Deep learning-based approaches have achieved great success in the semantic segmentation [24, 43, 2, 7, 42, 3, 17, 10], thanks to a large amount of fully annotated data. However, collecting large-scale accurate pixel-level annotations can be extremely time and cost consuming [6]. An appealing alternative is to use off-the-shelf simulators to render synthetic data for which groundtruth annotations are generated automatically [33, 34, 32]. Unfortunately, models trained purely on simulated data often fail to generalize to the real world due to thedomain shifts.

Despite numerous attempts to solve the issue of hallucination since the inception of neural language models, it remains a problem in even frontier large language models today. Why is this the case? We walk through definitions of hallucination used in the literature from a historical perspective up to the current day, and fold them into a single definition of hallucination, wherein different prior definitions focus on different aspects of our definition. At its core, we argue that hallucination is simply inaccurate (internal) world modeling, in a form where it is observable to the user (e.g., stating a fact which contradicts a knowledge base, or producing a summary which contradicts a known source). By varying the reference world model as well as the knowledge conflict policy (e.g., knowledge base vs. in-context), we arrive at the different existing definitions of hallucination present in the literature. We argue that this unified view is useful because it forces evaluations to make clear their assumed "world" or source of truth, clarifies what should and should not be called hallucination (as opposed to planning or reward/incentive-related errors), and provides a common language to compare benchmarks and mitigation techniques. Building on this definition, we outline plans for a family of benchmarks in which hallucinations are defined as mismatches with synthetic but fully specified world models in different environments, and sketch out how these benchmarks can use such settings to stress-test and improve the world modeling components of language models.

Unsupervised domain adaptation (UDA) for semantic segmentation has been attracting attention recently, as it could be beneficial for various label-scarce real-world scenarios (e.g., robot control, autonomous driving, medical imaging, etc.). Despite the significant progress in this field, current works mainly focus on a single-source single-target setting, which cannot handle more practical settings of multiple targets or even unseen targets. In this paper, we investigate open compound domain adaptation (OCDA), which deals with mixed and novel situations at the same time, for semantic segmentation. We present a novel framework based on three main design principles: discover, hallucinate, and adapt. The scheme first clusters compound target data based on style, discovering multiple latent domains (discover).

Earlier today, OpenAI completed a controversial restructuring of its for-profit arm into a public benefit corporation: the latest gust in a whirlwind that has swept up hundreds of billions of dollars of global investment for artificial intelligence (AI) tools. But even as the AI company--founded as a nonprofit, now valued at 500 billion--completes its long-awaited restructuring, a nagging issue with its core offering remains unresolved: hallucinations. Large language models (LLMs) such as those that underpin OpenAI's popular ChatGPT platform are prone to confidently spouting factually incorrect statements. These blips are often attributed to bad input data, but in a preprint posted last month, a team from OpenAI and the Georgia Institute of Technology proves that even with flawless training data, LLMs can never be all-knowing--in part because some questions are just inherently unanswerable. However, that doesn't mean hallucinations are inevitable.

A.1, we evaluate our framework on two new datasets, Synscapes and SYNTHIA, A.2, we conduct additional ablation studies on the adaptation step using four latent A.3, we analyze hyperparameter K selection. A.4, we show more qualitative results. A.5, we elaborate the implementation details. The adaptation results are summarized in the Table 1. In the main paper, we already show that the proposed domain-wise adversaries are more effective than the traditional UDA approaches.

We formalize hallucinations in generative models as failures to link an estimate to any plausible cause. Under this interpretation, we show that even loss-minimizing optimal estimators still hallucinate. We confirm this with a general high probability lower bound on hallucinate rate for generic data distributions. This reframes hallucination as structural misalignment between loss minimization and human-acceptable outputs, and hence estimation errors induced by miscalibration. Experiments on coin aggregation, open-ended QA, and text-to-image support our theory.

Large language models (LLMs) have revolutionized natural language processing, yet their propensity for hallucination, generating plausible but factually incorrect or fabricated content, remains a critical challenge. This report provides a comprehensive taxonomy of LLM hallucinations, beginning with a formal definition and a theoretical framework that posits its inherent inevitability in computable LLMs, irrespective of architecture or training. It explores core distinctions, differentiating between intrinsic (contradicting input context) and extrinsic (inconsistent with training data or reality), as well as factuality (absolute correctness) and faithfulness (adherence to input). The report then details specific manifestations, including factual errors, contextual and logical inconsistencies, temporal disorientation, ethical violations, and task-specific hallucinations across domains like code generation and multimodal applications. It analyzes the underlying causes, categorizing them into data-related issues, model-related factors, and prompt-related influences. Furthermore, the report examines cognitive and human factors influencing hallucination perception, surveys evaluation benchmarks and metrics for detection, and outlines architectural and systemic mitigation strategies. Finally, it introduces web-based resources for monitoring LLM releases and performance. This report underscores the complex, multifaceted nature of LLM hallucinations and emphasizes that, given their theoretical inevitability, future efforts must focus on robust detection, mitigation, and continuous human oversight for responsible and reliable deployment in critical applications.