{"id":2119,"date":"2026-02-15T22:20:13","date_gmt":"2026-02-15T22:20:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/?p=2119"},"modified":"2026-05-16T06:43:42","modified_gmt":"2026-05-16T06:43:42","slug":"ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/","title":{"rendered":"AI Hallucination Statistics: Research Report 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><em><strong>May 16. 2026<\/strong><\/em>: <em>Updated with current AI hallucination metrics and new data<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Executive Overview<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">AI hallucinations &#8211; instances where models generate false, fabricated, or unsupported information with confidence &#8211; remain one of the most important risks in AI-powered work. The important update for 2026 is that there is no single universal \u201cAI hallucination rate.\u201d Different benchmarks measure different failure modes: whether a model stays faithful to a document, whether it guesses instead of admitting uncertainty, whether it cites sources correctly, or whether its claims are actually supported across a multi-turn conversation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That distinction matters. On controlled summarization tasks, the best models can appear highly reliable. On harder enterprise-style benchmarks, legal questions, medical tasks, citation retrieval, or multi-turn research workflows, error rates rise sharply. This is why <a href=\"\/hub?page_id=2587&amp;utm_source=hallucinations_blog&amp;utm_medium=intro_paragraph&amp;utm_campaign=internal_link\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">hallucination mitigation through multi-model verification<\/a>, retrieval, source checking, and human review are becoming structural requirements rather than optional safeguards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>NOTE<\/strong>: Complete AI Hallucination Research with rates and benchmarks for 2026 is available <a href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/ai-hallucination-rates-and-benchmarks\/\" title=\"\">on this page<\/a>.<br><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br><strong>The most important updated numbers:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>88% of organizations<\/strong> now report regular AI use, but nearly two-thirds have not begun scaling AI enterprise-wide, according to McKinsey\u2019s 2025 Global Survey on AI.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>51% of organizations using AI<\/strong> have seen at least one negative consequence, and nearly one-third of all respondents reported consequences from AI inaccuracy.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Vectara\u2019s newer, harder hallucination benchmark reports a best rate of <strong>3.3%<\/strong>, while several frontier reasoning models exceed <strong>10%<\/strong> on the same benchmark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Columbia Journalism Review found that eight generative search tools gave incorrect answers on <strong>more than 60%<\/strong> of tested news-citation queries.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Stanford HAI found that purpose-built legal AI tools still hallucinated <strong>more than 17% to more than 34%<\/strong> of the time on challenging legal research queries.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Damien Charlotin\u2019s AI Hallucination Cases database now reports <strong>1,450 identified legal cases<\/strong> involving AI hallucinations or related court findings.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>ECRI ranked <strong>misuse of AI chatbots in healthcare<\/strong> as the number-one health technology hazard for 2026.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What Is an AI Hallucination? (Technical Definition + Plain English)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Plain English<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An AI hallucination happens when an AI system confidently makes something up. It may invent a statistic, cite a study that does not exist, misquote a real source, fabricate a legal case, or add facts that were not in the document it was asked to summarize. The response often sounds polished and authoritative, which is exactly what makes hallucinations dangerous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Technical Definition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In technical terms, hallucination refers to generated output that is not grounded in the provided input, retrieved evidence, or factual reality. For a 2026 article, it is useful to separate several failure types instead of treating all hallucinations as one thing:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Faithfulness hallucination:<\/strong> the model contradicts or adds unsupported information when summarizing a document it was explicitly given.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Factuality hallucination:<\/strong> the model invents facts, events, people, statistics, papers, or claims that are not grounded in reality.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Citation hallucination:<\/strong> the model invents a source, gives a broken URL, cites the wrong article, or attributes a real claim to the wrong publication.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Misgrounding:<\/strong> the model cites a real source, but the source does not support the claim being made.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Abstention failure:<\/strong> the model should say \u201cI don\u2019t know,\u201d but instead guesses confidently.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Why It Happens<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Large language models are prediction systems. They generate plausible text based on patterns learned from training data and context, not by directly \u201cknowing\u201d truth in the way a database stores verified records. Retrieval, web search, citations, and tool use can reduce hallucination risk, but they do not eliminate it because models can still retrieve the wrong source, misunderstand the source, overgeneralize from it, or cite it for a claim it does not support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">How to Read AI Hallucination Statistics<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The most common mistake in articles about hallucination is comparing benchmark numbers as if they measure the same thing. They do not. A 3% summarization hallucination rate, a 60% citation error rate, and a 30% multi-turn grounding failure rate can all be true at the same time because they come from different tasks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Benchmark or source<\/td><td>What it measures<\/td><td>How to interpret the number<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Vectara HHEM Leaderboard<\/td><td>Whether a model adds unsupported information while summarizing supplied documents<\/td><td>Best for grounded summarization and RAG-style faithfulness, not general world knowledge<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>AA-Omniscience<\/td><td>Whether a model guesses instead of abstaining on difficult knowledge questions<\/td><td>Best for uncertainty management and overconfidence, not ordinary per-response hallucination<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Columbia Journalism Review citation study<\/td><td>Whether AI search tools correctly identify article headline, publisher, date, and URL<\/td><td>Best for citation and retrieval reliability, not all AI tasks<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>OpenAI SimpleQA \/ PersonQA<\/td><td>Short-answer factual accuracy and hallucination on fact-seeking questions<\/td><td>Best for factual recall, especially when comparing OpenAI model behavior<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Stanford HAI legal AI study<\/td><td>Hallucination and misgrounding in legal research tools<\/td><td>Best for legal research risk<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>HalluHard<\/td><td>Multi-turn citation-required answers across legal, research, medical, and coding domains<\/td><td>Best for hard, realistic grounding failures in longer workflows<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Benchmark 1: Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard (HHEM)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What It Measures<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard measures grounded hallucination: how often a model introduces unsupported information when summarizing a document it was explicitly given. Think of it as: \u201cCan the model stick to what is written in front of it?\u201d This makes Vectara especially relevant for RAG systems, enterprise search, document Q&amp;A, and support bots that are supposed to answer from provided knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><a href=\"\/hub?page_id=2489\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\" title=\"AI Hallucination Rates &amp; Benchmarks (Leaderboard + Dataset)\">AI hallucination benchmarks (live table)<\/a> with Vectara Hughes Hallucination Evaluation Model (HHEM) Leaderboard included.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Hallucination Rates &#8211; Original Dataset<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-full\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1920\" height=\"1280\" src=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/hallucination_rates_vectara-1.png\" alt=\"AI hallucination rates vectara\" class=\"wp-image-2470\" srcset=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/hallucination_rates_vectara-1.png 1920w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/hallucination_rates_vectara-1-300x200.png 300w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/hallucination_rates_vectara-1-1024x683.png 1024w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/hallucination_rates_vectara-1-768x512.png 768w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/hallucination_rates_vectara-1-1536x1024.png 1536w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/hallucination_rates_vectara-1-20x13.png 20w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1920px) 100vw, 1920px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br>The original Vectara dataset became a widely cited baseline because several top models appeared to reach very low hallucination rates on controlled summarization. These numbers are still useful, but they should be described as performance on a simpler, older summarization benchmark, not as a general hallucination rate for all AI use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Model<\/td><td>Vendor<\/td><td>Hallucination Rate<\/td><td>Factual Consistency<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gemini-2.0-Flash-001<\/td><td>Google<\/td><td><strong>0.7%<\/strong><\/td><td>99.3%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gemini-2.0-Pro-Exp<\/td><td>Google<\/td><td><strong>0.8%<\/strong><\/td><td>99.2%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>o3-mini-high<\/td><td>OpenAI<\/td><td><strong>0.8%<\/strong><\/td><td>99.2%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gemini-2.5-Pro-Exp<\/td><td>Google<\/td><td>1.1%<\/td><td>98.9%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>GPT-4.5-Preview<\/td><td>OpenAI<\/td><td>1.2%<\/td><td>98.8%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gemini-2.5-Flash-Preview<\/td><td>Google<\/td><td>1.3%<\/td><td>98.7%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>GPT-5 \/ ChatGPT-5<\/td><td>OpenAI<\/td><td>1.4%<\/td><td>98.6%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>GPT-4o<\/td><td>OpenAI<\/td><td>1.5%<\/td><td>98.5%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>GPT-4.1<\/td><td>OpenAI<\/td><td>2.0%<\/td><td>98.0%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Grok-3-Beta<\/td><td>xAI<\/td><td>2.1%<\/td><td>97.8%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Claude-3.7-Sonnet<\/td><td>Anthropic<\/td><td>4.4%<\/td><td>95.6%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Grok-4<\/td><td>xAI<\/td><td>4.8%<\/td><td>~95.2%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Claude-3-Opus<\/td><td>Anthropic<\/td><td>10.1%<\/td><td>89.9%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>DeepSeek-R1<\/td><td>DeepSeek<\/td><td>14.3%<\/td><td>85.7%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Interpretation:<\/strong> These are controlled summarization results. They do not mean a model will hallucinate only 0.7% of the time in legal research, financial analysis, medical advice, or open-ended web research.