Do Deployment Constraints Make LLMs Hallucinate Citations? An Empirical Study across Four Models and Five Prompting Regimes

arXiv:2603.07287v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used to draft academic text and to support software engineering (SE) evidence synthesis, but they often hallucinate bibliographic references that look legitimate. We study how deployment-motivated prompting constraints affect citation verifiability in a closed-book setting. Using 144 claims (24 in SE&CS) and a deterministic verification pipeline (Crossref + Semantic Scholar), we evaluate two proprietary models (Claude Sonnet, GPT-4o) and two open-weight models (LLaMA~3.1-8B, Qwen~2.5-14B) across five regimes: Baseline, Temporal (publication-year window), Survey-style breadth, Non-Disclosure policy, and their combination. Across 17,443 generated citations, no model exceeds a citation-level existence rate of 0.475; Temporal and Combo conditions produce the steepest drops while outputs remain format-compliant (well-formed bibliographic fields). Unresolved outcomes dominate (36-61%); a 100-citation audit indicates that a substantial fraction of Unresolved cases are fabricated. Results motivate post-hoc citation verification before LLM outputs enter SE literature reviews or tooling pipelines.