Do LLMs Really Know What They Don't Know? Internal States Mainly Reflect Knowledge Recall Rather Than Truthfulness
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Recent work suggests that LLMs "know what they don't know", positing that hallucinated and factually correct outputs arise from distinct internal processes and can therefore be distinguished using internal signals. However, hallucinations have multifaceted causes: beyond simple knowledge gaps, they can emerge from training incentives that encourage models to exploit statistical shortcuts or spurious associations learned during pretraining. In this paper, we argue that when LLMs rely on such learned associations to produce hallucinations, their internal processes are mechanistically similar to those of factual recall, as both stem from strong statistical correlations encoded in the model's parameters. To verify this, we propose a novel taxonomy categorizing hallucinations into Unassociated Hallucinations (UHs), where outputs lack parametric grounding, and Associated Hallucinations (AHs), which are driven by spurious associations. Through mechanistic analysis, we compare their computational processes and hidden-state geometries with factually correct outputs. Our results show that hidden states primarily reflect whether the model is recalling parametric knowledge rather than the truthfulness of the output itself. Consequently, AHs exhibit hidden-state geometries that largely overlap with factual outputs, rendering standard detection methods ineffective. In contrast, UHs exhibit distinctive, clustered representations that facilitate reliable detection.
Key facts. Cited by 7 papers in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 25 of its 44 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 Oct 2025.
Builds on
25 of 44 references.
References · 25
- 2023QLoRA: Efficient Finetuning of Quantized LLMscited by 3,355
- 2021TruthfulQA: Measuring How Models Mimic Human Falsehoodscited by 2,919
- 2019HuggingFace's Transformers: State-of-the-art Natural Language Processingcited by 2,201
- 2023FActScore: Fine-grained Atomic Evaluation of Factual Precision in Long Form Text Generationcited by 1,259
- 2023Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Modelcited by 1,259
- 2022When Not to Trust Language Models: Investigating Effectiveness of Parametric and Non-Parametric Memoriescited by 1,103
- 2023Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMscited by 946
- 2023Just Ask for Calibration: Strategies for Eliciting Calibrated Confidence Scores from Language Models Fine-Tuned with Human Feedbackcited by 788
- 2022Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Wordscited by 731
- 2023Dissecting Recall of Factual Associations in Auto-Regressive Language Modelscited by 512
- 2023Do Large Language Models Know What They Don't Know?cited by 238
- 2024LLMs Know More Than They Show: On the Intrinsic Representation of LLM Hallucinationscited by 230
13 more
- 2023A Stitch in Time Saves Nine: Detecting and Mitigating Hallucinations of LLMs by Validating Low-Confidence Generationcited by 202
- 2021Simple Entity-Centric Questions Challenge Dense Retrieverscited by 140
- 2023SAC3: Reliable Hallucination Detection in Black-Box Language Models via Semantic-aware Cross-check Consistencycited by 89
- 2024LLM Internal States Reveal Hallucination Risk Faced With a Querycited by 80
- 2023Attention Satisfies: A Constraint-Satisfaction Lens on Factual Errors of Language Modelscited by 67
- 2024When Do LLMs Need Retrieval Augmentation? Mitigating LLMs' Overconfidence Helps Retrieval Augmentationcited by 59
- 2023Knowing What LLMs DO NOT Know: A Simple Yet Effective Self-Detection Methodcited by 51
- 2024Estimating Knowledge in Large Language Models Without Generating a Single Tokencited by 39
- 2025Reasoning about Uncertainty: Do Reasoning Models Know When They Don't Know?cited by 35
- 2025Towards Fully Exploiting LLM Internal States to Enhance Knowledge Boundary Perceptioncited by 26
- 2024Narrowing the Knowledge Evaluation Gap: Open-Domain Question Answering with Multi-Granularity Answerscited by 18
- 2023Can LMs Generalize to Future Data? An Empirical Analysis on Text Summarizationcited by 9
- 2025Analyzing LLMs' Knowledge Boundary Cognition Across Languages Through the Lens of Internal Representationscited by 5
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2026: 7.
7 papers.
- 2026The strength of clinical evidence is recoverable from language model representations but not from their stated gradescited by 1
- 2026Diagnosing Correctness Probes under Self-Judgement Confoundingcited by 1
- 2026Temporal Multi-Signal Fusion for Token-Level Hallucination Detectioncited by 1
- 2026Legible Failures: Detecting and Repairing In-Context Binding Errorscited by 1
- 2026Decodable In-Context State and Model Output Across Trainingcited by 0
- 2026Knowing Is Not Choosing: What Explicit Verification Adds Beyond Generative Preferencecited by 0
- 2026Beyond the Shadows of Plato's Cave: Evaluating False Memory in Autonomous Agents via Counterfactual Reasoningcited by 0
- 2026Beyond the Shadows of Plato's Cave: Evaluating False Memory in Autonomous Agents via Counterfactual Reasoning30 Sep 2026
- 2026Knowing Is Not Choosing: What Explicit Verification Adds Beyond Generative Preference27 Sep 2026
- 2026Decodable In-Context State and Model Output Across Training25 Sep 2026
- 2026Legible Failures: Detecting and Repairing In-Context Binding Errors10 Sep 2026
- 2026Diagnosing Correctness Probes under Self-Judgement Confounding18 Jul 2026
- 2026Temporal Multi-Signal Fusion for Token-Level Hallucination Detection30 Jun 2026
- 2026The strength of clinical evidence is recoverable from language model representations but not from their stated grades27 Jun 2026