# Hallucination as Commitment Failure: Larger LLMs Misfire Despite Knowing the Answer

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22007 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.22007/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 35 of its 46 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 21 May 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 35)

- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [The Llama 3 Herd of Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2407.21783/) (2024)
- [Qwen3 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.09388/) (2025)
- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [On Calibration of Modern Neural Networks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1706.04599/) (2017)
- [Qwen2.5 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2412.15115/) (2024)
- [Think you have Solved Question Answering? Try ARC, the AI2 Reasoning Challenge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05457/) (2018)
- [TriviaQA: A Large Scale Distantly Supervised Challenge Dataset for Reading Comprehension](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1705.03551/) (2017)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [Language Models (Mostly) Know What They Know](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2207.05221/) (2022)
- [Inference-Time Intervention: Eliciting Truthful Answers from a Language Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03341/) (2023)
- [Can LLMs Express Their Uncertainty? An Empirical Evaluation of Confidence Elicitation in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.13063/) (2023)
- [Semantic Uncertainty: Linguistic Invariances for Uncertainty Estimation in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2302.09664/) (2023)
- [SelfCheckGPT: Zero-Resource Black-Box Hallucination Detection for Generative Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08896/) (2023)
- [Discovering Latent Knowledge in Language Models Without Supervision](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.03827/) (2022)
- [The Geometry of Truth: Emergent Linear Structure in Large Language Model Representations of True/False Datasets](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06824/) (2023)
- [The Internal State of an LLM Knows When It's Lying](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2304.13734/) (2023)
- [Beyond the 80/20 Rule: High-Entropy Minority Tokens Drive Effective Reinforcement Learning for LLM Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.01939/) (2025)
- [DoLa: Decoding by Contrasting Layers Improves Factuality in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.03883/) (2023)
- [Semantic Entropy Probes: Robust and Cheap Hallucination Detection in LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15927/) (2024)
- [Out-of-Distribution Detection and Selective Generation for Conditional Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2209.15558/) (2022)
- [Calibrating Language Models with Adaptive Temperature Scaling](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.19817/) (2024)
- [MARS: Meaning-Aware Response Scoring for Uncertainty Estimation in Generative LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.11756/) (2024)
- [Mind the Confidence Gap: Overconfidence, Calibration, and Distractor Effects in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.11028/) (2025)
- [Ignore the KL Penalty! Boosting Exploration on Critical Tokens to Enhance RL Fine-Tuning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.06533/) (2025)
- [Uncertainty Quantification for LLMs through Minimum Bayes Risk: Bridging Confidence and Consistency](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.04964/) (2025)
- [Trust Me, I'm Wrong: LLMs Hallucinate with Certainty Despite Knowing the Answer](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.12964/) (2025)
- [The First to Know: How Token Distributions Reveal Hidden Knowledge in Large Vision-Language Models?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.09037/) (2024)
- [Robust Hallucination Detection in LLMs via Adaptive Token Selection](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.07863/) (2025)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Reachability Is Not Realization: Tracing the Sources of LLM Benchmark Gains](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.03219/) (2026)
- [Conflicting Supervision Moves Commitment, Not Capability: A 12.29σ arrangement effect that is exactly zero under a convention-agnostic score](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.00234/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Hallucination is often viewed as a direct consequence of missing knowledge: a model answers incorrectly when the correct answer is absent from its generation-time distribution, and correctly when it is present. We test this assumption by introducing a semantic notion of answer availability that aggregates token-level variants expressing the same answer concept, and asks whether the correct concept is already available at the moment the model commits to an answer. Across Qwen and Llama models from 0.8B to 72B in both Instruct and Base variants, 16-47% of Instruct hallucinations occur with substantial probability mass already on the correct concept, and the rate rises monotonically with scale. Comparing such failures against correct generations with matched semantic support, the distinguishing factor is not whether the correct concept is represented, but how its probability is distributed: correct generations concentrate mass on a single surface form, hallucinations disperse it across alternatives. The same sharpening asymmetry extends across multi-token generation and is detectable in pre-generation hidden states. Together, these results identify a single mechanism: instruction tuning sharpens answer commitment with scale, making helpfulness and confident hallucination two consequences of the same underlying disposition.