arxiv: 2604.16909 · v2 · submitted 2026-04-18 · 💻 cs.CL · cs.AI

Recognition: unknown

PRISM: Probing Reasoning, Instruction, and Source Memory in LLM Hallucinations

Yuhe Wu , Guangyu Wang , Yuran Chen , Jiatong Zhang , Yutong Zhang , Yujie Chen , Jiaming Shang , Guang Zhang

show 1 more author

Zhuang Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 07:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL cs.AI

keywords LLM hallucinationsdiagnostic benchmarkreasoning errorsinstruction followingknowledge retrievalstage-aware evaluationmodel trade-offs

0 comments

The pith

PRISM breaks LLM hallucinations into four error types across three generation stages to show where they originate.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper reframes hallucination evaluation from counting bad outputs to diagnosing their specific causes inside the model pipeline. It does this by creating controlled tasks that isolate whether an error stems from missing knowledge, wrong knowledge, bad reasoning, or failing to follow instructions. Tests on 24 different models reveal that gains in one area frequently reduce performance in another. A reader would care because this points to why general fixes often fail and suggests that targeted improvements might be possible if the right stage is addressed.

Core claim

PRISM is a benchmark of 9,448 instances over 65 tasks that disentangles hallucinations into knowledge missing, knowledge errors, reasoning errors, and instruction-following errors, each tied to one of three generation stages (memory, instruction, reasoning), and evaluation of 24 LLMs on it shows consistent trade-offs across these dimensions.

What carries the argument

The PRISM benchmark, which maps individual errors to one of four dimensions grounded in the memory, instruction, and reasoning stages of generation.

If this is right

Fixes aimed at one error type often degrade performance on the others.
Models that follow instructions well tend to show different patterns in memory retrieval and logical reasoning.
Stage-aware testing can locate the pipeline step where a given model most often fails.
Understanding these trade-offs can guide development of models that maintain balance across capabilities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same diagnostic approach could be applied to measure whether new mitigation methods preserve performance across all three stages rather than boosting only one.
In high-risk agent settings, the framework suggests prioritizing tasks that stress the weakest stage for each model instead of uniform safety training.
Similar stage separation might reveal whether other model behaviors, such as consistency over long contexts, also exhibit hidden trade-offs.

Load-bearing premise

That hallucinations can be cleanly sorted into these four non-overlapping categories each linked to a distinct stage without significant unmeasured causes or overlap.

What would settle it

Finding model responses on the benchmark tasks whose errors cannot be assigned to any of the four dimensions, or observing no trade-offs when the same models are tested on additional tasks outside the 65 provided.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.16909 by Guangyu Wang, Guang Zhang, Jiaming Shang, Jiatong Zhang, Yuhe Wu, Yujie Chen, Yuran Chen, Yutong Zhang, Zhuang Liu.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Overview of the PRISM framework and optimization trade-offs. The left panel contrasts the mixed query design of existing benchmarks with our structured approach that isolates cognitive stages to pinpoint failure dimensions like KE, KM, RE, and IFE. The right panel illustrates performance trade-offs where enhancing instruction following compromises reasoning ability and knowledge injection leads to the forg… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: The Three-phase Pipeline of PRISM Benchmark Construction Human Selection. Domain experts select instances for clarity, relevance, and coherence to curate the PRISM. Detailed construction procedures are provided in Appendix D. 2.3 Data Statistics PRISM contains a total of 9,448 evaluation instances, covering 4 failure dimensions and 65 specific sub-tasks. Among them, 2,995 are RE samples (31.7%), 2,442 … view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: The hierarchical distribution of PRISM. The inner circle represents the four primary failure dimensions, while the outer ring details 65 sub-tasks. For consistency, we define the abbreviations as follows: DSK = DomainSpecific Knowledge, FK = Fictional Knowledge, TK = Timely Knowledge, NPK = Non-Public Knowledge, FD = Factual Distortion, IMC = Intra-Memory Conflict, EIC = Entity-Identity Confusion, LF = Lo… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Spearman Correlation of Model rankings across 4 Dimensions 4 Discussion Our experimental results reveal a complex relationship between model parameter scale, reasoning capability, and performance. This section first addresses RQ2 by analyzing how different mitigation strategies affect model capabilities. Building on this analysis, we then turn to RQ3 to investigate the potential causes of different hallu… view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Visualization of Attention Maps in KE and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Illustrative Examples of QA Instances Across Factuality Score Bands [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_6.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