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Hallucination Rates &#8211; New Dataset (November 2025)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Vectara refreshed the benchmark in late 2025 with a much harder dataset: over 7,700 articles, documents up to 32,000 tokens, and content spanning technology, stocks, sports, science, politics, medicine, law, finance, education, and business. The updated benchmark calculates hallucination rate only for articles a model actually summarizes, while refusals lower the answer rate instead.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The results are higher by design. The new benchmark better reflects complex enterprise documents and separates models more clearly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Model<\/td><td>Vendor<\/td><td>Hallucination Rate<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gemini-2.5-Flash-Lite<\/td><td>Google<\/td><td><strong>3.3%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Mistral-Large<\/td><td>Mistral<\/td><td><strong>4.5%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>DeepSeek-V3.2-Exp<\/td><td>DeepSeek<\/td><td>5.3%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>GPT-4.1<\/td><td>OpenAI<\/td><td>5.6%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Grok-3<\/td><td>xAI<\/td><td>5.8%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>DeepSeek-R1-0528<\/td><td>DeepSeek<\/td><td>7.7%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Claude Sonnet 4.5<\/td><td>Anthropic<\/td><td><strong>&gt;10%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>GPT-5<\/td><td>OpenAI<\/td><td><strong>&gt;10%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Grok-4<\/td><td>xAI<\/td><td><strong>&gt;10%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gemini-3-Pro<\/td><td>Google<\/td><td><strong>13.6%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Key Takeaway from Vectara<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The old Vectara data showed that top models could stay highly faithful on shorter, simpler summarization tasks. The new Vectara data shows that once articles get longer, more complex, and more enterprise-like, hallucination rates rise. For businesses, the lesson is simple: benchmark numbers are only useful when the benchmark looks like your actual workflow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Benchmark 2: AA-Omniscience (Artificial Analysis)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What It Measures<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">AA-Omniscience is a knowledge and hallucination benchmark from Artificial Analysis. It covers 6,000 questions across 42 topics and six domains: Business, Humanities &amp; Social Sciences, Health, Law, Software Engineering, and Science, Engineering &amp; Mathematics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The key difference is that AA-Omniscience penalizes guessing. A correct answer earns a positive score, an incorrect answer is penalized, and abstaining is scored differently from confidently making something up. That makes it a benchmark for uncertainty management, not just raw knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Results<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1-1024x683.png\" alt=\"AI accuracy vs hallucination\" class=\"wp-image-2473\" srcset=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1-1024x683.png 1024w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1-300x200.png 300w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1-768x512.png 768w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1-1536x1024.png 1536w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1-20x13.png 20w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br>AA-Omniscience shows why \u201caccuracy\u201d and \u201creliability\u201d are not the same thing. A model can answer many questions correctly and still be dangerous when it does not know the answer, because it may guess rather than abstain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Model<\/td><td>Reported accuracy \/ strength<\/td><td>Reported hallucination \/ reliability signal<\/td><td>Interpretation<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Claude 4.1 Opus<\/td><td>Strong overall<\/td><td>Top Omniscience Index result in the original article data<\/td><td>Strong uncertainty management in this benchmark<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Claude 4.5 Haiku<\/td><td>Not the highest-accuracy model<\/td><td>Lowest reported hallucination rate, around 26-28%<\/td><td>Better at abstaining when uncertain<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Gemini 3 Pro<\/td><td>Very high raw accuracy in the article\u2019s table<\/td><td>High overconfidence \/ hallucination signal<\/td><td>Knows a lot, but can be too willing to guess<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Grok 4<\/td><td>Strong in Health and Science domains<\/td><td>Still substantial hallucination signal<\/td><td>Domain strength does not eliminate overconfidence<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>GPT-5 \/ GPT-5.1 family<\/td><td>Strong raw accuracy in some domains<\/td><td>Reliability depends heavily on task and configuration<\/td><td>Do not interpret one score as universal reliability<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Important caveat:<\/strong> AA-Omniscience hallucination rate is not the same thing as \u201cpercentage of all everyday responses that are false.\u201d It is a difficult-question overconfidence metric. It is useful because it tests whether models know when not to answer.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Domain-Specific Leaders<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">No single model dominates all knowledge domains. Artificial Analysis reported different leaders across law, software engineering, humanities, business, health, and science. This reinforces the practical case for model selection, multi-model comparison, and verification workflows instead of relying on one \u201cbest\u201d model for everything.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Benchmark 3: Columbia Journalism Review Citation Study<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In March 2025, Columbia Journalism Review tested eight generative search tools with live search features. Researchers selected 200 news articles from 20 publishers, gave each tool direct excerpts, and asked it to identify the original headline, publisher, publication date, and URL. Across 1,600 total queries, the tools gave incorrect answers more than 60% of the time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Tool<\/td><td>Citation \/ retrieval error rate<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Perplexity<\/td><td><strong>37%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Microsoft Copilot<\/td><td>40%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Perplexity Pro<\/td><td>45%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>ChatGPT Search<\/td><td>67%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>DeepSeek Search<\/td><td>68%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Google Gemini<\/td><td>76%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Grok-2<\/td><td>77%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Grok-3<\/td><td><strong>94%<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Interpretation:<\/strong> this is not a broad \u201cmodel hallucination rate.\u201d It is a citation and retrieval reliability test. It matters because many users assume that AI search tools are safer simply because they provide links. CJR\u2019s results show that links do not automatically mean the answer is grounded, complete, or correctly attributed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Benchmark 4: OpenAI Factuality and Reasoning-Model Results<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OpenAI\u2019s o3 and o4-mini system card is useful because it shows a counterintuitive pattern: newer reasoning models can be stronger on some tasks while still hallucinating more on factual QA benchmarks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Dataset<\/td><td>Metric<\/td><td>o3<\/td><td>o4-mini<\/td><td>o1<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>SimpleQA<\/td><td>Accuracy<\/td><td>49%<\/td><td>20%<\/td><td>47%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>SimpleQA<\/td><td>Hallucination rate<\/td><td><strong>51%<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>79%<\/strong><\/td><td>44%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>PersonQA<\/td><td>Accuracy<\/td><td>59%<\/td><td>36%<\/td><td>47%<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>PersonQA<\/td><td>Hallucination rate<\/td><td><strong>33%<\/strong><\/td><td><strong>48%<\/strong><\/td><td>16%<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">OpenAI\u2019s explanation is that o3 tends to make more claims overall, which can lead to more accurate claims and more inaccurate claims. This is a useful warning for business users: a longer, more confident, more \u201creasoned\u201d answer is not automatically more reliable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Benchmark 5: HalluHard and Hard Multi-Turn Grounding<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">HalluHard, released in 2026, is important because it tests a more realistic failure mode: multi-turn conversations that require inline citations for factual claims. The benchmark includes 950 seed questions across legal cases, research questions, medical guidelines, and coding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The headline finding is that web search helps but does not solve hallucinations. Even the strongest reported configuration, Opus-4.5 with web search, still hallucinated at approximately <strong>30%<\/strong> in this hard multi-turn setting. This is one of the best arguments against treating retrieval, search, or citations as a complete fix.