Artificial intelligence · Article
Why AI Language Models Hallucinate: The Research Behind False Answers
Published:
In brief
AI "hallucinations" happen because language models are trained to predict the next plausible word, not to verify truth, and because the tests used to grade them reward confident guessing over admitting uncertainty. OpenAI researchers argue the problem is partly a mathematical consequence of how models are trained and partly a result of how the AI industry scores them.
An AI hallucination is a statement produced by a language model that sounds fluent and confident but is factually wrong — a fabricated citation, a wrong date, a person who does not exist. In a research paper published in September 2025, OpenAI researchers describe hallucinations in these terms and state that, with current training and evaluation methods, the problem cannot be fully solved.
How the training process creates errors
According to the OpenAI paper, posted on arXiv, part of the explanation lies in how models are pretrained. During pretraining, a model learns only from fluent text, without labels marking which statements are true or false. It is trained with a statistical objective (cross-entropy loss) that rewards predicting likely next words, not verifying facts.
The researchers show this produces errors even on data that itself contains no mistakes. For facts that appear only once in the training data — the researchers give the example of a person's birthday — the paper's analysis finds that the hallucination rate on those facts should be at least as high as the share of such "singleton" facts in the training set. In other words, if a fact was mentioned only once, the model is mathematically prone to getting it wrong. The paper calls some errors unavoidable even for models with no limits on computing power, because certain tasks are what it describes as computationally intractable.
Why grading systems reward guessing
The paper's second argument concerns how models are evaluated after pretraining. It compares a language model to a student facing a multiple-choice exam: a blank answer scores zero, so guessing is always the statistically better strategy when every wrong answer costs the same as leaving the question unanswered. OpenAI's researchers examined ten widely used AI benchmarks — including GPQA, MMLU-Pro and SWE-bench — and found that nine of them use binary grading that gives zero credit for an answer like "I don't know," the same score as a wrong answer.
That scoring pattern, the paper argues, pushes models to keep guessing rather than admit uncertainty, because confident guessing scores better on average than honest hedging. TechCrunch, reporting on the paper, described this as evaluations that create the wrong incentives by rewarding lucky correct guesses the same way as genuinely well-supported answers.
Reasoning models have hallucinated more, not less
The trend is not limited to older models. OpenAI's own system card for its o3 and o4-mini reasoning models, released in April 2025 and reported by TechCrunch, found that hallucination rates rose with newer reasoning systems on the company's internal PersonQA benchmark, which tests factual questions about people.
| Model | Hallucination rate |
|---|---|
| o1 | 16% |
| o3-mini | 14.8% |
| o3 | 33% |
| o4-mini | 48% |
OpenAI said more research is needed to understand why hallucinations increase as reasoning models scale up, noting that these models make more claims overall, which produces both more correct and more incorrect statements. Neil Chowdhury, a researcher at the AI research group Transluce quoted by TechCrunch, offered one hypothesis: the type of reinforcement learning used to train o-series reasoning models may amplify issues that standard training techniques normally mitigate.
What OpenAI proposes to fix it
The September 2025 paper proposes changing how benchmarks are scored rather than adding separate hallucination tests. Its suggested fix is to build explicit confidence thresholds into grading instructions — for example, telling a model to answer a question only if it is more than 75% confident, with mistakes costing more points than an abstention. In theory, this makes abstaining the mathematically better choice when a model is unsure, rather than the worse one, as happens in current scoring systems.
Like students facing hard exam questions, large language models sometimes guess when uncertain, producing plausible yet incorrect statements instead of admitting uncertainty.
The paper is explicit that this approach would reduce, not eliminate, hallucinations. Because some errors stem from statistically rare facts or from tasks the researchers describe as computationally intractable, the authors conclude that a language model with zero hallucinations is not achievable with current methods.
Questions
- What exactly is an AI hallucination?
- It is a statement generated by a language model that sounds fluent and confident but is factually false — for example, a fabricated citation, an incorrect date, or a person who does not exist. OpenAI's research describes hallucinations in these terms.
- Can AI hallucinations be completely eliminated?
- According to OpenAI's September 2025 research paper, no. The authors describe some hallucinations as a mathematically unavoidable consequence of how models are trained and evaluated, meaning the rate can be reduced but not brought to zero with current methods.
- Why do newer AI reasoning models sometimes hallucinate more than older ones?
- OpenAI's own system card for its o3 and o4-mini reasoning models found higher hallucination rates (33% and 48%) on its PersonQA benchmark than older models like o1 (16%), and the company said in April 2025 that more research is needed to explain the increase.
- Why do benchmark tests encourage AI models to guess instead of saying 'I don't know'?
- OpenAI found that nine out of ten major AI benchmarks it examined use binary grading that gives zero credit both for a wrong answer and for an honest 'I don't know,' which statistically rewards guessing over admitting uncertainty.
- What does OpenAI propose as a fix for hallucinations?
- Its researchers propose building explicit confidence thresholds into how benchmarks are graded, such as only rewarding answers given with high stated confidence and penalizing wrong guesses more than abstentions, so that admitting uncertainty becomes the better scoring strategy.
Sources
- arXiv — "Why Language Models Hallucinate" (OpenAI research paper, 2509.04664)
- TechCrunch — "Are bad incentives to blame for AI hallucinations?"
- TechCrunch — "OpenAI's new reasoning AI models hallucinate more"
- Computerworld — "OpenAI admits AI hallucinations are mathematically inevitable, not just engineering flaws"
This piece was prepared with artificial intelligence and passed an automated source check before publication. If you see an error, ask for a correction. Request a correction or reply · How we make this
Related

Artificial intelligenceArticle
How Neural Networks Learn: The Math Behind ChatGPT and Gemini
Neural networks learn by making a prediction, measuring how wrong it was with a loss function, and then adjusting internal values called weights backward through the network — a process called backpropagation paired with an optimisation method called gradient descent. The same mechanics, scaled to billions of parameters, underlie how systems such as ChatGPT and Gemini are first trained and then adapted to specific tasks through fine-tuning.

Artificial intelligenceArticle
How AI Generates Art and Music, and Why "True Creativity" Remains Disputed
AI image tools like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion build pictures by learning to reverse a noise process, while music tools like Suno and Udio compress audio into tokens and predict them step by step, guided by a text prompt. Whether either process counts as genuine creativity is unresolved: researchers are split between calling it pattern-based "remixing" and crediting it with measurable creative performance.
Artificial intelligenceArticle
Why Moonshot Deliberately Weakened Its New Kimi AI Model's Hacking Skills
Chinese AI lab Moonshot says it removed cyber-related training data from its new Kimi K3.1 Pro model so the open-weight system would not push the "frontier" of offensive hacking capability. The move, announced Saturday, October 24, 2026, comes as governments and security researchers warn that increasingly capable AI could make sophisticated cyberattacks cheaper and easier to carry out.
Artificial intelligenceArticle
How AI Text Detectors Work, Explained Through a Prize-Winning Novel Dispute
AI text detectors do not prove who wrote something; they estimate a probability by measuring statistical patterns such as word predictability and sentence-length variation. A detector called Pangram 4.1 recently attributed 99% of a €20,000 prize-winning Spanish-language novel to artificial intelligence, prompting its publisher to suspend promotional events while it investigates.