Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Do Language Models Know When They're Hallucinating References?

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 2305.18248 v3 pith:OPJZ2DWL submitted 2023-05-29 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords referenceshallucinatedlanguagemodelmodelsauthorsfindingshallucinating
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

State-of-the-art language models (LMs) are notoriously susceptible to generating hallucinated information. Such inaccurate outputs not only undermine the reliability of these models but also limit their use and raise serious concerns about misinformation and propaganda. In this work, we focus on hallucinated book and article references and present them as the "model organism" of language model hallucination research, due to their frequent and easy-to-discern nature. We posit that if a language model cites a particular reference in its output, then it should ideally possess sufficient information about its authors and content, among other relevant details. Using this basic insight, we illustrate that one can identify hallucinated references without ever consulting any external resources, by asking a set of direct or indirect queries to the language model about the references. These queries can be considered as "consistency checks." Our findings highlight that while LMs, including GPT-4, often produce inconsistent author lists for hallucinated references, they also often accurately recall the authors of real references. In this sense, the LM can be said to "know" when it is hallucinating references. Furthermore, these findings show how hallucinated references can be dissected to shed light on their nature. Replication code and results can be found at https://github.com/microsoft/hallucinated-references.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Shaking to Reveal: Perturbation-Based Detection of LLM Hallucinations

    cs.AI 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    SSP adds a learned, sample-specific noise prompt to an LLM input and scores hallucination by the cosine shift in intermediate representations, outperforming output-confidence baselines on QA benchmarks.

  2. Embodied AI: Emerging Risks and Opportunities for Policy Action

    cs.CY 2025-08 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A policy analysis arguing that embodied AI risks are real, under-covered by current US/EU/UK frameworks, and best handled through certification, benchmarks, clarified liability, and economic adaptation.

Pith tools