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Domain-Specific Hallucination Rates<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/domain_hallucination-1-1024x683.png\" alt=\"AI domain hallucination rates\" class=\"wp-image-2471\" srcset=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/domain_hallucination-1-1024x683.png 1024w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/domain_hallucination-1-300x200.png 300w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/domain_hallucination-1-768x512.png 768w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/domain_hallucination-1-1536x1024.png 1536w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/domain_hallucination-1-20x13.png 20w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/domain_hallucination-1.png 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br>Hallucination risk changes by domain. General summarization and factual recall are not the same as legal research, medical guidance, financial analysis, coding, or citation-heavy research. The safest editorial framing is: domain-specific rates vary widely, and any benchmark should be interpreted in the context of the task being tested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Domain or workflow<\/td><td>Fresh reliability signal<\/td><td>Why it matters<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Legal research<\/td><td>Purpose-built legal AI tools still hallucinated more than 17% to more than 34% in Stanford HAI testing<\/td><td>Legal hallucinations can create fake authorities, misgrounded arguments, and sanctions risk<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Healthcare chatbots<\/td><td>ECRI ranked misuse of AI chatbots in healthcare as the top health technology hazard for 2026<\/td><td>Confident medical misinformation can affect patient decisions and clinical workflows<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Medical hallucination detection<\/td><td>MedHallu found the best model reached only 0.625 F1 on hard medical hallucination detection<\/td><td>Subtle medical hallucinations are hard for models to detect, not just hard to avoid<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>News citation<\/td><td>CJR found more than 60% overall incorrect answers across generative search tools<\/td><td>Source links do not guarantee accurate attribution<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Multi-turn research<\/td><td>HalluHard found approximately 30% hallucination even with web search in the strongest configuration<\/td><td>Errors compound across longer workflows<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Medical Hallucination Deep Dive<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Medical hallucination risk should now be framed in two layers: whether AI gives false medical information, and whether AI can detect subtle falsehoods in medical answers. MedHallu, a 2025 benchmark built from 10,000 PubMedQA-derived question-answer pairs, found that state-of-the-art models including GPT-4o, Llama-3.1, and UltraMedical struggled with hard medical hallucination detection. The best model reached only 0.625 F1 on the hard hallucination category.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">ECRI\u2019s 2026 health technology hazards list also moved the issue from general AI concern to specific healthcare safety risk. ECRI ranked misuse of AI chatbots in healthcare as the number-one hazard and noted that general chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, Gemini, and Grok are not regulated as medical devices and are not validated for healthcare purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Legal Hallucination Deep Dive<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Stanford RegLab and Stanford HAI legal AI study remains one of the most important pieces of evidence for legal hallucination risk. The study found that Lexis+ AI and Ask Practical Law AI each hallucinated more than 17% of the time, while Westlaw AI-Assisted Research hallucinated more than 34% of the time on challenging legal research queries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This is especially important because legal hallucinations are often not just \u201cwrong facts.\u201d They can be misgrounded citations, invented cases, inapplicable authorities, false quotes, or incorrect legal standards. A citation can look real while failing to support the proposition being made.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Real-World Business Impact: The Numbers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Better-Sourced Business Risk Picture<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/business_impact-1-1024x683.png\" alt=\"business impact of AI hallucinations\" class=\"wp-image-2472\" srcset=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/business_impact-1-1024x683.png 1024w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/business_impact-1-300x200.png 300w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/business_impact-1-768x512.png 768w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/business_impact-1-1536x1024.png 1536w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/business_impact-1-20x13.png 20w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/business_impact-1.png 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br>The best-sourced business risk picture now comes from enterprise AI adoption and risk surveys rather than unsourced global loss estimates. McKinsey\u2019s 2025 Global Survey on AI gives a clearer view of how widespread AI use has become and how often organizations are already seeing negative consequences from AI inaccuracy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Metric<\/td><td>Updated value<\/td><td>Why it matters<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Organizations reporting regular AI use<\/td><td><strong>88%<\/strong><\/td><td>AI risk is now mainstream, not experimental<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Organizations not yet scaling AI enterprise-wide<\/td><td><strong>Nearly two-thirds<\/strong><\/td><td>Many companies use AI before mature governance is in place<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Organizations using AI that saw at least one negative consequence<\/td><td><strong>51%<\/strong><\/td><td>AI failures are already visible in production environments<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Respondents reporting negative consequences from AI inaccuracy<\/td><td><strong>Nearly one-third<\/strong><\/td><td>Inaccuracy is one of the clearest business-risk categories<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Organizations at least experimenting with AI agents<\/td><td><strong>62%<\/strong><\/td><td>Hallucinations are moving from content risk into workflow and decision risk<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Organizations scaling agentic AI in at least one function<\/td><td><strong>23%<\/strong><\/td><td>Agentic systems make verification and monitoring more urgent<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Productivity Paradox<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The productivity problem is not just that AI can be wrong. It is that AI can be wrong in ways that look finished, fluent, and plausible. The more AI enters reports, customer support, legal drafting, research, analytics, and internal decision-making, the more organizations need verification workflows that are built into the process rather than added at the end.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The practical business question is no longer \u201cwhich AI never hallucinates?\u201d Every current system can fail. The better question is: what verification layer catches unsupported claims before they reach a client, customer, court, patient, investor, or internal decision-maker?<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Legal Incidents: The Courtroom Crisis<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Numbers Are Getting Worse, Not Better<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Legal hallucinations are one of the clearest real-world examples of AI-generated falsehoods causing professional consequences. Damien Charlotin\u2019s AI Hallucination Cases database now reports <strong>1,450 identified cases<\/strong>. The database tracks legal decisions and documents where the use of AI, established or alleged, is addressed in more than a passing reference by a court or tribunal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The current case count shows that hallucinated case law, false quotations, misrepresented authorities, and AI-generated legal arguments are no longer isolated incidents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Who Is Making These Mistakes?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The problem is not limited to self-represented litigants. The database includes lawyers, pro se litigants, judges, expert witnesses, and other participants in legal proceedings. That matters because legal professionals often use AI in workflows where a single fabricated citation can undermine a filing, trigger sanctions, or damage client trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What Makes Legal Hallucinations Especially Dangerous<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Fake cases look real:<\/strong> fabricated case names and citations often follow familiar legal formats.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Real cases can be misused:<\/strong> a model may cite an actual case that does not support the legal proposition.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Jurisdiction matters:<\/strong> a semantically similar case may be legally irrelevant because it comes from the wrong court, time period, or legal context.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Verification is expensive:<\/strong> if every proposition and citation must be checked manually, the productivity gain from AI can disappear.