Lea Hirlimann | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

Relational Linearity is a Predictor of Hallucinations

Hallucination is a central failure mode of language models (LMs). We focus on hallucinations in response to questions like: "Which instrument did Glenn Gould play?", but we ask these questions for synthetic entities designed to be unknown to the model. We find that LMs like Gemma-7B-IT frequently hallucinate, i.e., they have difficulty recognizing that the hallucinated fact is not part of their knowledge. Based on the idea of linear relational embeddings, we put forward the following hypothesis. (i) Due to the abstract scheme that is used to represent them, LMs can easily produce plausible objects for non-existing subjects of linear relations, which can lead to hallucinations. (ii) For nonlinear relations, this mechanism for producing an object is not available and so a hallucination is easier to avoid. To test this hypothesis, we create SynthHal, a synthetic unknown-entity benchmark for 15 relations. We find that across four instruction-tuned models, relational linearity is a strong predictor of models hallucinating an object for an unknown subject vs refusing to give an answer, with correlations $r \in [.58, .84]$. While this is not direct evidence for the hypothesized causal mechanism, it is suggestive and opens up a new line of inquiry into understanding LM hallucinations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Do We Still Need Humans in the Loop? Human vs. LLM Annotation in Active Learning for TikTok Hate Speech Detection

Annotating data remains a costly bottleneck for supervised NLP. Active learning (AL) reduces the number of human labels needed by selecting only the most informative instances, while instruction-tuned LLMs attack the same bottleneck from the other side, making labels cheap enough to annotate entire corpora. This raises two questions: can LLM labels replace human labels within the AL loop, and does AL remain necessary when entire corpora can be cheaply labeled? We investigate both by training supervised hate speech classifiers on a new dataset of 278K German political TikTok comments, comparing human and LLM annotation under matched conditions. LLM annotation at scale outperforms human-supervised classifiers at roughly one-tenth the cost, for both a closed-source (GPT-5.2) and an open-weight (Qwen3.5-122B-A10B) LLM, and the advantage is robust under soft-label evaluation. It hinges on the annotation interface: only a two-question decomposition mirroring the human annotation task unlocks it. AL provides no reliable advantage over random sampling in our prefiltered pool. Error structure depends on the LLM: only GPT-5.2 matches the human FP/FN balance, while other variants over-flag border-control and economic-competition discourse. Humans remain essential as evaluators; for training labels, the question shifts to which LLM, which interface, and what shape of pool.

cs.CL↗