The DOI matches its DataCite record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A comprehensive taxonomy of hallucinations in Large Language Models
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet their propensity for hallucination, generating plausible but factually incorrect or fabricated content, remains a critical challenge. This report provides a comprehensive taxonomy of LLM hallucinations, beginning with a formal definition and a theoretical framework that posits its inherent inevitability in computable LLMs, irrespective of architecture or training. It explores core distinctions, differentiating between intrinsic (contradicting input context) and extrinsic (inconsistent with training data or reality), as well as factuality (absolute correctness) and faithfulness (adherence to input). The report then details specific manifestations, including factual errors, contextual and logical inconsistencies, temporal disorientation, ethical violations, and task-specific hallucinations across domains like code generation and multimodal applications. It analyzes the underlying causes, categorizing them into data-related issues, model-related factors, and prompt-related influences. Furthermore, the report examines cognitive and human factors influencing hallucination perception, surveys evaluation benchmarks and metrics for detection, and outlines architectural and systemic mitigation strategies. Finally, it introduces web-based resources for monitoring LLM releases and performance. This report underscores the complex, multifaceted nature of LLM hallucinations and emphasizes that, given their theoretical inevitability, future efforts must focus on robust detection, mitigation, and continuous human oversight for responsible and reliable deployment in critical applications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
In the citing paper
“This issue extends beyond simple factual errors to encompass unfaithful reasoning paths and misaligned planning, with overconfidence often masking the agent's uncertainty (Cossio, 2025;Huang et al., 2025b).”
From The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey (2025) · cites this paper as Cossio, 2025
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Med-HALT: Medical Domain Hallucination Test for Large Language Models
Pal, A., Umapathi, L. K., & Sankarasubbu, M. (2023) · Proceedings of the 27th Conference on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL) · doi:10.18653/v1/2023.conll-1.21 · Cited by 152
Enhancing Critical Thinking in Education by means of a Socratic Chatbot
Favero, L., Pérez-Ortiz, J. A., Käser, T., & Oliver, N. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.05511 · Cited by 119
Teaching Models to Express Their Uncertainty in Words
Lin, S., Hilton, J., & Evans, O. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.14334 · Cited by 59
MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models
Pandit, S., Xu, J., Hong, J., Wang, Z., Chen, T., Xu, K., & Ding, Y. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2502.14302 · Cited by 31
Investigating the Factual Knowledge Boundary of Large Language Models with Retrieval Augmentation
Ren, R., Wang, Y., Qu, Y., Zhao, W. X., Liu, J., Tian, H., Wu, H., Wen, J.-R., & Wang, H. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2307.11019 · Cited by 21
On the Origin of Hallucinations in Conversational Models: Is it the Datasets or the Models?
Dziri, N., Milton, S., Yu, M., Zaiane, O., & Reddy, S. (2022) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2204.07931 · Cited by 13
AgentHarm: A Benchmark for Measuring Harmfulness of LLM Agents
Andriushchenko, M., Souly, A., Dziemian, M., Duenas, D., Lin, M., Wang, J., Hendrycks, D., Zou, A., Kolter, Z., Fredrikson, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2410.09024 · Cited by 11
ARES: An Automated Evaluation Framework for Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems
Saad-Falcon, J., Khattab, O., Potts, C., & Zaharia, M. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.09476 · Cited by 7
Cited by
The landscape of agentic reinforcement learning for LLMs: a survey
Zhang, G., Geng, H., Yu, X., Yin, Z., Zhang, Z., Tan, Z., Zhou, H., Li, Z., Xue, X., Li, Y., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2509.02547 · Cited by 229
Evaluating Metrics for Safety with LLM-as-Judges
Clegg, K., Hawkins, R., Habli, I., & Lawton, T. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2512.15617 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Cossio, M.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- arXiv
- 2508.01781
- References
- 8
- Type
- Preprint
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A comprehensive taxonomy of hallucinations in Large Language Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.48550/arxiv.2508.01781
- The paper
- Cossio, M. (2025). A comprehensive taxonomy of hallucinations in Large Language Models. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2508.01781
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.