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Healthcare: Where Hallucinations Can Kill<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">AI Chatbots Are Now a Top Healthcare Hazard<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">ECRI\u2019s 2026 health technology hazards list ranks misuse of AI chatbots in healthcare as the number-one hazard. This is a sharper and more current framing than simply saying \u201cAI risk\u201d is a healthcare concern. The risk is that general-purpose chatbots can produce expert-sounding medical answers even though they are not regulated as medical devices and have not been validated for healthcare purposes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">FDA and Medical Device Concerns<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The FDA maintains a public list of AI-enabled medical devices authorized for marketing in the United States. The page states that the list is updated periodically and that it is intended to provide transparency for healthcare providers, patients, and digital health innovators. However, the FDA page checked for this update did not explicitly state a single total count in the page text, so any specific device-count claim should be verified directly before publication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Medical AI Misinformation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Medical hallucinations are dangerous because they can sound like professional advice. A chatbot may suggest an incorrect diagnosis, recommend unnecessary testing, misstate guidelines, or give dangerous instructions in a calm and authoritative tone. ECRI specifically warns that healthcare organizations should use disciplined oversight, detailed guidelines, clinician training, performance audits, and verification with knowledgeable sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Historical Trend: Progress Is Real but Uneven<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Good News<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-image size-large\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"1024\" height=\"683\" src=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/historical_trend-2-1024x683.png\" alt=\"historical trend of AI hallucinations\" class=\"wp-image-2469\" srcset=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/historical_trend-2-1024x683.png 1024w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/historical_trend-2-300x200.png 300w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/historical_trend-2-768x512.png 768w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/historical_trend-2-1536x1024.png 1536w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/historical_trend-2-20x13.png 20w, https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/historical_trend-2.png 1920w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px\" \/><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><br>Models have improved substantially on many controlled factuality and summarization tasks. Older models hallucinated more frequently on simple benchmarks, and newer models can be dramatically better when the task is narrow, the source material is provided, and the evaluation is clear.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Bad News<\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Improvement is benchmark-specific.<\/strong> A model that performs well on summarization may still fail on citations, legal research, or medical reasoning.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Harder benchmarks reveal larger gaps.<\/strong> Vectara\u2019s newer benchmark reports higher rates than its older benchmark because the documents are longer and more complex.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Reasoning can cut both ways.<\/strong> Reasoning models may solve harder tasks, but they may also make more claims, which creates more opportunities for unsupported statements.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Web search is not a complete fix.<\/strong> HalluHard still found substantial hallucination in the strongest configuration even with web search.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Model-by-Model Summary for <a href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\">Suprmind.ai<\/a> Models<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Model comparisons should be treated as benchmark-specific. The safest way to present model reliability is to show which benchmark the number comes from and what task it measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Model family<\/td><td>What the current evidence suggests<\/td><td>Best use of the data<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>OpenAI models<\/td><td>Strong on many tasks, but o3 and o4-mini system-card data show high hallucination on SimpleQA and PersonQA in some configurations<\/td><td>Use factuality benchmarks and source checking for fact-heavy workflows<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Anthropic Claude models<\/td><td>Strong uncertainty-management signals in AA-Omniscience for some Claude variants<\/td><td>Useful where abstention and caution matter, but still requires verification<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Google Gemini models<\/td><td>Strong Vectara results for some Gemini variants, but high overconfidence signals appear in AA-Omniscience-style framing<\/td><td>Do not confuse summarization faithfulness with universal factual reliability<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>xAI Grok models<\/td><td>Mixed results across benchmarks, including high citation error rates in the CJR study for Grok-3<\/td><td>Evaluate by task rather than brand-level claims<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Perplexity \/ Sonar<\/td><td>CJR found Perplexity performed best among tested AI search tools but still had a 37% citation\/retrieval error rate<\/td><td>Strong reminder that real links still need source-content verification<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">What Actually Reduces Hallucinations<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">No mitigation technique eliminates hallucinations. The best approach is layered verification: retrieval, citations, abstention behavior, multi-model comparison, structured prompts, source-level checking, and human review for high-stakes outputs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Mitigation layer<\/td><td>What it helps with<\/td><td>Limitation<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG)<\/td><td>Grounds answers in supplied documents or databases<\/td><td>The model can still misread or misground retrieved material<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Web search<\/td><td>Improves access to current information<\/td><td>The model can retrieve weak sources or cite sources that do not support the claim<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Source citation requirements<\/td><td>Makes claims easier to audit<\/td><td>A citation can be fabricated, broken, irrelevant, or misused<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Abstention \/ \u201cnot sure\u201d behavior<\/td><td>Reduces guessing when the model lacks evidence<\/td><td>Can reduce answer rate or frustrate users if not designed well<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Multi-model verification<\/td><td>Surfaces disagreements and catches some single-model errors<\/td><td>Multiple models can share the same blind spot<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Human review<\/td><td>Essential for legal, medical, financial, regulatory, and client-facing work<\/td><td>Requires time, process, and domain expertise<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">The Most Dangerous Hallucination: The One You Do Not Catch<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The most dangerous hallucination is not the obvious mistake. It is the plausible one: a real-looking citation, a confident summary, a believable market statistic, a legal case that sounds familiar, or a medical explanation written in a professional tone. These errors are dangerous because they can pass through workflows unnoticed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">That is why hallucination prevention should not be framed as a single tool or a one-time prompt trick. It is a quality system. The organizations that benefit most from AI will be the ones that build verification directly into the workflow instead of treating it as cleanup after the fact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\"\/>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Key Definitions Glossary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><td>Term<\/td><td>Definition<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Hallucination<\/strong><\/td><td>AI-generated content that is false, fabricated, unsupported, or misgrounded while being presented confidently<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Faithfulness hallucination<\/strong><\/td><td>False or unsupported information introduced when summarizing or answering from supplied source material<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Factuality hallucination<\/strong><\/td><td>Invented facts, statistics, sources, people, events, or claims with no verified basis<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Citation hallucination<\/strong><\/td><td>A fabricated, broken, misattributed, or unsupported citation<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Misgrounding<\/strong><\/td><td>A real source is cited, but it does not support the claim being made<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation)<\/strong><\/td><td>A technique that connects AI systems to external documents, databases, or knowledge bases before generating an answer<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>HHEM<\/strong><\/td><td>Vectara\u2019s Hughes Hallucination Evaluation Model for detecting unsupported claims in summaries<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Omniscience Index<\/strong><\/td><td>Artificial Analysis metric that rewards correct answers and penalizes confident wrong answers<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Abstention<\/strong><\/td><td>The model declines to answer or says it does not know rather than guessing<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Sycophancy<\/strong><\/td><td>A model\u2019s tendency to agree with a user\u2019s premise even when the premise is wrong<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Source Summary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Primary benchmarks and studies referenced in this updated version:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard:<\/strong> original and next-generation HHEM summarization benchmark, including the 7,700+ article updated dataset. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.vectara.com\/blog\/introducing-the-next-generation-of-vectaras-hallucination-leaderboard\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Vectara<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Artificial Analysis AA-Omniscience:<\/strong> knowledge and hallucination benchmark measuring accuracy, abstention, and overconfidence across 6,000 questions. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/artificialanalysis.ai\/articles\/aa-omniscience-knowledge-hallucination-benchmark\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Artificial Analysis<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Columbia Journalism Review:<\/strong> 2025 study of AI search citation accuracy across 1,600 queries and eight generative search tools. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.cjr.org\/tow_center\/we-compared-eight-ai-search-engines-theyre-all-bad-at-citing-news.php\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Columbia Journalism Review<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>OpenAI o3 and o4-mini system card:<\/strong> SimpleQA and PersonQA hallucination and accuracy results for o3, o4-mini, and o1. