Do Large Language Models Hallucinate Electric Fata Morganas?

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.18816v1
• Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2026 11:14:06 GMT
• Title: Do Large Language Models Hallucinate Electric Fata Morganas?
• Abstract summary: We examine the known causes of hallucinations in large language models.<n>We find that higher temperatures result in plausible but incorrect answers while lower temperatures lead to factually accurate ones.<n>In the second, we look at an encoder-only model that has been trained on encyclopedic data and which answers questions of the same type factually and without embellishment.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: AI hallucinations - that is, outputs which are made up, cannot be verified, or contradict the source material - are generally regarded as an engineering flaw to be dealt with. This paper contends that they also have philosophical significance when it comes to the question of machine consciousness. We examine the known causes of hallucinations in large language models - such as source-target divergence, discrepancies between training and inference, and overfitting - and we present two empirical investigations. In the first, we apply successive generations of the GPT model to ambiguous factual questions under different temperature settings, finding that higher temperatures result in plausible but incorrect answers while lower temperatures lead to factually accurate ones. The sampling parameters that cause a model to seem creative or spontaneous and thus more likely to pass behavioral tests of intelligence are the same ones that increase its hallucination rate. In the second, we look at an encoder-only model that has been trained on encyclopedic data and which answers questions of the same type factually and without embellishment, indicating that hallucinations are due to exposure to subjective and socially diverse training data rather than to the development of any cognitive ability. Using references to Turing, Searle's Chinese Room, the frame problem, and the cybernetic tradition of Wiener and Ashby, we claim that a model's self-reports of emotion or sentience come within the definition of hallucination, and that any future occurrence of machine consciousness might remain epistemically inaccessible since it would be indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced hallucination.

Related papers

• How Large Language Models are Designed to Hallucinate [0.42970700836450487]
  We argue that hallucination is a structural outcome of the transformer architecture.<n>Our contribution is threefold: (1) a comparative account showing why existing explanations are insufficient; (2) a predictive taxonomy of hallucination linked to existential structures with proposed benchmarks; and (3) design directions toward "truth-constrained" architectures capable of withholding or deferring when disclosure is absent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-19T16:46:27Z)
• Why Language Models Hallucinate [29.666976858078073]
  Large language models sometimes guess when uncertain, producing plausible yet incorrect statements instead of admitting uncertainty.<n>Such "hallucinations" persist even in state-of-the-art systems and undermine trust.<n>We argue that language models hallucinate because the training and evaluation procedures reward guessing over acknowledging uncertainty.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-04T21:26:31Z)
• The Law of Knowledge Overshadowing: Towards Understanding, Predicting, and Preventing LLM Hallucination [85.18584652829799]
  We introduce a novel framework to quantify factual hallucinations by modeling knowledge overshadowing.<n>We propose a new decoding strategy CoDa, to mitigate hallucinations, which notably enhance model factuality on Overshadow (27.9%), MemoTrap (13.1%) and NQ-Swap (18.3%)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-22T08:36:06Z)
• Trust Me, I'm Wrong: LLMs Hallucinate with Certainty Despite Knowing the Answer [51.7407540261676]
  We investigate a distinct type of hallucination, where a model can consistently answer a question correctly, but a seemingly trivial perturbation causes it to produce a hallucinated response with high certainty.<n>This phenomenon is particularly concerning in high-stakes domains such as medicine or law, where model certainty is often used as a proxy for reliability.<n>We show that CHOKE examples are consistent across prompts, occur in different models and datasets, and are fundamentally distinct from other hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-18T15:46:31Z)
• Distinguishing Ignorance from Error in LLM Hallucinations [43.62904897907926]
  We distinguish between two types of hallucinations: ones where the model does not hold the correct answer in its parameters, which we term HK-, and ones where the model answers incorrectly despite having the required knowledge, termed HK+.<n>We show that different models hallucinate on different examples, which motivates constructing model-specific hallucination datasets for training detectors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-29T14:31:33Z)
• Knowledge Overshadowing Causes Amalgamated Hallucination in Large Language Models [65.32990889402927]
  We coin this phenomenon as knowledge overshadowing'' We show that the hallucination rate grows with both the imbalance ratio and the length of dominant condition description. We propose to utilize overshadowing conditions as a signal to catch hallucination before it is produced.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-10T20:37:42Z)
• On Large Language Models' Hallucination with Regard to Known Facts [74.96789694959894]
  Large language models are successful in answering factoid questions but are also prone to hallucination. We investigate the phenomenon of LLMs possessing correct answer knowledge yet still hallucinating from the perspective of inference dynamics. Our study shed light on understanding the reasons for LLMs' hallucinations on their known facts, and more importantly, on accurately predicting when they are hallucinating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T06:48:30Z)
• Do Androids Know They're Only Dreaming of Electric Sheep? [45.513432353811474]
  We design probes trained on the internal representations of a transformer language model to predict its hallucinatory behavior. Our probes are narrowly trained and we find that they are sensitive to their training domain. We find that probing is a feasible and efficient alternative to language model hallucination evaluation when model states are available.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-28T18:59:50Z)
• On Early Detection of Hallucinations in Factual Question Answering [4.76359068115052]
  hallucinations remain a major impediment towards gaining user trust. In this work, we explore if the artifacts associated with the model generations can provide hints that the generation will contain hallucinations. Our results show that the distributions of these artifacts tend to differ between hallucinated and non-hallucinated generations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-19T14:35:04Z)
• Evaluating Hallucinations in Chinese Large Language Models [65.4771562909392]
  We establish a benchmark named HalluQA (Chinese Hallucination Question-Answering) to measure the hallucination phenomenon in Chinese large language models. We consider two types of hallucinations: imitative falsehoods and factual errors, and we construct adversarial samples based on GLM-130B and ChatGPT. For evaluation, we design an automated evaluation method using GPT-4 to judge whether a model output is hallucinated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-05T07:57:09Z)
• On the Origin of Hallucinations in Conversational Models: Is it the Datasets or the Models? [32.41234580068662]
  We conduct a study on existing knowledge-grounded conversational benchmarks and several state-of-the-art models. Standard benchmarks consist of >60% hallucinated responses, leading to models that not only hallucinate but even amplify hallucinations. Our findings raise important questions on the quality of existing datasets and models trained using them.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-04-17T05:15:24Z)
• On Hallucination and Predictive Uncertainty in Conditional Language Generation [76.18783678114325]
  Higher predictive uncertainty corresponds to a higher chance of hallucination. Epistemic uncertainty is more indicative of hallucination than aleatoric or total uncertainties. It helps to achieve better results of trading performance in standard metric for less hallucination with the proposed beam search variant.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-03-28T00:32:27Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.