Symbolic triggers like modifiers and named entities keep Gemma hallucination rates at 64-79% across model scales, suggesting larger models do not eliminate this failure mode.
Strong hallucinations from negation and how to fix them
1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
abstract
Despite great performance on many tasks, language models (LMs) still struggle with reasoning, sometimes providing responses that cannot possibly be true because they stem from logical incoherence. We call such responses \textit{strong hallucinations} and prove that they follow from an LM's computation of its internal representations for logical operators and outputs from those representations. Focusing on negation, we provide a novel solution in which negation is treated not as another element of a latent representation, but as \textit{an operation over an LM's latent representations that constrains how they may evolve}. We show that our approach improves model performance in cloze prompting and natural language inference tasks with negation without requiring training on sparse negative data.
citation-role summary
citation-polarity summary
fields
cs.CL 1years
2025 1verdicts
REJECT 1roles
background 1polarities
unclear 1representative citing papers
citing papers explorer
-
Investigating Symbolic Triggers of Hallucination in Gemma Models Across HaluEval and TruthfulQA
Symbolic triggers like modifiers and named entities keep Gemma hallucination rates at 64-79% across model scales, suggesting larger models do not eliminate this failure mode.