Predictable Confabulations: Factual Recall by LLMs Scales with Model Size and Topic Frequency

Large language models hallucinate most about entities they have never seen. We ask whether a model's activations betray entity familiarity before a single answer token is generated, and whether that signal predicts the factual reliability of the answers. On four Polish Bielik models (1.5B-11B parameters), we probe four entity domains (athletes, cities, writers, musicians), each with 42 well-known, 42 obscure-but-real, and 42 fabricated entities addressed by a one-sentence question (504 prompts per model). Two unsupervised, single-forward-pass dispersion measures over post-SwiGLU MLP activations, inverse participation ratio and spectral entropy, separate known from fabricated entities at AUROC 0.95-1.00 across all domains and scales; a supervised linear probe reaches 0.99-1.00. Both clear selection-aware permutation floors of about 0.70-0.74 (empirical p<=1e-3), survive held-out layer selection (0.93-0.99), and persist on real names (known vs. obscure-but-real: 0.96-1.00). The signal transfers across entity types (mean off-diagonal AUROC 0.92-0.99); a matched-template counterfactual shows the only large drops are template-caused, not entity-type effects, and the signal is diffuse across heads. This representational signal is already at ceiling at 1.5B, whereas behavioral factual reliability scales sharply: 0, 2, 10, and 19 of 42 known athletes are answered fully correctly by the 1.5B, 4.5B, 7B, and 11B models under a strict judge. Within known entities, separating correct from hallucinated answers is much harder (probe 0.93; dispersion no better than a first-token-entropy baseline). A five-sample semantic-entropy baseline reaches only 0.71-0.83 at 5x the inference cost. Despite this internal awareness, the models almost never abstain: an audit of 2,520 answers finds 2 refusals and 1 hedge. Entity familiarity and factual reliability are distinct phenomena on different scaling curves.

Understanding where LLMs store factual knowledge is critical for hallucination mitigation. We systematically quantify Late Crystallization: factual knowledge does not gradually emerge across layers but "crystallizes" abruptly at the final layers. Across five model families (Pythia, Gemma, Qwen2.5, Llama-3.1, Mistral; 0.5--14B), 26.8%--93.4% of correct answers never enter top-10 predictions at any intermediate layer, with late emergence (>80% depth) consistent across architectures. Cross-scale (Qwen2.5-14B) and cross-benchmark (MMLU: 98.2%) results confirm generality; tuned lens rules out probe artifacts. A sentiment-classification control (0.5% for Qwen vs. 85.9% factual; 2.0% for Mistral vs. 26.8%) confirms the phenomenon is specific to factual recall. Late Crystallization yields a crystallization-guided intervention principle: CAA outperforms DoLa on moderate-crystallization models (Llama, Mistral; p<0.001), with a directionally consistent reversal on high-crystallization Qwen (+25.4% vs. +15.5% MC1, p=0.069). LayerNorm ablation shows crystallization is intrinsic to the residual stream; LN scaling (x1.2) yields +11.8% MC1 with zero inference overhead. We further reveal a Computability-Memorization Spectrum: computable knowledge crystallizes earlier (layer 22.1/28) than memorized facts (28.0/28). We release MechLens supporting five model families.

The parameter counts of the most widely used large language models (LLMs) are often withheld by their developers, leaving model size -- a primary reference point for interpreting capabilities and costs -- largely undisclosed. We propose a black-box method to infer conservative lower bounds on LLM size from generated text outputs alone, requiring nothing beyond the ability to submit text fragments and observe next-token predictions. Our approach is grounded in a key observation: popular, widely-circulated texts -- such as classical literature, religious texts, and foundational documents -- are present in virtually every large-scale pretraining corpus, and how accurately a model predicts the next word across text fragments of varying length is a reliable signal of how much it has memorized them, which in turn is fundamentally limited by its total parameter count. We aggregate this memorization signal across a diverse corpus of texts and fragment lengths into a single accuracy profile vector per model, and build two complementary inference methods on top of it: a pairwise statistical test that determines which of two models is larger, and a scaling-law estimator that extracts a one-dimensional latent index from these vectors via Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to map the aggregated signal to a parameter count. Validated on a broad set of open-weight models, both methods produce accurate and reliable lower bounds. When applied to popular closed-weight models, our framework recovers internal product hierarchies and reveals a clear divergence in industry scaling strategies: while some developers yield significantly higher bounds indicative of large generational parameter growth, others operate under strict parameter ceilings, demonstrating that hidden design choices can be systematically probed even under strict API limitations.