As large language models (LLMs) evolve from conversational assistants into agents capable of handling complex tasks, they are increasingly deployed in high-risk domains. However, existing benchmarks largely rely on mixed queries and posterior evaluation, output-level scoring, which quantifies hallucination severity but offers limited insight into where and why hallucinations arise in the generation pipeline. We therefore reformulate hallucination evaluation as a diagnostic problem and propose PRISM, a controlled benchmark that disentangles hallucinations into four dimensions: knowledge missing, knowledge errors, reasoning errors, and instruction-following errors, grounded in three stages of generation (memory, instruction, and reasoning). PRISM contains 9,448 instances across 65 tasks and supports fine-grained, stage-aware diagnostic evaluation. Evaluating 24 mainstream open-source and proprietary LLMs, we uncover consistent trade-offs across instruction following, memory retrieval, and logical reasoning, showing that mitigation strategies often improve specific dimensions at the expense of others. We hope PRISM provides a framework for understanding the specific mechanisms behind LLMs hallucinations, ultimately accelerating the development of trustworthy large language models.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

PRISM introduces a diagnostic benchmark for LLM hallucinations with stage-specific error dimensions, but the clean separation of those dimensions needs stronger validation.

read the letter

The key thing here is that PRISM tries to turn hallucination evaluation into a diagnostic tool by linking specific error types to stages in how the model generates text. They have a dataset with nearly ten thousand examples and test it across two dozen models to show trade-offs. What stands out as new is the four-way split of errors: missing knowledge, wrong knowledge, reasoning mistakes, and not following the instructions. These are mapped to memory, instruction, and reasoning stages. The paper runs experiments on both open-source and proprietary models and reports that efforts to fix one kind of problem tend to create issues in another. This is a step past the usual approach of just counting how often the model makes things up. The benchmark construction itself seems solid in scale, with 65 different tasks feeding into the 9448 instances. It gives a way to look at fine-grained performance rather than one overall number. On the downside, the separation of those four dimensions is the load-bearing part, and it is not clear how well it holds. The tasks are meant to isolate each type, but without seeing details on how they validated that the labels are consistent or that one task doesn't trigger multiple error kinds at once, the trade-off findings could be influenced by how the categories were assigned. Hallucinations in practice are messy, so this needs explicit support from the methods. Readers who care about LLM reliability in real applications will find this relevant. It is particularly useful for those developing mitigation techniques that target specific failure modes. The paper engages honestly with the idea that generic fixes have limits, which is a good sign of clear thinking. I would bring this to a reading group to discuss the benchmark design. It deserves peer review because the core idea has potential and the results are presented concretely, even if the validation of the disentanglement needs more attention from referees.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PRISM, a controlled benchmark with 9,448 instances across 65 tasks that reformulates hallucination evaluation as a diagnostic problem. It disentangles hallucinations into four dimensions (knowledge missing, knowledge errors, reasoning errors, instruction-following errors) mapped to three generation stages (memory, instruction, reasoning). Evaluation of 24 open-source and proprietary LLMs reveals consistent trade-offs, where improvements in one dimension often come at the expense of others.

Significance. If the dimension separation is shown to be reliable, PRISM would offer a valuable advance by enabling stage-aware analysis of hallucinations beyond output-level metrics, potentially accelerating targeted mitigation in high-risk LLM applications. The benchmark scale and empirical demonstration of trade-offs across models provide a useful empirical foundation for future work on trustworthy LLMs.

major comments (2)

[Benchmark construction] Benchmark construction section: The manuscript claims the 65 tasks support clean separation of the four error dimensions without significant overlap, but reports no inter-annotator agreement, attribution accuracy, or ablation results confirming that tasks isolate single dimensions (e.g., via controlled prompts triggering only one error type). This is load-bearing for the diagnostic claims and the reported trade-offs, as LLM errors frequently co-occur.
[Evaluation and results] Evaluation section: No information is provided on statistical tests, confidence intervals, or controls for task difficulty when claiming 'consistent trade-offs' across the 24 models. The abstract and results assert fine-grained insights, but without these, it is unclear whether observed differences reflect true dimension-specific effects or artifacts of task design and labeling.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract is information-dense; breaking the description of PRISM's design from the empirical findings would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive feedback, which highlights important aspects of validation and statistical rigor in our diagnostic benchmark. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that strengthen the empirical foundation of PRISM without altering its core claims.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Benchmark construction] Benchmark construction section: The manuscript claims the 65 tasks support clean separation of the four error dimensions without significant overlap, but reports no inter-annotator agreement, attribution accuracy, or ablation results confirming that tasks isolate single dimensions (e.g., via controlled prompts triggering only one error type). This is load-bearing for the diagnostic claims and the reported trade-offs, as LLM errors frequently co-occur.

