Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Banishing LLM Hallucinations Requires Rethinking Generalization

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2406.17642 v2 pith:ZZQUEICU submitted 2024-06-25 cs.CL cs.AI

Banishing LLM Hallucinations Requires Rethinking Generalization

classification cs.CL cs.AI
keywords hallucinationsfindingshallucinatellmsexpertslargemassivememory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Despite their powerful chat, coding, and reasoning abilities, Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently hallucinate. Conventional wisdom suggests that hallucinations are a consequence of a balance between creativity and factuality, which can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by grounding the LLM in external knowledge sources. Through extensive systematic experiments, we show that these traditional approaches fail to explain why LLMs hallucinate in practice. Specifically, we show that LLMs augmented with a massive Mixture of Memory Experts (MoME) can easily memorize large datasets of random numbers. We corroborate these experimental findings with a theoretical construction showing that simple neural networks trained to predict the next token hallucinate when the training loss is above a threshold as it usually does in practice when training on internet scale data. We interpret our findings by comparing against traditional retrieval methods for mitigating hallucinations. We use our findings to design a first generation model for removing hallucinations -- Lamini-1 -- that stores facts in a massive mixture of millions of memory experts that are retrieved dynamically.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Whose Name Comes Up? II: Benchmarking and Intervention-Based Auditing of LLM-Based Scholar Recommendation

    cs.IR 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0

    A new benchmark auditing LLM-based scholar recommendation across 22 models shows that inference-time interventions (temperature, constrained prompting, RAG) trade off technical quality against social representation ra...

  2. DTKG: Dual-Track Knowledge Graph-Verified Reasoning Framework for Multi-Hop QA

    cs.AI 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0

    DTKG routes multi-hop questions into either a fact-verification or knowledge-graph chain-reasoning branch, reporting modest accuracy gains on four QA benchmarks.