HALoGEN: Fantastic LLM Hallucinations and Where to Find Them
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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)”
From Cited but Not Verified: Parsing and Evaluating Source Attribution in LLM Deep Research Agents (2026) · cites this paper as 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.”
From Cited but Not Verified: Parsing and Evaluating Source Attribution in LLM Deep Research Agents (2026) · cites this paper as Ravichander et al., 2025
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).”
From Cited but Not Verified: Parsing and Evaluating Source Attribution in LLM Deep Research Agents (2026) · cites this paper as 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)
- ORCID
- Choi, Yejin
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 1402-1425
- ISSN
- 0736-587X (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2501.08292
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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