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.openai.com\/pdf\/2221c875-02dc-4789-800b-e7758f3722c1\/o3-and-o4-mini-system-card.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">OpenAI system card PDF<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Stanford RegLab \/ Stanford HAI:<\/strong> legal AI hallucination study of Lexis+ AI, Westlaw AI-Assisted Research, Ask Practical Law AI, and general-purpose model comparisons. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/hai.stanford.edu\/news\/ai-trial-legal-models-hallucinate-1-out-6-or-more-benchmarking-queries\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Stanford HAI<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Damien Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases database:<\/strong> live database of legal decisions and court documents involving AI hallucinations. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.damiencharlotin.com\/hallucinations\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">AI Hallucination Cases database<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>McKinsey 2025 Global Survey on AI:<\/strong> enterprise AI adoption, scaling, negative consequences, and AI inaccuracy risk data. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.mckinsey.com\/capabilities\/quantumblack\/our-insights\/the-state-of-ai\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">McKinsey<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>ECRI 2026 Health Technology Hazards:<\/strong> healthcare risk ranking naming misuse of AI chatbots in healthcare as the top hazard. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/home.ecri.org\/blogs\/ecri-news\/misuse-of-ai-chatbots-tops-annual-list-of-health-technology-hazards\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">ECRI<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>MedHallu:<\/strong> 2025 medical hallucination detection benchmark with 10,000 PubMedQA-derived question-answer pairs. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2502.14302\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">MedHallu on arXiv<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>HalluHard:<\/strong> 2026 hard multi-turn hallucination benchmark across legal, research, medical, and coding domains. Source: <a href=\"https:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/2602.01031\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">HalluHard on arXiv<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<style>\r\n.lwrp.link-whisper-related-posts{\r\n            \r\n            margin-top: 40px;\nmargin-bottom: 30px;\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-title{\r\n            \r\n            \r\n        }.lwrp .lwrp-description{\r\n            \r\n            \r\n\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-container{\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container{\r\n            display: flex;\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-double{\r\n            width: 48%;\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-triple{\r\n            width: 32%;\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container{\r\n            display: flex;\r\n            justify-content: space-between;\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container .lwrp-list-item{\r\n            width: calc(12% - 20px);\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-item:not(.lwrp-no-posts-message-item){\r\n            \r\n            \r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-item img{\r\n            max-width: 100%;\r\n            height: auto;\r\n            object-fit: cover;\r\n            aspect-ratio: 1 \/ 1;\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-item.lwrp-empty-list-item{\r\n            background: initial !important;\r\n        }\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,\r\n        .lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{\r\n            \r\n            \r\n            \r\n            \r\n        }@media screen and (max-width: 480px) {\r\n            .lwrp.link-whisper-related-posts{\r\n                \r\n                \r\n            }\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-title{\r\n                \r\n                \r\n            }.lwrp .lwrp-description{\r\n                \r\n                \r\n            }\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container{\r\n                flex-direction: column;\r\n            }\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-multi-container ul.lwrp-list{\r\n                margin-top: 0px;\r\n                margin-bottom: 0px;\r\n                padding-top: 0px;\r\n                padding-bottom: 0px;\r\n            }\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-double,\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-triple{\r\n                width: 100%;\r\n            }\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container{\r\n                justify-content: initial;\r\n                flex-direction: column;\r\n            }\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-row-container .lwrp-list-item{\r\n                width: 100%;\r\n            }\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-item:not(.lwrp-no-posts-message-item){\r\n                \r\n                \r\n            }\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-link .lwrp-list-link-title-text,\r\n            .lwrp .lwrp-list-item .lwrp-list-no-posts-message{\r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n                \r\n            };\r\n        }<\/style>\r\n<div id=\"link-whisper-related-posts-widget\" class=\"link-whisper-related-posts lwrp\">\r\n            <h3 class=\"lwrp-title\">Related Topics and Pages<\/h3>    \r\n        <div class=\"lwrp-list-container\">\r\n                                            <ul class=\"lwrp-list lwrp-list-single\">\r\n                    <li class=\"lwrp-list-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/what-is-multichat-and-why-parallel-tabs-are-not-enough\/\" class=\"lwrp-list-link\"><span class=\"lwrp-list-link-title-text\">What Is Multichat &#8211; And Why Parallel Tabs Are Not Enough<\/span><\/a><\/li><li class=\"lwrp-list-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/multichat-ai-validating-high-stakes-decisions-across-multiple-models\/\" class=\"lwrp-list-link\"><span class=\"lwrp-list-link-title-text\">Multichat AI: Validating High-Stakes Decisions Across Multiple Models<\/span><\/a><\/li><li class=\"lwrp-list-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/what-is-a-multiple-ai-platform-and-why-it-matters\/\" class=\"lwrp-list-link\"><span class=\"lwrp-list-link-title-text\">What Is a Multiple AI Platform and Why It Matters<\/span><\/a><\/li><li class=\"lwrp-list-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-research-tool-build-a-validation-first-workflow-that-catches\/\" class=\"lwrp-list-link\"><span class=\"lwrp-list-link-title-text\">AI Research Tool: Build a Validation-First Workflow That Catches<\/span><\/a><\/li><li class=\"lwrp-list-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-agent-orchestration-platform-companies\/\" class=\"lwrp-list-link\"><span class=\"lwrp-list-link-title-text\">AI Agent Orchestration Platform Companies<\/span><\/a><\/li><li class=\"lwrp-list-item\"><a href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/multi-ai-decision-validation-orchestrators\/\" class=\"lwrp-list-link\"><span class=\"lwrp-list-link-title-text\">Multi AI Decision Validation Orchestrators<\/span><\/a><\/li>                <\/ul>\r\n                        <\/div>\r\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>AI hallucinations \u2014 instances where models generate false or fabricated information with full confidence \u2014 represent one of the most critical yet underappreciated risks in today&#8217;s AI-powered business landscape. This report compiles raw statistical data from multiple authoritative benchmarks, industry studies, and real-world incident tracking to serve as a content foundation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2473,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":true,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[374,375,373,297],"class_list":["post-2119","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-multi-ai-orchestration","tag-ai-hallucination","tag-ai-hallucination-solution","tag-ai-hallucination-statistics","tag-multi-ai-orchestration"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t<!-- All in One SEO Pro 4.9.0 - aioseo.com -->\n\t<meta name=\"description\" content=\"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"max-image-preview:large\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Radomir Basta\"\/>\n\t<meta name=\"keywords\" content=\"ai hallucination,ai hallucination solution,ai hallucination statistics,multi-ai orchestration\" \/>\n\t<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"generator\" content=\"All in One SEO Pro (AIOSEO) 4.9.0\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Suprmind - Multi-Model AI Decision Intelligence Chat Platform for Professionals for Business: 5 Models, One Thread .\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points - Suprmind\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"fb:admins\" content=\"567083258\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png?wsr\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:image:secure_url\" content=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png?wsr\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:tag\" content=\"ai hallucination\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:tag\" content=\"ai hallucination solution\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:tag\" content=\"ai hallucination statistics\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:tag\" content=\"multi-ai orchestration\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-02-15T22:20:13+00:00\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-05-16T06:43:42+00:00\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/suprmind.ai.orchestration\" \/>\n\t\t<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/radomir.basta\/\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@suprmind_ai\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points - Suprmind\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:description\" content=\"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@RadomirBasta\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:image\" content=\"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png?wsr\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Radomir Basta\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n\t\t<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"aioseo-schema\">\n\t\t\t{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#breadcrumblist\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/category\\\/multi-ai-orchestration\\\/#listItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Multi-AI Orchestration\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/category\\\/multi-ai-orchestration\\\/\",\"nextItem\":{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#listItem\",\"name\":\"AI Hallucination Statistics: Research Report 2026\"}},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#listItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"AI Hallucination Statistics: Research Report 2026\",\"previousItem\":{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/category\\\/multi-ai-orchestration\\\/#listItem\",\"name\":\"Multi-AI Orchestration\"}}]},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Suprmind\",\"description\":\"Decision validation platform for professionals who can't afford to be wrong. Five smartest AIs, in the same conversation. They debate, challenge, and build on each other - you export the verdict as a deliverable. Disagreement is the feature.