mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Hallucination, Monofacts, and Miscalibration: An Empirical Investigation

arXiv 2502.08666 ↗First posted 11 Feb 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Hallucinated facts in large language models (LLMs) have recently been shown to obey a statistical lower bound determined by the monofact rate (related to the classical Good-Turing missing mass estimator) minus model miscalibration (Kalai & Vempala, 2024). We present the first empirical investigation of this three-way relationship in classical n-gram models and fine-tuned encoder-decoder Transformers. By generating training data from Pareto distributions with varying shape parameters, we systematically control the monofact rates and establish its positive relationship with hallucination. To bridge theory and practice, we derive an empirical analog of the hallucination bound by replacing the population miscalibration term (Section 2.1) with an empirical bin-wise KL divergence and confirm its practical viability. We then introduce selective upweighting -- a simple yet effective technique that strategically repeats as little as 5% of training examples -- to deliberately inject miscalibration into the model. This intervention reduces hallucination by up to 40%, challenging universal deduplication policies. Our experiments reveal a critical trade-off: selective upweighting maintains pre-injection levels of accuracy while substantially reducing hallucination, whereas standard training gradually improves accuracy but fails to address persistently high hallucination, indicating an inherent tension in optimization objectives.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 12 of its 36 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2025.

Builds on

12 of 36 references.

References · 12

  1. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,599
  2. 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
  3. 2021Deduplicating Training Data Makes Language Models Bettercited by 714
  4. 2019Does Learning Require Memorization? A Short Tale about a Long Tailcited by 460
  5. 2024Does Fine-Tuning LLMs on New Knowledge Encourage Hallucinations?cited by 232
  6. 2023Physics of Language Models: Part 3.2, Knowledge Manipulationcited by 143
  7. 2023Do Language Models Know When They're Hallucinating References?cited by 116
  8. 2023Calibrated Language Models Must Hallucinatecited by 115
  9. 2022Training Language Models with Memory Augmentationcited by 113
  10. 2024Unfamiliar Finetuning Examples Control How Language Models Hallucinatecited by 87
  11. 2024Towards Reliable Medical Question Answering: Techniques and Challenges in Mitigating Hallucinations in Language Modelscited by 15
  12. 2024Look Within, Why LLMs Hallucinate: A Causal Perspectivecited by 11

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.