What Causes AI Hallucinations?
Unpredictable model behavior in language translation can be caused by a mix of technical limitations in models’ architecture, noisy training datasets, vague or ambiguous source inputs, unstable model decoding parameters, and the simple fact that generalized foundational models were not initially built for translation tasks; the ability to perform translation is an ancillary benefit. Due to predominantly English-centric training data, there is a higher risk of AI hallucination for languages other than English, especially under-resourced languages and languages that are both complex and linguistically distant from English (such as
Estonian or
Turkish).
Different translation models have different blind spots.
Neural machine translation (NMT) models excel at delivering actionable, consistent, and predictable translations, especially in well-supported languages with abundant training data. Through continuous re-training and adaptation, purpose-built NMT models also tend to gradually produce more relevant on-brand translations. However, they tend to be more limited in language fluency and understanding of the context present in the source language. On the other hand, LLMs leverage diverse datasets to perform a multitude of tasks, from coding to search and document summarization, with translation being just one of many tasks. While LLMs have the ability to incorporate rich, cross-domain knowledge, they carry a higher risk of distorting the meaning of source material.
Both types of systems rely on tokens, rather than full words, to process text. These tokens can be words, subwords, or even punctuation. Tokenization can be a fundamental constraint, even with large context windows. For example, due to the absence of word delimiters, character-based tokenization of Asian languages increases the risk of translation unpredictability and model hallucinations.
Model decoding parameters, such as temperature, lend further variance and unpredictability to generated outputs. Temperature, which balances creativity with predictability, can lead to increased AI hallucinations. Higher temperature settings use more randomized tokens to predict and generate text. This can produce more natural-sounding translations, but risks going too far by introducing errors or even completely fabricated details while producing “false fluency.”
Non-deterministic AI models can give different outputs from the same input; it’s impossible to tell if a translation prompt will work by just reading it. In LLM-based translation, surface accuracy can be misleading: A prompt with spelling mistakes or logical gaps might still yield a fluent output, while a carefully detailed prompt can fail unexpectedly. Variations in domain or tone further increase the risk of hallucinations, producing inconsistent or unreliable results.
How to Mitigate AI Hallucinations
Deploying practical mitigation strategies can reduce the risk of hallucinations, enhance linguist productivity, and optimize overall translation quality.
One of the simplest ways to identify hallucinations is by running a mechanical, rule-based check as a boundary. Much like a conventional spelling or grammar checker, this automated verification process reviews structural issues — such as word count, punctuation, spelling, and terminology — and quickly flags potential hallucinations. Take the source-to-target length ratio as an example. If an input is 20 words and the resulting output is 200 words, there is probably a hallucination in the output — otherwise, where did the extra words come from? A drastic change in word count often indicates hallucinations or unnecessary additions that require automated correction or, even better, human intervention.
Another strategy involves applying machine learning-based techniques, including reviewing semantic similarity and lexical accuracy with both modern-state LLMs and state-of-the-art embedding models such as “text-multilingual-embedding-002” in Google’s Vertex AI Platform. It’s also possible to experiment with more advanced approaches such as semantic entropy algorithms and log probability analysis. This meaning-based approach analyzes ambiguous phrasing and inconsistent outputs, which can indicate a potential hallucination. The higher the semantic dissimilarity, the higher the probability that something is off with the translation.
The following five approaches have also proven successful at mitigating hallucinations.