Hallucinations are inevitable but can be made statistically negligible
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Hallucinations, a phenomenon where a language model (LM) generates nonfactual content, pose a significant challenge to the practical deployment of LMs. While many empirical methods have been proposed to mitigate hallucinations, recent studies established a computability-theoretic result showing that any LM will inevitably generate hallucinations on an infinite set of inputs, regardless of the quality and quantity of training datasets and the choice of the language model architecture and training and inference algorithms. Although the computability-theoretic result may seem pessimistic, its significance in practical viewpoints has remained unclear. This paper claims that those "innate" inevitability results from computability theory and diagonal argument, in principle, cannot explain practical issues of LLMs. We demonstrate this claim by presenting a positive theoretical result from a probabilistic perspective. Specifically, we prove that hallucinations can be made statistically negligible, provided that the quality and quantity of the training data are sufficient. Interestingly, our positive result coexists with the computability-theoretic result, implying that while hallucinations on an infinite set of inputs cannot be entirely eliminated, their probability can always be reduced by improving algorithms and training data. By evaluating the two seemingly contradictory results through the lens of information theory, we argue that our probability-theoretic positive result better reflects practical considerations than the computability-theoretic negative result.
Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 36 of its 65 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 15 Feb 2025.
Builds on
36 of 65 references.
References · 36
- 2017Attention Is All You Needcited by 60,361
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,399
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,419
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,396
- 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
- 2024The Llama 3 Herd of Modelscited by 14,715
- 2023LLaMA: Open and Efficient Foundation Language Modelscited by 14,132
- 2023Llama 2: Open Foundation and Fine-Tuned Chat Modelscited by 13,028
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,459
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,942
- 2014Neural Machine Translation by Jointly Learning to Align and Translatecited by 4,548
- 2014Learning Phrase Representations using RNN Encoder-Decoder for Statistical Machine Translationcited by 4,057
24 more
- 2023Qwen Technical Reportcited by 3,344
- 2024Gemini 1.5: Unlocking multimodal understanding across millions of tokens of contextcited by 3,224
- 2023A Survey of Large Language Modelscited by 2,576
- 2024Qwen2 Technical Reportcited by 2,120
- 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,075
- 2020Big Bird: Transformers for Longer Sequencescited by 1,684
- 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
- 2016Google's Neural Machine Translation System: Bridging the Gap between Human and Machine Translationcited by 1,475
- 2021Retrieval Augmentation Reduces Hallucination in Conversationcited by 692
- 2024Large Language Models: A Surveycited by 525
- 2019Are Transformers universal approximators of sequence-to-sequence functions?cited by 406
- 2024Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Modelscited by 332
- 2023Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination in Large Language Modelscited by 324
- 2023Chat-REC: Towards Interactive and Explainable LLMs-Augmented Recommender Systemcited by 242
- 2021Inductive Biases and Variable Creation in Self-Attention Mechanismscited by 144
- 2023Verify-and-Edit: A Knowledge-Enhanced Chain-of-Thought Frameworkcited by 139
- 2023Calibrated Language Models Must Hallucinatecited by 115
- 2023GPT4Rec: A Generative Framework for Personalized Recommendation and User Interests Interpretationcited by 103
- 2024LLMs Will Always Hallucinate, and We Need to Live With Thiscited by 78
- 2024A Complete Survey on LLM-based AI Chatbotscited by 71
- 2024Transformers are Minimax Optimal Nonparametric In-Context Learnerscited by 37
- 2023Approximation and Estimation Ability of Transformers for Sequence-to-Sequence Functions with Infinite Dimensional Inputcited by 32
- 2021On the rate of convergence of a classifier based on a Transformer encodercited by 16
- 2022On characterizations of learnability with computable learnerscited by 16
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 3; 2026: 2.
5 papers.
- 2025On the Fundamental Impossibility of Hallucination Control in Large Language Modelscited by 7
- 2026PRISM: Probing Reasoning, Instruction, and Source Memory in LLM Hallucinationscited by 4
- 2025Hallucination is Inevitable for LLMs with the Open World Assumptioncited by 2
- 2025Overfitting has a limitation: a model-independent generalization gap bound based on R'enyi entropycited by 0
- 2026Innovation: An Almost Characterization of Hallucinationcited by 0
- 2026Innovation: An Almost Characterization of Hallucination26 May 2026
- 2026PRISM: Probing Reasoning, Instruction, and Source Memory in LLM Hallucinations18 Apr 2026
- 2025Hallucination is Inevitable for LLMs with the Open World Assumption29 Sep 2025
- 2025On the Fundamental Impossibility of Hallucination Control in Large Language Models4 Jun 2025
- 2025Overfitting has a limitation: a model-independent generalization gap bound based on R'enyi entropy30 May 2025