about
Hallucination Is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models (arxiv.org)
3 points by PerryCox on Feb 9, 2024 | hide | past | pdf | 2 comments on HN

In plain words: Learning theory shows no language model can master every rule that could be computed, so it will sometimes contradict the true answer. Because real-world models face the same limit plus time limits, hallucination can be reduced but never fully removed.

Abstract · Hallucination is Inevitable: An Innate Limitation of Large Language Models

Hallucination has been widely recognized to be a significant drawback for large language models (LLMs). There have been many works that attempt to reduce the extent of hallucination. These efforts have mostly been empirical so far, which cannot answer the fundamental question whether it can be completely eliminated. In this paper, we formalize the problem and show that it is impossible to eliminate hallucination in LLMs. Specifically, we define a formal world where hallucination is defined as inconsistencies between a computable LLM and a computable ground truth function. By employing results from learning theory, we show that LLMs cannot learn all the computable functions and will therefore inevitably hallucinate if used as general problem solvers. Since the formal world is a part of the real world which is much more complicated, hallucinations are also inevitable for real world LLMs. Furthermore, for real world LLMs constrained by provable time complexity, we describe the hallucination-prone tasks and empirically validate our claims. Finally, using the formal world framework, we discuss the possible mechanisms and efficacies of existing hallucination mitigators as well as the practical implications on the safe deployment of LLMs.

Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, Mohan Kankanhalli
arXiv:2401.11817 · cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG · submitted Jan 22, 2024 · updated Feb 13, 2025
abstract · pdf · html

add comment on HN
Also discussed: May 2026 (14 points, 11 comments) · Feb 2024 (308 points, 474 comments)

This is pretty obvious no? LLMs are basically a lossy compression of their dataset. Being lossy, they will necessarily have error (hallucinations). Furthermore, the underlying data is human approximation of truth. Therefore it will have error as a well. Shall we publish a paper on the linked list?
Hmmm....couldn't you argue it the other way as well? I mean, a hallucination isn't just an incomplete fact present in the input set--it is a claim which wasn't in the input set.

That's not what we'd expect from a lossy compressor; we would expect incomplete or missing answers, but we wouldn't expect it to give us claims which were not in the input set.