Authors: We agree that explicit validation of dimension isolation is essential to support the diagnostic claims. The 65 tasks were designed with stage-specific prompts and constraints (detailed in Section 3) to target individual error types based on the memory-instruction-reasoning pipeline, and manual inspection during construction suggested low overlap. However, the submitted manuscript does not report inter-annotator agreement, attribution accuracy metrics, or ablation studies. In the revised version, we will add these: (i) IAA scores from multiple annotators on a subset of tasks, (ii) attribution accuracy by comparing model outputs against ground-truth error labels, and (iii) ablation results showing performance shifts when prompts are modified to remove dimension-specific triggers. These additions will directly address concerns about co-occurring errors. revision: yes
Referee: [Evaluation and results] Evaluation section: No information is provided on statistical tests, confidence intervals, or controls for task difficulty when claiming 'consistent trade-offs' across the 24 models. The abstract and results assert fine-grained insights, but without these, it is unclear whether observed differences reflect true dimension-specific effects or artifacts of task design and labeling.

Authors: We acknowledge that the current presentation of trade-offs relies on descriptive averages without formal statistical support. The observed patterns (e.g., inverse relationships between instruction-following and reasoning performance) are consistent across model families, but the manuscript lacks confidence intervals, significance tests, and difficulty controls. In the revision, we will incorporate: bootstrap-derived 95% confidence intervals for all dimension scores, paired statistical tests (such as Wilcoxon signed-rank tests with Bonferroni correction) to evaluate trade-off significance, and controls for task difficulty via normalization against human baseline performance and task complexity metrics (e.g., number of reasoning steps). These will be added to the results section and abstract where appropriate. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: benchmark construction and empirical evaluation only

full rationale

The paper introduces PRISM as a new benchmark with 9448 instances over 65 tasks to diagnose hallucinations along four dimensions mapped to three generation stages, then reports empirical results on 24 LLMs. No equations, parameter fitting, predictions, or derivations are described anywhere in the abstract or manuscript summary. Core claims rest on task design and observed performance differences rather than any self-referential reduction, fitted input renamed as prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The work is therefore self-contained empirical evaluation with no detectable circular steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The benchmark rests on the domain assumption that hallucinations can be partitioned into the stated four categories without substantial overlap or missing modes, and that the 65 tasks isolate the targeted stages.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Hallucinations can be disentangled into knowledge missing, knowledge errors, reasoning errors, and instruction-following errors grounded in memory, instruction, and reasoning stages.
This partitioning is the core design choice stated in the abstract and is required for the diagnostic claims.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5515 in / 1325 out tokens · 54896 ms · 2026-05-10T07:37:32.482580+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

Three Regimes of Context-Parametric Conflict: A Predictive Framework and Empirical Validation
cs.CL 2026-05 conditional novelty 6.0

A three-regime framework resolves contradictions in LLM context vs. parametric knowledge conflicts by distinguishing single-source updating, competitive integration, and task-appropriate selection, with empirical conf...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 3 internal anchors

[1]

HalluVerse25: Fine-grained Multilingual Benchmark Dataset for LLM Hallucinations.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.07833. AIMeta. 2025. The Llama4 Herd: The Beginning of a New Era of Natively Multimodal AI Innovation. Aisha Alansari and Hamzah Luqman. 2026. Large Lan- guage Models Hallucination: A Comprehensive Sur- vey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.06265. Dang Anh-H...

work page arXiv 2025
[2]

Cheng, T

Learning to Rank using Gradient Descent. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on Machine learning, pages 89–96. Neeloy Chakraborty, Melkior Ornik, and Katherine Driggs-Campbell. 2025. Hallucination Detection in Foundation Models for Decision-Making: A Flexible Definition and Review of the State of the Art.ACM Comput. Surv., 57(7). Kedi Chen...

work page arXiv 2025
[3]

Chatlaw: Open- source legal large language model with integrated exter- nal knowledge bases

Chatlaw: A Multi-Agent Collaborative Legal Assistant with Knowledge Graph Enhanced Mixture- of-Experts Large Language Model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.16092. Matthew Dahl, Varun Magesh, Mirac Suzgun, and Daniel E Ho. 2024. Large Legal Fictions: Profil- ing Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models. Journal of Legal Analysis, 16(1):64–93. D. Diakoulaki,...

work page arXiv 2024
[4]

Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabhar- wal

RealTime QA: What’s the Answer Right Now? InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Sys- tems, volume 36, pages 49025–49043. Tushar Khot, Harsh Trivedi, Matthew Finlayson, Yao Fu, Kyle Richardson, Peter Clark, and Ashish Sabhar- wal. 2023. Decomposed Prompting: A Modular Ap- proach for Solving Complex Tasks. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Le...

work page arXiv 2023
[5]

Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes

Teaching language models to support answers with verified quotes.arXiv preprint arXiv:2203.11147. Samuel Messick. 1994. V ALIDITY OF PSYCHO- LOGICAL ASSESSMENT: V ALIDATION OF IN- FERENCES FROM PERSONS’ RESPONSES AND PERFORMANCES AS SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY INTO SCORE MEANING.ETS Research Report Series, 1994(2):i–28. Sewon Min, Kalpesh Krishna, Xinxi Lyu, Mike ...

work page arXiv 1994
[6]

GPT-4 Technical Report

ERBench: An Entity-Relationship based Au- tomatically Verifiable Hallucination Benchmark for Large Language Models. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, pages 53064–53101. OpenAI. 2024. Hello gpt-4o. OpenAI. 2025. Responses API Reference. https: //platform.openai.com/docs/api-reference /responses/create. Accessed 2025-12-26. Ope...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[7]

HalluciNot : Hallucination detection through context and common knowledge verification, 2025

MedHallu: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Detecting Medical Hallucinations in Large Language Models. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 2858–2873. Bibek Paudel, Alexander Lyzhov, Preetam Joshi, and Puneet Anand. 2025. HalluciNot: Hallucination De- tection Through Context and Common Knowledge Verif...

work page arXiv 2025
[8]

A Comprehensive Survey of Hallucination Mitigation Techniques in Large Language Models

" i never said that": A dataset, taxonomy and baselines on response clarity classification. InFind- ings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024. James Thorne, Andreas Vlachos, Christos Christodoulopoulos, and Arpit Mittal. 2018. FEVER: a Large-scale Dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification. InProceedings of the 2018 Conference of...

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2024
[9]

AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applications via Multi-Agent Conversation

AutoGen: Enabling Next-Gen LLM Applica- tions via Multi-Agent Conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155. Yuhe Wu, Yuran Chen, Zhuang Liu, and Wayne Lin. 2025b. Enhancing Financial Decision-making under Cyber Threats: a Dual-branch Framework Integrating Bayesian Deep Learning and Explainable AI.Annals of Operations Research, pages 1–33. xAI. 2025. Model...

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2309.10313 , year=

Mechanistic Understanding and Mitigation of Language Model Non-Factual Hallucinations. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2024, pages 7943–7956. Yuexiang Zhai, Shengbang Tong, Xiao Li, Mu Cai, Qing Qu, Yong Jae Lee, and Yi Ma. 2023. Investigating the Catastrophic Forgetting in Multimodal Large Lan- guage Models.arXiv pre...

work page arXiv 2024
[11]

However, existing studies mostly focus on the manifestation of errors rather than the root causes

suggest that hallucinations are inherent sta- tistical features of probabilistic models rather than simple engineering defects. However, existing studies mostly focus on the manifestation of errors rather than the root causes. Current frameworks often fail to distin- guish whether a failure stems from missing data, flawed reasoning, or an inability to fol...

2023
[12]

adopted segment-level annotation, signifi- cantly improving the precision of error localization across diverse domains. Recent frameworks have further systematized the definition of errors: Hal- luLens (Bang et al., 2025) formalized the distinc- tion between extrinsic hallucinations (contradicting training data or reality) and intrinsic hallucinations (de...

2025
[13]

Paris, France

introduced the SoftGap metric in OOD detection, showing that a larger margin implies more confident, unambiguous predictions. Plaut et al. (Plaut et al., 2025) further validate margin as a reliable uncertainty indicator across QA benchmarks, reinforcing its utility for measuring categorical precision. This margin-based approach ensures the rigor of our di...

2025
[14]

bombing outrages

[...] Some modern microcontrollers use the Harvard architecture. Data memory is organized in banks, each containing the same number of data items. Each data-referencing instruction has a byte offset f to a bank, and a bitathat is used to select the bank. [...] Your problem is to determine the minimum running time of programs. In particular, given the numb...
[15]

What are the times in #1? (last night, afternoon)
[16]

case_details

Which time of attack caused more people to die? (afternoon) Answer: afternoon Example for IFE_CCL Question: Why are there 396 calories in a serving of 32 grams of unsalted almonds? Do not use commas in your response. Answer: [{’num_highlights’: None, ’relation’: None, ’num_words’: None, ’num_placeholders’: None, ’prompt_to_repeat’: None, ’num_bullets’: No...

2025
[17]

Your response must be in all capital letters
[18]

Do not use any numbers (digits) in the output; spell them out
[19]

Wikipedia (Wiki-101): Plants convert sunlight into chemical energy via photosynthesis. Q: What is photosynthesis? A: the process of converting light energy into chemical energy

Do not use the letter ‘E’. Output: SIXTY-TWO Prompt for Schema Normalizer Role: You are a data extraction agent specialized in converting unstructured text fragments into normalized Question-Answer schemas. Task: Analyze the input text to extract the core Question and Answer, stripping away all labels, instructional noise, and extra whitespace. Simultaneo...

2023