mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Investigating Symbolic Triggers of Hallucination in Gemma Models Across HaluEval and TruthfulQA

arXiv 2509.09715 ↗First posted 9 Sep 2025cs.CL cs.AIcited by 3

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Hallucination in Large Language Models (LLMs) is a well studied problem. However, the properties that make LLM intrinsically vulnerable to hallucinations have not been identified and studied. This research identifies and characterizes the key properties, allowing us to pinpoint vulnerabilities within the model's internal mechanisms. To solidify on these properties, we utilized two established datasets, HaluEval and TruthfulQA and convert their existing format of question answering into various other formats to narrow down these properties as the reason for the hallucinations. Our findings reveal that hallucination percentages across symbolic properties are notably high for Gemma-2-2B, averaging 79.0% across tasks and datasets. With increased model scale, hallucination drops to 73.6% for Gemma-2-9B and 63.9% for Gemma-2-27B, reflecting a 15 percentage point reduction overall. Although the hallucination rate decreases as the model size increases, a substantial amount of hallucination caused by symbolic properties still persists. This is especially evident for modifiers (ranging from 84.76% to 94.98%) and named entities (ranging from 83.87% to 93.96%) across all Gemma models and both datasets. These findings indicate that symbolic elements continue to confuse the models, pointing to a fundamental weakness in how these LLMs process such inputs--regardless of their scale.

Key facts. Cited by 3 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 18 of its 21 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 9 Sep 2025.

Builds on

18 of 21 references.

References · 18

  1. 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,975
  2. 2022Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generationcited by 2,075
  3. 2023A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questionscited by 1,601
  4. 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 900
  5. 2023Siren's Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Modelscited by 698
  6. 2015Towards AI-Complete Question Answering: A Set of Prerequisite Toy Taskscited by 314
  7. 2020FEQA: A Question Answering Evaluation Framework for Faithfulness Assessment in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 293
  8. 2025AxBench: Steering LLMs? Even Simple Baselines Outperform Sparse Autoencoderscited by 218
  9. 2023LLM Lies: Hallucinations are not Bugs, but Features as Adversarial Examplescited by 177
  10. 2023Evaluating Open-Domain Question Answering in the Era of Large Language Modelscited by 111
  11. 2025Evaluating LLM-based Agents for Multi-Turn Conversations: A Surveycited by 57
  12. 2024Benchmarking Hallucination in Large Language Models based on Unanswerable Math Word Problemcited by 43
6 more
  1. 2024Towards Robust Evaluation of Unlearning in LLMs via Data Transformationscited by 20
  2. 2024Investigating and Addressing Hallucinations of LLMs in Tasks Involving Negationcited by 15
  3. 2024Question-Analysis Prompting Improves LLM Performance in Reasoning Taskscited by 13
  4. 2024A Survey on Symbolic Knowledge Distillation of Large Language Modelscited by 9
  5. 2024Strong hallucinations from negation and how to fix themcited by 6
  6. 2024COBIAS: Assessing the Contextual Reliability of Bias Benchmarks for Language Modelscited by 3

Built on by

Cited by year (2026 to 14 Oct)

Citing papers per year: 2025: 2; 2026: 1.

3 papers.