert with its default value, or flag for user review if no default exists.
   • Non-existent method: Suggest the closest matching method name from the class.

9. Produce a validation report. For each hallucination found, report: the line number, the offending code fragment, the type of hallucination (wrong param / non-existent method / wrong arg count), and the proposed correction with confidence level.

10. Output corrected code. Apply all high-confidence fixes and return the corrected code alongside the report so the user can review changes.

Concrete Examples

Example 1: Hallucinated pandas parameter

User: "Check this code for hallucinated API calls"

import pandas as pd

df = pd.read_csv('data.csv', delimeter=',', skip_rows=5, encoding='utf-8')
result = df.groupby('category').agg(total=('amount', 'sum')).reset_index(drop_level=True)

Approach:

1. Build KB: introspect pd.read_csv — valid params include delimiter, skiprows, encoding, etc.
2. Parse AST, find pd.read_csv(...) call with keywords delimeter, skip_rows, encoding.
3. delimeter → not in signature → closest match: delimiter (edit distance 1) → fix: rename
4. skip_rows → not in signature → closest match: skiprows (edit distance 1) → fix: rename
5. encoding → valid parameter → pass
6. Check reset_index(drop_level=True) → drop_level not in signature → closest: level (0.6 similarity, too low) → flag for removal

Output:

Hallucination Report:
  Line 3: pd.read_csv — 'delimeter' is not a valid parameter.
          Fix: rename to 'delimiter' (confidence: high)
  Line 3: pd.read_csv — 'skip_rows' is not a valid parameter.
          Fix: rename to 'skiprows' (confidence: high)
  Line 4: DataFrame.reset_index — 'drop_level' is not a valid parameter.
          Fix: remove argument (confidence: medium, no close match found)

Corrected code:
  df = pd.read_csv('data.csv', delimiter=',', skiprows=5, encoding='utf-8')
  result = df.groupby('category').agg(total=('amount', 'sum')).reset_index()

Example 2: Non-existent method on a library object

User: "Validate the sklearn API calls in this snippet"

from sklearn.ensemble import RandomForestClassifier

model = RandomForestClassifier(n_estimators=100, max_features='auto', verbose_level=1)
model.fit_transform(X_train, y_train)
predictions = model.predict_classes(X_test)

Approach:

1. Build KB: introspect RandomForestClassifier — valid params include n_estimators, max_features, verbose, etc. Valid methods: fit, predict, predict_proba, score, etc.
2. verbose_level → not a valid param → closest: verbose (similarity 0.82) → fix: rename
3. fit_transform → not a method on RandomForestClassifier → closest: fit → flag as hallucination
4. predict_classes → not a method → closest: predict (similarity 0.76) → fix: rename

Output:

Hallucination Report:
  Line 3: RandomForestClassifier() — 'verbose_level' is not a valid parameter.
          Fix: rename to 'verbose' (confidence: high)
  Line 4: RandomForestClassifier.fit_transform — method does not exist.
          Suggestion: use 'fit' instead (confidence: medium, review needed)
  Line 5: RandomForestClassifier.predict_classes — method does not exist.
          Fix: rename to 'predict' (confidence: high)

Example 3: requests library with fabricated parameters

User: "Are these requests calls using real parameters?"

import requests

resp = requests.get('https://api.example.com', auth_token='abc', timeout=30, retry_count=3)
data = resp.json(parse_dates=True)

Approach:

1. requests.get accepts **kwargs passed to requests.request — introspect request(): valid named params include params, headers, auth, timeout, cookies, etc. However, requests.get passes unknown kwargs to Session.request, which does NOT accept arbitrary kwargs beyond its defined signature.
2. auth_token → not valid → closest: auth → fix: rename (but semantically different — flag for review)
3. timeout → valid → pass
4. retry_count → not valid → no close match → flag for removal
5. resp.json() → introspect Response.json — no parse_dates param → flag for removal

Output:

Hallucination Report:
  Line 3: requests.get — 'auth_token' is not a valid parameter.
          Closest match: 'auth' (review: semantics differ, auth expects a tuple)
  Line 3: requests.get — 'retry_count' is not a valid parameter.
          Fix: remove argument (no close match)
  Line 4: Response.json — 'parse_dates' is not a valid parameter.
          Fix: remove argument (this is a pandas concept, not requests)

Best Practices

• Do: Always check whether a function accepts **kwargs before flagging unknown keywords. Functions with **kwargs intentionally accept arbitrary arguments — false-flagging these destroys trust in the tool.
• Do: Use inspect.signature() over manual signature parsing. It handles decorated functions, built-in functions (via __doc__ fallback), and C-extension methods more reliably.
• Do: Report confidence levels with every fix. High-confidence fixes (edit distance <= 2, similarity > 0.85) can be auto-applied. Lower-confidence fixes should be presented as suggestions for user review.
• Do: Build the KB dynamically for the specific library version installed. API signatures change between versions — hardcoded signatures go stale.
• Avoid: Running the generated code to test whether parameters work. The whole point of this approach is non-executing, static validation. Execution introduces security risks with untrusted code.
• Avoid: Flagging parameters on functions you cannot introspect (C extensions without stubs, dynamically-generated APIs). When introspection fails, note the gap in the report rather than guessing.

Error Handling

• SyntaxError during ast.parse(): Report the syntax error with line number. AST-based hallucination detection cannot proceed on unparseable code. Suggest the user fix syntax first.
• Library not installed: If an imported library is not available in the current environment, report that the KB cannot be built for it. Suggest pip install or note which calls could not be validated.
• Introspection failure on C extensions: Some functions (e.g., built-in C modules) do not expose full signatures via inspect. Fall back to __doc__ parsing or type stub files (.pyi) if available. Report reduced confidence for these entries.
• Dynamic attribute access: Code using getattr(obj, name) or **unpacked_dict cannot be statically validated. Skip these nodes and note them as unanalyzable in the report.
• Ambiguous call resolution: If the callee cannot be resolved to a single KB entry (e.g., variable reassignment obscures the type), flag the call as unresolvable rather than guessing.

Limitations

• **kwargs-heavy APIs (Flask, Django, Click) intentionally accept arbitrary keyword arguments. The framework cannot distinguish hallucinated kwargs from legitimate ones in these cases. This is a fundamental limitation of static analysis without type narrowing.
• Dynamically-generated APIs (e.g., SQLAlchemy models, protocol buffers, metaprogramming) create methods at runtime that introspection cannot discover statically. These will produce false negatives (missed hallucinations) or false positives (valid calls flagged as hallucinations).
• Cross-function data flow is not tracked. If a variable is reassigned to a different type between its creation and a method call, the framework may validate against the wrong class.
• Only Python is supported. The technique relies on Python's ast and inspect modules. Adapting to other languages requires equivalent introspection infrastructure.
• Semantic correctness is out of scope. The framework catches wrong parameter names but not wrong parameter values. Passing delimiter='\t' when the user meant ',' is a logic error, not a hallucination.
• Auto-correction is conservative. The 77% correction rate means ~23% of hallucinations are detected but not auto-fixed. These require human review.

Reference

Paper: Khati, D., Rodriguez-Cardenas, D., Pantzer, P., & Poshyvanyk, D. (2026). Detecting and Correcting Hallucinations in LLM-Generated Code via Deterministic AST Analysis. FORGE 2026. arXiv:2601.19106

Key takeaway: deterministic AST validation against introspected API signatures achieves 100% precision at 87.6% recall for detecting hallucinated API usage — outperforming probabilistic LLM self-repair while being fully reproducible.