SKILLUMEN
Try for free
Interview Questions  ›   RAG and retrieval

Hallucination

6 interview questions you should be able to answer.
3 worked answers   •   3 practice questions   •   Applied
Sounds sure.
Still wrong.
  Ground it.↘
Updated Sep 2026
01 CORE
1 / 6

What exactly is a hallucination, and what makes it
dangerous to a reader?

Think about your answer before revealing.
Give it a try!
Interview answer
◷  ~ 25 seconds

A hallucination is output that's stated with total confidence but is not true. What makes it dangerous is that it arrives in the same fluent, assured tone as a correct answer, complete with plausible names, dates, or citations, so the reader gets no warning.

A bluff reads identically to a fact, so you can't catch it by feel. That's why you need grounding, citations, and automatic verification instead of trusting the output's confidence.

SAME VOICE a real fact ✓ true a confident bluff ✗ false identical tone, no warning
What the interviewer is testing
◍
Confidentassured tone
✎
Fluentreads like truth
▥
Falsenot true at all
Follow-up they may ask
02 DEEPER
2 / 6

Why does a model trained to predict plausible next tokens
produce confident falsehoods when it lacks knowledge?

Think about the training objective before revealing.
Interview answer
◷  ~ 25 seconds

Its only training objective is to predict the next token that fits the pattern. Nothing in training checks a claim against reality.

Fluency and accuracy are separate skills, and the objective only optimizes fluency.

So when the model hits something it doesn't know, it emits the most statistically natural continuation, which often reads like a real answer with invented specifics. There's no built-in uncertainty signal, so the confident guess comes out in the exact same voice as a fact.

WHAT TRAINING REWARDS Fluency ✓ Truth check ✗ a gap gets the most natural-sounding fill
03 FAILURE MODES
3 / 6

Which mitigations reduce hallucination, and why is grounding
with RAG the biggest lever?

List the mitigations before revealing.
Interview answer
◷  ~ 30 seconds

Four mitigations work together. Ground with RAG, so the model fetches real documents and answers only from what it retrieved.

Allow "I don't know" as a valid answer. Lower temperature for factual tasks.

And ask for citations so every claim is traceable.

Grounding is the biggest lever because it removes the root cause: it changes where the facts come from. The model reads real documents instead of answering from memory about things it was never given.

The other steps tighten behaviour around that.

Tighten
Allow
"I don't know"
Lower
temperature
Ask for
citations
Ground
Fetch real
documents
Answer only
from them
Removes the
root cause
More questions
04How can you catch hallucinations after the fact using self-consistency, RAGAS, or an LLM-as-judge?
05Why can't a model's frozen training data prevent hallucinations about private or recent facts?
06Can you fully turn hallucination off, and how should that shape your system design?
These run inside Skillumen with graded answers.

This is a small sample.
600+ interview questions live inside Skillumen.

Every concept card carries its own interview questions, graded as you answer.
Free to start.

See more interview questions