PreprintCited by 13Topic ModelingNatural Language Processing TechniquesAdversarial Robustness in Machine Learning

HALoGEN: Fantastic LLM Hallucinations and Where to Find Them

Open access
Ravichander, Abhilasha, Ghela, Shrusti, Wadden, David, Choi, Yejin·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Despite their impressive ability to generate high-quality and fluent text, generative large language models (LLMs) also produce hallucinations: statements that are misaligned with established world knowledge or provided input context. However, measuring hallucination can be challenging, as having humans verify model generations on-the-fly is both expensive and time-consuming. In this work, we release HALoGEN, a comprehensive hallucination benchmark consisting of: (1) 10,923 prompts for generative models spanning nine domains including programming, scientific attribution, and summarization, and (2) automatic high-precision verifiers for each use case that decompose LLM generations into atomic units, and verify each unit against a high-quality knowledge source. We use this framework to evaluate ~150,000 generations from 14 language models, finding that even the best-performing models are riddled with hallucinations (sometimes up to 86% of generated atomic facts depending on the domain). We further define a novel error classification for LLM hallucinations based on whether they likely stem from incorrect recollection of training data (Type A errors), or incorrect knowledge in training data (Type B errors), or are fabrication (Type C errors). We hope our framework provides a foundation to enable the principled study of why generative models hallucinate, and advances the development of trustworthy large language models.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2501.08292

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking hallucinated or misattributed references.

    “Current approaches either trust models to self-cite accurately, risking hallucinated or misattributed references (Ravichander et al., 2025)”
  • Citations produced by LLM deep research agents cannot be reliably verified.

    “However, the citations these agents produce cannot be reliably verified.”
  • Citations may link to inaccessible URLs, reference irrelevant content, or misrepresent source claims.

    “and citations may link to inaccessible URLs, reference irrelevant content, or misrepresent source claims (Ravichander et al., 2025).”
  • Larger models generally hallucinate less than smaller ones on response-based tasks, but this advantage does not necessarily extend to refusal-based tasks.

    “Ravichander et al. (2025) find that larger models generally hallucinate less than smaller ones on response-based tasks, but this advantage does not necessarily extend to refusal-based tasks.”

    From HalluHard: A Hard Multi-Turn Hallucination Benchmark (2026) · cites this paper as Ravichander et al. (2025)

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 13

Authors
Ravichander, A., Ghela, S., Wadden, D., & Choi, Y.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Pages
1402-1425
ISSN
0736-587X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4412886764
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 1
FWCI
11.40
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the conference - Association for Computational Linguistics. Meeting (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (2134012)
  • Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  • Office of Naval Research (N00014)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Adversarial Robustness in Machine Learning
Keywords
LLM hallucination, hallucination benchmark, error classification, fabrication, large language models, trustworthy AI, scientific attribution, summarization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review