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/\",\"email\":\"hello@suprmind.ai\",\"foundingDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"value\":4},\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/suprmind-slash-new-bold-italic.png?wsr\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#organizationLogo\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1822,\"caption\":\"Suprmind\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#organizationLogo\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/suprmind.ai.orchestration\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/suprmind_ai\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/suprmind.ai\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/author\\\/rad\\\/#author\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/author\\\/rad\\\/\",\"name\":\"Radomir Basta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/04\\\/radomir-basta-profil.png\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/radomir.basta\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/RadomirBasta\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/bastardo_violente\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/c\\\/RadomirBasta\\\/videos\",\"https:\\\/\\\/rs.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/radomirbasta\",\"https:\\\/\\\/articulo.mercadolibre.cl\\\/MLC-1731708044-libro-the-good-book-of-seo-radomir-basta-_JM)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/chat.openai.com\\\/g\\\/g-HKPuhCa8c-the-seo-auditor-full-technical-on-page-audits)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/dids.rs\\\/ucesnici\\\/radomir-basta\\\/?ln=lat)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/digitalizuj.me\\\/2015\\\/01\\\/blogeri-iz-regiona-na-digitalizuj-me-blog-radionici\\\/radomir-basta\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/ecommerceconference.mk\\\/2023\\\/blog\\\/speaker\\\/radomir-basta\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/ecommerceconference.mk\\\/mk\\\/blog\\\/speaker\\\/radomir-basta\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/imusic.dk\\\/page\\\/label\\\/RadomirBasta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/m.facebook.com\\\/public\\\/Radomir-Basta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/medium.com\\\/@radomirbasta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/medium.com\\\/@radomirbasta\\\/about)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/poe.com\\\/tabascopit)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/rocketreach.co\\\/radomir-basta-email_3120243)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/startit.rs\\\/korisnici\\\/radomir-basta-ie3\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/thegoodbookofseo.com\\\/about-the-author\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/trafficthinktank.com\\\/community\\\/radomir-basta\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.amazon.de\\\/Good-Book-SEO-English-ebook\\\/dp\\\/B08479P6M4)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.amazon.de\\\/stores\\\/author\\\/B0847NTDHX)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.brandingmag.com\\\/author\\\/radomir-basta\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.crunchbase.com\\\/person\\\/radomir-basta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.digitalcommunicationsinstitute.com\\\/speaker\\\/radomir-basta\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.digitalk.rs\\\/predavaci\\\/digitalk-zrenjanin-2022\\\/subota-9-april\\\/radomir-basta\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.domen.rs\\\/sr-latn\\\/radomir-basta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ebay.co.uk\\\/itm\\\/354969573938)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.finmag.cz\\\/obchodni-rejstrik\\\/ares\\\/40811441-radomir-basta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.flickr.com\\\/people\\\/urban-extreme\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.forbes.com\\\/sites\\\/forbesagencycouncil\\\/people\\\/radomirbasta\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.goodreads.com\\\/author\\\/show\\\/19330719.Radomir_Basta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.goodreads.com\\\/book\\\/show\\\/51083787)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.hugendubel.info\\\/detail\\\/ISBN-9781945147166\\\/Ristic-Radomir\\\/Vesticja-Basta-A-Witchs-Garden)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.netokracija.rs\\\/author\\\/radomirbasta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.quora.com\\\/profile\\\/Radomir-Basta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.razvoj-karijere.com\\\/radomir-basta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.semrush.com\\\/user\\\/145902001\\\/)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.slideshare.net\\\/radomirbasta)\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.waterstones.com\\\/book\\\/the-good-book-of-seo\\\/radomir-basta\\\/\\\/9788690077502)\"],\"description\":\"Founder, Suprmind.ai | Co-founder and CEO, Four Dots Radomir Basta is a digital marketing operator and product builder with nearly two decades in SEO and growth. He is best known for building systems that remove guesswork from strategy and execution.\\u00a0 His current focus is Suprmind.ai, a multi AI decision validation platform that turns conflicting model opinions into structured output. Suprmind is built around a simple rule: disagreement is the feature. Instead of one confident answer, you get competing arguments, pressure tests, and a final synthesis you can act on. Why Suprmind? In 2023, Radomir Basta's agency team started using AI models across every part of client work. ChatGPT for content drafts. Claude for analysis. Gemini for research. Perplexity for fact-checking. Grok for real-time data. Within six months, a pattern became obvious. Every important question ended up in three or four browser tabs. Each model gave a confident answer. The answers often disagreed. There was no clean way to reconcile them. For low-stakes work this was fine. Write an email. Summarize a document. Ask one AI, move on. But agency work was not always low-stakes. Pricing strategies that shaped a client's entire quarterly revenue. Messaging for product launches that could not be undone. Targeting calls that would define a brand's public reputation. Single-model confidence on questions like those was gambling with somebody else's money. Suprmind.ai is what came out of that frustration. Launched in 2025, it puts five frontier models in one orchestrated thread - not side-by-side, but in genuine structured conversation where each model reads what the others said before responding. A shared Context Fabric keeps all five synchronized across long sessions. A Knowledge Graph builds a passive project brain over time, retaining entities, decisions, and relationships that would otherwise vanish between sessions. The Scribe extracts action items and synthesized conclusions in real time. A Disagreement\\\/Correction Index quantifies exactly how much the models agree or diverge on any given turn. The principle behind the design: disagreement is the feature. When the models agree, conviction has been earned. When they disagree, the uncertainty has been made visible before it becomes an expensive mistake. The Pattern Behind the Product Suprmind is not the first tool Basta has built this way. It is the seventh. Over fifteen years running Four Dots, the digital marketing agency he co-founded in 2013, he has hit the same wall repeatedly. A client needs something. No existing tool solves it properly. The answer is always the same: build it. That habit produced Base.me for link building management (now maintaining an 80% link survival rate for Four Dots versus the 60% industry average). Reportz.io for real-time client reporting (tracking over a billion marketing events annually across 30+ channels). Dibz.me for prospecting. TheTrustmaker for conversion social proof. UberPress.ai for automated content. FAII.ai for AI visibility monitoring across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and Perplexity. Each platform started as an internal solution to an internal problem. Each one eventually proved useful enough that other agencies and in-house teams started paying to use it. Suprmind follows the same logic applied to a different problem. The agency needed multi-model AI validation for high-stakes recommendations. Existing tools offered parallel comparison, not orchestrated collaboration. So he built orchestrated collaboration. The Agency That Funded the Lab Four Dots is the infrastructure that made Suprmind possible. Basta co-founded the agency in 2013 with three partners who still run it alongside him. Twelve years later, Four Dots operates from offices in New York, Belgrade, Novi Sad, Sydney, and Hong Kong. Thirty-plus specialists. Worked with more than 200 clients across three continents. Google Premier Partner status - the top three percent of agencies on the market. The client list reflects the positioning. Coca-Cola, Philip Morris International, Orange Telecommunications, Beko, and Air Serbia alongside many mid-market brands. Work with enterprise accounts at that scale generates the cash flow, the problem surface, and the feedback loop a product lab needs. The agency grew on organic referrals, without outside capital, and operates strictly month-to-month. That structural exposure - prove value or lose the client in thirty days - is the pressure that surfaces the problems Suprmind was built to solve. Suprmind was not built by a solo founder guessing at user needs. It was built by a working agency that encountered the problem daily, on accounts where the cost of being wrong was measured in six figures. The Practitioner Background Basta started as a hands-on SEO consultant in 2010. Fifteen years later, he still reviews crawl data, audits link profiles, and weighs in on keyword decisions for enterprise Four Dots accounts. That practitioner background shaped how Suprmind was designed. Debate mode exists because he has watched real agency strategies fall apart under first-contact pressure-testing and wanted a way to catch those failures before clients did. The Decision Validation Engine exists because executives need verdicts, not essays. Research Symphony