Reducing Hallucination in Enterprise AI Workflows via Hybrid Utility Minimum Bayes Risk (HUMBR)

Although LLMs drive automation, it is critical to ensure immense consideration for high-stakes enterprise workflows such as those involving legal matters, risk management, and privacy compliance. For Meta, and other organizations like ours, a single hallucinated clause in such high stakes workflows risks material consequences. We show that by framing hallucination mitigation as a Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) problem, we can dramatically reduce this risk. Specifically, we introduce a Hybrid Utility MBR (HUMBR) framework that synthesizes semantic embedding similarity with lexical precision to identify consensus without ground-truth references, for which we derive rigorous error bounds. We complement this theoretical analysis with a comprehensive empirical evaluation on widely-used public benchmark suites (TruthfulQA and LegalBench) and also real world data from Meta production deployment. The results from our empirical study show that MBR significantly outperforms standard Universal Self-Consistency. Notably, 81% of the pipeline's suggestions were preferred over human-crafted ground truth, and critical recall failures were virtually eliminated.

Just-in-Time Catching Test Generation at Meta

We report on Just-in-Time catching test generation at Meta, designed to prevent bugs in large scale backend systems of hundreds of millions of line of code. Unlike traditional hardening tests, which pass at generation time, catching tests are meant to fail, surfacing bugs before code lands. The primary challenge is to reduce development drag from false positive test failures. Analyzing 22,126 generated tests, we show code-change-aware methods improve candidate catch generation 4x over hardening tests and 20x over coincidentally failing tests. To address false positives, we use rule-based and LLM-based assessors. These assessors reduce human review load by 70%. Inferential statistical analysis showed that human-accepted code changes are assessed to have significantly more false positives, while human-rejected changes have significantly more true positives. We reported 41 candidate catches to engineers; 8 were confirmed to be true positives, 4 of which would have led to serious failures had they remained uncaught. Overall, our results show that Just-in-Time catching is scalable, industrially applicable, and that it prevents serious failures from reaching production.