The Privacy-Hallucination Tradeoff in Differentially Private Language Models

Both privacy and factual accuracy are paramount in high-stakes domains like healthcare. Concerningly, we uncover and investigate a privacy-hallucination tradeoff in differentially private (DP) language models. First, we empirically show that models pre-trained or fine-tuned with DP tend to produce more hallucinations than non-DP counterparts, with increased severity as the privacy budget grows stricter. Second, we investigate model properties driving this tradeoff, demonstrating that DP mechanisms flatten output distributions, potentially redistributing probability mass toward factually incorrect alternatives. Third, through experiments where we control fact frequency in training data, we characterize how information frequency can reduce hallucination risks in DP models. Overall, our findings underscore the need for more nuanced privacy-preserving interventions that offer rigorous privacy guarantees without compromising factual accuracy.

Can AI Agents Synthesize Scientific Conclusions?

Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions. Yet, their ability to do so in high-stakes domains such as health remains unclear. We introduce SciConBench, a large-scale live benchmark of 9.11K questions and expert-written conclusions from systematic reviews to evaluate open-domain scientific conclusion synthesis. The benchmark draws on an expert-validated automated evaluation pipeline that decomposes conclusions into atomic facts and measures correctness and comprehensiveness via factual precision and recall. To mitigate data leakage, we further introduce SciConHarness, a clean-room evaluation harness that equips agents with controlled web interaction to ensure valid measurement. Evaluating 8 frontier models and deep research agents, we find that factual quality remains low: under clean-room settings, the best agent achieves only a factual F1 of 0.337. Our clean-room setting consistently reduces performance relative to unconstrained evaluation, suggesting that leakage inflates estimates of models' true synthesis capabilities. Finally, we audit consumer-facing agents (e.g., Google AI Overview, OpenEvidence) and find they frequently generate incomplete and sometimes contradictory conclusions, even when the ground-truth answer is available. Overall, our results show that reliable synthesis of scientific conclusions remains an open challenge, and that clean-room evaluation is essential for assessing open-domain AI agents.