has a four-stage pipeline - retrieval, pattern analysis, critical validation, actionable synthesis - because real research is never one pass. Suprmind was designed by someone who needed it to actually work on actual problems. Not a demo. Not a prototype. A tool his agency uses daily on client deliverables. Teaching, Writing, Speaking The same background that informs Suprmind's design also shows up in public work. Principal SEO lecturer at Belgrade's Digital Communications Institute since 2013. Author of The Good Book of SEO in 2020. Member and contributor to the Forbes Agency Council, with pieces on client reporting quality, mobile-first advertising, and brand building. Author at BrandingMag, and regular speaker at regional and international digital marketing conferences. None of those credentials make Suprmind work better. What they make clear is the kind of builder behind it. Someone who has spent fifteen years teaching, writing about, and publicly defending how this work actually gets done. The Suprmind Bet The bet is straightforward. The professionals who make consequential decisions are not going to keep settling for one confident answer from one AI system. They are going to want validation. They are going to want to see where the models disagree. They are going to want the disagreements surfaced as a feature, not buried as noise. Suprmind is the infrastructure for that kind of work. If your work involves recommendations that carry weight, the tool was built for you. If you have ever copy-pasted the same question into three AI tabs and tried to synthesize the answers manually, the tool was built for you. If you have ever trusted a single-model answer and later wished you had not, the tool was especially built for you. Connect  LinkedIn: linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/radomirbasta Full profile at Four Dots: fourdots.com\\\/about-radomir-basta Forbes Agency Council: Author profile BrandingMag: Author profile Medium: medium.com\\\/@radomirbasta The Good Book of SEO: thegoodbookofseo.com  \\u00a0\",\"jobTitle\":\"CEO & Founder\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/\",\"name\":\"AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points - Suprmind\",\"description\":\"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/#website\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#breadcrumblist\"},\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/author\\\/rad\\\/#author\"},\"creator\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/author\\\/rad\\\/#author\"},\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/02\\\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png?wsr\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#mainImage\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1280,\"caption\":\"AI accuracy vs hallucination\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/insights\\\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\\\/#mainImage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-02-15T22:20:13+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-05-16T06:43:42+00:00\"},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/\",\"name\":\"Suprmind\",\"alternateName\":\"Suprmind.ai\",\"description\":\"Multi-Model AI Decision Intelligence Chat Platform for Professionals for Business: 5 Models, One Thread .\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/suprmind.ai\\\/hub\\\/#organization\"}}]}\n\t\t<\/script>\n\t\t<!-- All in One SEO Pro -->\r\n\t\t<title>AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points - Suprmind<\/title>\n\n","aioseo_head_json":{"title":"AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points - Suprmind","description":"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.","canonical_url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/","robots":"max-image-preview:large","keywords":"ai hallucination,ai hallucination solution,ai hallucination statistics,multi-ai orchestration","webmasterTools":{"miscellaneous":""},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#breadcrumblist","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/category\/multi-ai-orchestration\/#listItem","position":1,"name":"Multi-AI Orchestration","item":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/category\/multi-ai-orchestration\/","nextItem":{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#listItem","name":"AI Hallucination Statistics: Research Report 2026"}},{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#listItem","position":2,"name":"AI Hallucination Statistics: Research Report 2026","previousItem":{"@type":"ListItem","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/category\/multi-ai-orchestration\/#listItem","name":"Multi-AI Orchestration"}}]},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/#organization","name":"Suprmind","description":"Decision validation platform for professionals who can't afford to be wrong. Five smartest AIs, in the same conversation. They debate, challenge, and build on each other - you export the verdict as a deliverable. Disagreement is the feature.","url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/","email":"hello@suprmind.ai","foundingDate":"2025-10-01","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","value":4},"logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/suprmind-slash-new-bold-italic.png?wsr","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#organizationLogo","width":1920,"height":1822,"caption":"Suprmind"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#organizationLogo"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/suprmind.ai.orchestration","https:\/\/x.com\/suprmind_ai","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/suprmind.ai"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/author\/rad\/#author","url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/author\/rad\/","name":"Radomir Basta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/radomir-basta-profil.png"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/radomir.basta\/","https:\/\/x.com\/RadomirBasta","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/bastardo_violente\/","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/c\/RadomirBasta\/videos","https:\/\/rs.linkedin.com\/in\/radomirbasta","https:\/\/articulo.mercadolibre.cl\/MLC-1731708044-libro-the-good-book-of-seo-radomir-basta-_JM)","https:\/\/chat.openai.com\/g\/g-HKPuhCa8c-the-seo-auditor-full-technical-on-page-audits)","https:\/\/dids.rs\/ucesnici\/radomir-basta\/?ln=lat)","https:\/\/digitalizuj.me\/2015\/01\/blogeri-iz-regiona-na-digitalizuj-me-blog-radionici\/radomir-basta\/)","https:\/\/ecommerceconference.mk\/2023\/blog\/speaker\/radomir-basta\/)","https:\/\/ecommerceconference.mk\/mk\/blog\/speaker\/radomir-basta\/)","https:\/\/imusic.dk\/page\/label\/RadomirBasta)","https:\/\/m.facebook.com\/public\/Radomir-Basta)","https:\/\/medium.com\/@radomirbasta)","https:\/\/medium.com\/@radomirbasta\/about)","https:\/\/poe.com\/tabascopit)","https:\/\/rocketreach.co\/radomir-basta-email_3120243)","https:\/\/startit.rs\/korisnici\/radomir-basta-ie3\/)","https:\/\/thegoodbookofseo.com\/about-the-author\/)","https:\/\/trafficthinktank.com\/community\/radomir-basta\/)","https:\/\/www.amazon.de\/Good-Book-SEO-English-ebook\/dp\/B08479P6M4)","https:\/\/www.amazon.de\/stores\/author\/B0847NTDHX)","https:\/\/www.brandingmag.com\/author\/radomir-basta\/)","https:\/\/www.crunchbase.com\/person\/radomir-basta)","https:\/\/www.digitalcommunicationsinstitute.com\/speaker\/radomir-basta\/)","https:\/\/www.digitalk.rs\/predavaci\/digitalk-zrenjanin-2022\/subota-9-april\/radomir-basta\/)","https:\/\/www.domen.rs\/sr-latn\/radomir-basta)","https:\/\/www.ebay.co.uk\/itm\/354969573938)","https:\/\/www.finmag.cz\/obchodni-rejstrik\/ares\/40811441-radomir-basta)","https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/people\/urban-extreme\/)","https:\/\/www.forbes.com\/sites\/forbesagencycouncil\/people\/radomirbasta\/)","https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/author\/show\/19330719.Radomir_Basta)","https:\/\/www.goodreads.com\/book\/show\/51083787)","https:\/\/www.hugendubel.info\/detail\/ISBN-9781945147166\/Ristic-Radomir\/Vesticja-Basta-A-Witchs-Garden)","https:\/\/www.netokracija.rs\/author\/radomirbasta)","https:\/\/www.quora.com\/profile\/Radomir-Basta)","https:\/\/www.razvoj-karijere.com\/radomir-basta)","https:\/\/www.semrush.com\/user\/145902001\/)","https:\/\/www.slideshare.net\/radomirbasta)","https:\/\/www.waterstones.com\/book\/the-good-book-of-seo\/radomir-basta\/\/9788690077502)"],"description":"Founder, Suprmind.ai | Co-founder and CEO, Four Dots Radomir Basta is a digital marketing operator and product builder with nearly two decades in SEO and growth. He is best known for building systems that remove guesswork from strategy and execution.\u00a0 His current focus is Suprmind.ai, a multi AI decision validation platform that turns conflicting model opinions into structured output. Suprmind is built around a simple rule: disagreement is the feature. Instead of one confident answer, you get competing arguments, pressure tests, and a final synthesis you can act on. Why Suprmind? In 2023, Radomir Basta's agency team started using AI models across every part of client work. ChatGPT for content drafts. Claude for analysis. Gemini for research. Perplexity for fact-checking. Grok for real-time data. Within six months, a pattern became obvious. Every important question ended up in three or four browser tabs. Each model gave a confident answer. The answers often disagreed. There was no clean way to reconcile them. For low-stakes work this was fine. Write an email. Summarize a document. Ask one AI, move on. But agency work was not always low-stakes. Pricing strategies that shaped a client's entire quarterly revenue. Messaging for product launches that could not be undone. Targeting calls that would define a brand's public reputation. Single-model confidence on questions like those was gambling with somebody else's money. Suprmind.ai is what came out of that frustration. Launched in 2025, it puts five frontier models in one orchestrated thread - not side-by-side, but in genuine structured conversation where each model reads what the others said before responding. A shared Context Fabric keeps all five synchronized across long sessions. A Knowledge Graph builds a passive project brain over time, retaining entities, decisions, and relationships that would otherwise vanish between sessions. The Scribe extracts action items and synthesized conclusions in real time. A Disagreement\/Correction Index quantifies exactly how much the models agree or diverge on any given turn. The principle behind the design: disagreement is the feature. When the models agree, conviction has been earned. When they disagree, the uncertainty has been made visible before it becomes an expensive mistake. The Pattern Behind the Product Suprmind is not the first tool Basta has built this way. It is the seventh. Over fifteen years running Four Dots, the digital marketing agency he co-founded in 2013, he has hit the same wall repeatedly. A client needs something. No existing tool solves