Large language models are widely used as judges of model outputs (LLM-as-a-Judge), but they are costly and can hallucinate or be overconfident. Decision models are a potential alternative. They return a predefined verdict with a probability for each label instead of free-form text and are much cheaper and faster. We test this promise on hallucination detection. We build binary benchmarks for five hallucination types (9,852 items from six datasets) and compare five decision models with the generative judge gpt-6-sol. Performance depends strongly on the type: the best decision model matches gpt-6-sol in balanced accuracy on context inconsistency and comes within 3 percentage points on factual errors, but trails it by 4-8 points on logical and instruction inconsistency. Decision-model probabilities are overconfident, though less so than the GPT-6 models, and separate correct from incorrect decisions only moderately. We also find that a confidence cascade of decision models improves on the best single model by 1.9-3.3 points on three types and matches or exceeds gpt-6-sol at 1-3% of its cost. Overall, decision models are a practical low-cost judge for some hallucination types but need to be validated before use.

翻译：暂无翻译