Skip to content
← Back to explorer

From Prerequisites to Predictions: Validating a Geometric Hallucination Taxonomy Through Controlled Induction

Matic Korun · Feb 27, 2026 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

Data freshness

Extraction: Fresh

Check recency before relying on this page for active eval decisions. Use stale pages as context and verify against current hub results.

Metadata refreshed

Feb 27, 2026, 8:56 PM

Recent

Extraction refreshed

Mar 8, 2026, 6:49 AM

Fresh

Extraction source

Runtime deterministic fallback

Confidence 0.15

Abstract

We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2. Using a two-level statistical design with prompts ($N = 15$/group) as the unit of inference, we run each experiment 20 times with different generation seeds to quantify result stability. In static embeddings, Type~3 norm separation is robust (significant in 18/20 runs, Holm-corrected in 14/20, median $r = +0.61$). In contextual hidden states, the Type~3 norm effect direction is stable (19/20 runs) but underpowered at $N = 15$ (significant in 4/20, median $r = -0.28$). Types~1 and~2 do not separate in either space (${\leq}\,3/20$ runs). Token-level tests inflate significance by 4--16$\times$ through pseudoreplication -- a finding replicated across all 20 runs. The results establish coverage-gap hallucinations as the most geometrically distinctive failure mode, carried by magnitude rather than direction, and confirm the Type~1/2 non-separation as genuine at 124M parameters.

Low-signal caution for protocol decisions

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.15 (below strong-reference threshold).
  • No explicit evaluation mode was extracted from available metadata.
  • No benchmark/dataset or metric anchors were extracted.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

Field Provenance & Confidence

Each key protocol field shows extraction state, confidence band, and data source so you can decide whether to trust it directly or validate from full text.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2.

Evaluation Modes

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

Validate eval design from full paper text.

Evidence snippet: We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2.

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

No metric anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2.

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Source: Runtime deterministic fallback missing

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: General
  • Extraction source: Runtime deterministic fallback

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes:
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Confidence: 0.15
  • Flags: low_signal, possible_false_positive, runtime_fallback_extraction

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Research Brief

Deterministic synthesis

We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2. HFEPX protocol signal is limited in abstract-level metadata, so treat it as adjacent context. Updated from current HFEPX corpus.

Generated Mar 8, 2026, 6:49 AM · Grounded in abstract + metadata only

Key Takeaways

  • We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish…
  • Using a two-level statistical design with prompts (N = 15/group) as the unit of inference, we run each experiment 20 times with different generation seeds to quantify result…
  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Actions

  • Treat this as method context, then pivot to protocol-specific HFEPX hubs.
  • Identify benchmark choices from full text before operationalizing conclusions.
  • Verify metric definitions before comparing against your eval pipeline.

Caveats

  • Generated from title, abstract, and extracted metadata only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
  • Low-signal flag detected: protocol relevance may be indirect.

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We test whether a geometric hallucination taxonomy -- classifying failures as center-drift (Type~1), wrong-well convergence (Type~2), or coverage gaps (Type~3) -- can distinguish hallucination types through controlled induction in GPT-2.
  • Using a two-level statistical design with prompts (N = 15/group) as the unit of inference, we run each experiment 20 times with different generation seeds to quantify result stability.
  • In static embeddings, Type~3 norm separation is robust (significant in 18/20 runs, Holm-corrected in 14/20, median r = +0.61).

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Abstract shows limited direct human-feedback or evaluation-protocol detail; use as adjacent methodological context.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Gap: Evaluation mode is explicit

    No clear evaluation mode extracted.

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Gap: Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

No related papers found for this item yet.

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.

Post a Job Get a Quote