it properly. The answer is always the same: build it. That habit produced Base.me for link building management (now maintaining an 80% link survival rate for Four Dots versus the 60% industry average). Reportz.io for real-time client reporting (tracking over a billion marketing events annually across 30+ channels). Dibz.me for prospecting. TheTrustmaker for conversion social proof. UberPress.ai for automated content. FAII.ai for AI visibility monitoring across ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, and Perplexity. Each platform started as an internal solution to an internal problem. Each one eventually proved useful enough that other agencies and in-house teams started paying to use it. Suprmind follows the same logic applied to a different problem. The agency needed multi-model AI validation for high-stakes recommendations. Existing tools offered parallel comparison, not orchestrated collaboration. So he built orchestrated collaboration. The Agency That Funded the Lab Four Dots is the infrastructure that made Suprmind possible. Basta co-founded the agency in 2013 with three partners who still run it alongside him. Twelve years later, Four Dots operates from offices in New York, Belgrade, Novi Sad, Sydney, and Hong Kong. Thirty-plus specialists. Worked with more than 200 clients across three continents. Google Premier Partner status - the top three percent of agencies on the market. The client list reflects the positioning. Coca-Cola, Philip Morris International, Orange Telecommunications, Beko, and Air Serbia alongside many mid-market brands. Work with enterprise accounts at that scale generates the cash flow, the problem surface, and the feedback loop a product lab needs. The agency grew on organic referrals, without outside capital, and operates strictly month-to-month. That structural exposure - prove value or lose the client in thirty days - is the pressure that surfaces the problems Suprmind was built to solve. Suprmind was not built by a solo founder guessing at user needs. It was built by a working agency that encountered the problem daily, on accounts where the cost of being wrong was measured in six figures. The Practitioner Background Basta started as a hands-on SEO consultant in 2010. Fifteen years later, he still reviews crawl data, audits link profiles, and weighs in on keyword decisions for enterprise Four Dots accounts. That practitioner background shaped how Suprmind was designed. Debate mode exists because he has watched real agency strategies fall apart under first-contact pressure-testing and wanted a way to catch those failures before clients did. The Decision Validation Engine exists because executives need verdicts, not essays. Research Symphony has a four-stage pipeline - retrieval, pattern analysis, critical validation, actionable synthesis - because real research is never one pass. Suprmind was designed by someone who needed it to actually work on actual problems. Not a demo. Not a prototype. A tool his agency uses daily on client deliverables. Teaching, Writing, Speaking The same background that informs Suprmind's design also shows up in public work. Principal SEO lecturer at Belgrade's Digital Communications Institute since 2013. Author of The Good Book of SEO in 2020. Member and contributor to the Forbes Agency Council, with pieces on client reporting quality, mobile-first advertising, and brand building. Author at BrandingMag, and regular speaker at regional and international digital marketing conferences. None of those credentials make Suprmind work better. What they make clear is the kind of builder behind it. Someone who has spent fifteen years teaching, writing about, and publicly defending how this work actually gets done. The Suprmind Bet The bet is straightforward. The professionals who make consequential decisions are not going to keep settling for one confident answer from one AI system. They are going to want validation. They are going to want to see where the models disagree. They are going to want the disagreements surfaced as a feature, not buried as noise. Suprmind is the infrastructure for that kind of work. If your work involves recommendations that carry weight, the tool was built for you. If you have ever copy-pasted the same question into three AI tabs and tried to synthesize the answers manually, the tool was built for you. If you have ever trusted a single-model answer and later wished you had not, the tool was especially built for you. Connect  LinkedIn: linkedin.com\/in\/radomirbasta Full profile at Four Dots: fourdots.com\/about-radomir-basta Forbes Agency Council: Author profile BrandingMag: Author profile Medium: medium.com\/@radomirbasta The Good Book of SEO: thegoodbookofseo.com  \u00a0","jobTitle":"CEO & Founder"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#webpage","url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/","name":"AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points - Suprmind","description":"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.","inLanguage":"en-US","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/#website"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#breadcrumblist"},"author":{"@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/author\/rad\/#author"},"creator":{"@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/author\/rad\/#author"},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png?wsr","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#mainImage","width":1920,"height":1280,"caption":"AI accuracy vs hallucination"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/#mainImage"},"datePublished":"2026-02-15T22:20:13+00:00","dateModified":"2026-05-16T06:43:42+00:00"},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/#website","url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/","name":"Suprmind","alternateName":"Suprmind.ai","description":"Multi-Model AI Decision Intelligence Chat Platform for Professionals for Business: 5 Models, One Thread .","inLanguage":"en-US","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/#organization"}}]},"og:locale":"en_US","og:site_name":"Suprmind - Multi-Model AI Decision Intelligence Chat Platform for Professionals for Business: 5 Models, One Thread .","og:type":"article","og:title":"AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points - Suprmind","og:description":"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.","og:url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/","fb:admins":"567083258","og:image":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png?wsr","og:image:secure_url":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png?wsr","og:image:width":1920,"og:image:height":1280,"article:tag":["ai hallucination","ai hallucination solution","ai hallucination statistics","multi-ai orchestration"],"article:published_time":"2026-02-15T22:20:13+00:00","article:modified_time":"2026-05-16T06:43:42+00:00","article:publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/suprmind.ai.orchestration","article:author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/radomir.basta\/","twitter:card":"summary_large_image","twitter:site":"@suprmind_ai","twitter:title":"AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points - Suprmind","twitter:description":"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.","twitter:creator":"@RadomirBasta","twitter:image":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/accuracy_vs_hallucination-1.png?wsr","twitter:label1":"Written by","twitter:data1":"Radomir Basta","twitter:label2":"Est. reading time","twitter:data2":"18 minutes"},"aioseo_meta_data":{"post_id":"2119","title":"AI Hallucination Statistics 2026: 50+ Sourced Data Points #separator_sa #site_title","description":"New AI hallucination statistics with sources. Failure rates, error costs, GPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok and Perplexity model-by-model comparisons. Independent data.","keywords":null,"keyphrases":{"focus":{"keyphrase":"AI Hallucination","score":78,"analysis":{"keyphraseInTitle":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0},"keyphraseInDescription":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0},"keyphraseLength":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0,"length":2},"keyphraseInURL":{"score":5,"maxScore":5,"error":0},"keyphraseInIntroduction":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0},"keyphraseInSubHeadings":{"score":3,"maxScore":9,"error":1},"keyphraseInImageAlt":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0},"keywordDensity":{"score":0,"type":"low","maxScore":9,"error":1}}},"additional":[{"keyphrase":"AI Hallucination","score":80,"analysis":{"keyphraseInDescription":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0},"keyphraseLength":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0,"length":2},"keyphraseInIntroduction":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0},"keyphraseInImageAlt":{"score":9,"maxScore":9,"error":0},"keywordDensity":{"score":0,"type":"low","maxScore":9,"error":1}}}]},"canonical_url":null,"og_title":null,"og_description":null,"og_object_type":"default","og_image_type":"default","og_image_custom_url":null,"og_image_custom_fields":null,"og_custom_image_width":null,"og_custom_image_height":null,"og_video":"","og_custom_url":null,"og_article_section":null,"og_article_tags":null,"twitter_use_og":true,"twitter_card":"default","twitter_image_type":"default","twitter_image_custom_url":null,"twitter_image_custom_fields":null,"twitter_title":null,"twitter_description":null,"schema_type":null,"schema_type_options":null,"pillar_content":false,"robots_default":true,"robots_noindex":false,"robots_noarchive":false,"robots_nosnippet":false,"robots_nofollow":false,"robots_noimageindex":false,"robots_noodp":false,"robots_notranslate":false,"robots_max_snippet":"-1","robots_max_videopreview":"-1","robots_max_imagepreview":"none","tabs":null,"priority":null,"frequency":"default","local_seo":null,"seo_analyzer_scan_date":"2026-05-16 06:50:56","created":"2026-02-15 22:16:11","updated":"2026-05-16 06:50:56","og_image_url":null,"twitter_image_url":null},"aioseo_breadcrumb":null,"aioseo_breadcrumb_json":[{"label":"Multi-AI Orchestration","link":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/category\/multi-ai-orchestration\/"},{"label":"AI Hallucination Statistics: Research Report 2026","link":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/insights\/ai-hallucination-statistics-research-report-2026\/"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2119","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2119"}],"version-history":[{"count":23,"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2119\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5251,"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2119\/revisions\/5251"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2473"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2119"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2119"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/suprmind.ai\/hub\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2119"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}