arXiv preprint ·
Are Fake Citations a Form of Reward Hacking? A Pre-Registered Study of Post-Training and Citation Cues
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
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:10.17605/OSF.IO/S53HY. Code and data: https://github.com/zainnab-sparq/citation-reward-hacking
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
Spotting the Artificial: Dialogic Humor Improvisation in Humans and LLMs
XDecideBench: Evaluating Typed Decision Models and Confidence Policies Across Languages
Swap, Replicate, Read the Mass: A Protocol for Auditing Demographic Bias in System One Decision Models
Information-Theoretic Design of Sparse Autoencoder-Based Steering
Robustness Starts with the Objective: Designing and Certifying Robust LLM-Generated Heuristics
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.