What Makes a Good Query? Measuring the Impact of Human-Confusing Linguistic Features on LLM Performance

Large language models can hallucinate even when the knowledge required for a correct answer is already available. We study this failure through a latent-key view of inference, where answer selection depends on competition among associations acquired during pretraining. We show that model predictions can be highly sensitive to individual query keywords, that these influential keywords exhibit entity-specific binding, and that their effects are systematically shaped by pretraining frequency. Multiple bindings can also compete and exhibit higher-order interactions within the same query. Based on this mechanism, we introduce a two-stage keyword-perturbation method for hallucination detection. By removing influential keywords and measuring how the model reorganizes its prediction, the method distinguishes errors caused by misleading key associations from correct decisions supported by diagnostic evidence. Across multiple models and benchmarks, perturbation provides a strong and transferable detection signal, reaching $0.910$ AUROC on probe-known ScientistQA. Finally, we extend the same probabilistic framework to four hallucination regimes: knowledge deficit, wrong knowledge, context distraction, and unstable inference. Their operational distributions across benchmarks provide diagnostic context for why different detector families succeed in different settings.

Hallucinations -- plausible but factually incorrect responses -- pose a major challenge to the reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs), especially in multi-step or agentic settings. Existing work largely frames hallucinations as a consequence of missing knowledge; we show instead that, even when the relevant factual knowledge is present, models still produce hallucinated answers, pointing to retrieval instability rather than knowledge gaps. Building on this observation, we introduce APORIA (Aggregate Prompt-wise Observation Retrieving Instability via Asymmetry -- the state of puzzlement-in-contradiction that hallucinations embody), a geometric framework that studies repeated responses to the same prompt in sentence-embedding space. Our central hypothesis is that genuine responses cluster more tightly than hallucinated ones; we empirically validate this and show that, after Fisher projection, the two response classes become consistently separable. We leverage this asymmetry in geometry via APORIA-LP, an efficient label-propagation method that classifies large collections of responses from as few as 30--50 annotations, achieving F1 scores above 90% across ten small-sized LLMs. To support further research, we release SOCRATES-300K, a fully labelled dataset of 300,000 responses, together with the code for both dataset generation and result reproduction. Our key finding -- framing hallucinations from a geometric perspective in the embedding space -- complements traditional knowledge-centric and single-response evaluation paradigms, paving the way for further research.

How much do large language models actually hallucinate when answering questions grounded in provided documents? Despite the critical importance of this question for enterprise AI deployments, reliable measurement has been hampered by benchmarks that rely on static datasets vulnerable to contamination, LLM-based judges with documented biases, or evaluation scales too small for statistical confidence. We address this gap using RIKER, a ground-truth-first evaluation methodology that enables deterministic scoring without human annotation. Across 35 open-weight models, three context lengths (32K, 128K, and 200K tokens), four temperature settings, and three hardware platforms (NVIDIA H200, AMD MI300X, and Intel Gaudi 3), we conducted over 172 billion tokens of evaluation - an order of magnitude beyond prior work. Our findings reveal that: (1) even the best-performing models fabricate answers at a non-trivial rate - 1.19% at best at 32K, with top-tier models at 5 - 7% - and fabrication rises steeply with context length, nearly tripling at 128K and exceeding 10% for all models at 200K; (2) model selection dominates all other factors, with overall accuracy spanning a 72-percentage-point range and model family predicting fabrication resistance better than model size; (3) temperature effects are nuanced - T=0.0 yields the best overall accuracy in roughly 60% of cases, but higher temperatures reduce fabrication for the majority of models and dramatically reduce coherence loss (infinite generation loops), which can reach 48x higher rates at T=0.0 versus T=1.0; (4) grounding ability and fabrication resistance are distinct capabilities - models that excel at finding facts may still fabricate facts that do not exist; and (5) results are consistent across hardware platforms, confirming that deployment decisions need not be hardware-dependent.