Abstract
Post-trained language models fabricate citations at high rates. We ask whether that is reward hacking: scoring well on a proxy for scholarship while doing worse on what it stands for. We ran four pre-registered experiments on 900 frozen questions (US federal case law, computationally adjacent scientific literature, and medical literature) across twelve open-weights checkpoints covering four post-training stages of three model families, then refit on fifteen. The clearest result holds the weights fixed and changes only the prompt. Asking for citations raises fabrication sharply in post-trained checkpoints and not in base ones: a 47.8-point interaction on twelve checkpoints (Holm-adjusted p = 2e-34) and 41.5 points on fifteen, in all three domains. A length-matched control separates the citation cue from a demand for a longer answer, so the effect is specific to citations, not verbosity. Post-training also raises fabrication overall, from 4.8% to 56.7%, but our registered prediction that it would rise most where fabrication is most tempting did not hold. A preference model trained only on surface citation features prefers post-trained output 86% of the time, and holding citation count fixed shows it rewards quantity. Our answer: possibly, but not proven. Post-trained models produce fabricated citations at far higher rates when asked for sources, and a naive evaluator that counts sources without checking them would prefer their output for citing more. But the targeted pattern we registered did not appear, and plain instruction-following could explain the same results. Proving that the reward causes fabrication needs an experiment that changes the reward during training, which this study does not do. Pre-registration: doi:https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/S53HY. Code and data: this https URL
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.01313
