Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study introduces AuthorityBench, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate how citation-based authority signals affect the epistemic behavior of large language models (LLMs) across various domains. By employing a balanced factorial design that examines the interplay between claim and citation veracity, the research reveals that the presence of citations—regardless of their authenticity—significantly increases hallucination rates in LLMs, particularly when fabricated citations accompany true claims. The findings indicate that hallucination rates can rise by as much as 22 percentage points, with the most pronounced effects observed in the general knowledge domain, highlighting a critical vulnerability in LLMs when operating in citation-augmented contexts.
Citation presence can amplify hallucination rates in LLMs by up to 22 percentage points, revealing a significant blind spot in their epistemic reliability.
Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs. The benchmark uses a fully balanced 2x2 factorial design crossing claim veracity with citation veracity, the first to do so, across four domains (general knowledge, science, law, and medicine), with controlled variation over 40 prompt templates, four venue prestige tiers, and a country-coded author name dataset. Evaluating seven models on 12 structured research questions, we find that citation presence, whether real or fabricated, consistently increases hallucination rates relative to a no-citation baseline. The effect is strongest when fabricated citations accompany true claims, raising hallucination rates by 3 to 22 percentage points and reaching 35 to 77% in the general knowledge domain, while legal claims are comparatively robust and venue prestige and author demographics show negligible impact. All datasets and evaluation code are available at: https://github.com/floating-reeds/AuthorityBench