Innovation: An Almost Characterization of Hallucination
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Hallucination is a central limitation of large language models (LLMs), and substantial effort has been devoted to understanding and mitigating it. Towards this, Kalai and Vempala (STOC 2024) introduced a probabilistic framework formalizing calibration and hallucination, and showed that, with high probability, calibrated LLMs hallucinate roughly at the rate of the "missing mass", a measure of how incomplete the training data is relative to its source. This raises two fundamental questions: (i) what property of a calibrated LLM makes hallucinations unavoidable? and (ii) can hallucinations be avoided by giving up calibration? We answer these questions by introducing a simpler property we call innovation that measures the tendency of a model to produce outputs outside the training data. We show that innovation is implied by the condition for hallucination identified by Kalai and Vempala, and, further, that it is an almost characterization of hallucination: hallucination implies innovation, and conversely, innovation implies hallucination with high probability. We also provide lower bounds on the hallucination rate based on the "innovation rate", and by relating innovation rate back to missing mass, we obtain new hallucination rate lower bounds based on missing mass that extend the results of Kalai and Vempala.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 4 of its 20 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 26 May 2026.
Builds on
4 of 20 references.
References · 4
- 2021WebGPT: Browser-assisted question-answering with human feedbackcited by 1,745
- 2024Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Modelscited by 332
- 2025Why Language Models Hallucinatecited by 220
- 2025Hallucinations are inevitable but can be made statistically negligiblecited by 5
Built on by
Not cited yet.