Hallucination as Commitment Failure: Larger LLMs Misfire Despite Knowing the Answer
Authors: Jewon Yeom, Jaewon Sok, Heejun Kim et al.
Summary
arXiv:2605. 22007v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.
Relevance
Read next because Hallucination as Commitment Failure: Larger LLMs Misfire Despite Knowing the Answer overlaps with clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)", clean result "Coupling evil personas with wrong answers fails to protect Qwen2.5-7B from EM-induced alignment collapse — and the apparent capability ordering across coupling conditions is mostly eval contamination (LOW confidence)", clean result "Training one persona to emit a [ZLT] marker without bystanders adopting it has a one-cell-wide LR x epochs window on Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (LOW confidence)". Matching terms: rect, under, correct, token, rate, factor, position, test. Source: arxiv cs.CL (NLP).
Threat model
Potential threat/caveat for clean result "Language-mismatch LoRA SFT on Qwen2.5-7B leaks the trained completion language into bystander directives the model was never trained on, absent under same-language SFT (LOW confidence)": this item discusses failure, failures.
Abstract
arXiv:2605.22007v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: 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.