In knowledge-intensive creative tasks, Large Language Models (LLMs) often generate outputs that extend beyond established knowledge, making direct verification against current evidence impractical. Unlike factual hallucinations checked against ground truth, such outputs arise naturally in creative generation, where extending beyond current knowledge is often the goal. Yet prior work debates whether hallucination should be suppressed or embraced without empirically analyzing this unverifiable subclass. On the ideation evaluation side, existing work focuses on individual outputs without characterizing the unverifiable space as a whole. To address this gap, we propose a novelty-verifiability characterization that distinguishes Creative Synthesis (Region A) from Groundless Fabrication (Region B), and study it through a conceptual creation task where LLMs synthesize novel scientific concepts. Through 32,400 generations across three technical domains and 1,080 human judgments, we find that Region A is non-negligible (4.7%) and robust, persisting across generation strategies, models, domains, and embedding choices. A retrospective recovery experiment further shows that LLMs can approximate post-cutoff scientific concepts in controlled combinatorial settings. Our findings suggest that the unverifiable space is not uniformly noise but exhibits empirically distinguishable internal structure, providing an empirical basis for more selective hallucination governance.[<https://github.com/YuLab1/llm-concept-creation>]

This study investigates the position bias in information retrieval, where models tend to overemphasize content at the beginning of passages while neglecting semantically relevant information that appears later. To analyze the extent and impact of position bias, we introduce a new evaluation framework consisting of two position-aware retrieval benchmarks (SQuAD-PosQ, FineWeb-PosQ) and an intuitive diagnostic metric, the Position Sensitivity Index (PSI), for quantifying position bias from a worst-case perspective. We conduct a comprehensive evaluation across the full retrieval pipeline, including BM25, dense embedding models, ColBERT-style late-interaction models, and full-interaction reranker models. Our experiments show that when relevant information appears later in the passage, dense embedding models and ColBERT-style models suffer significant performance degradation (an average drop of 15.6%). In contrast, BM25 and reranker models demonstrate greater robustness to such positional variation. These findings provide practical insights into model sensitivity to the position of relevant information and offer guidance for building more position-robust retrieval systems. Code and data are publicly available at: https://github.com/NovaSearch-Team/position-bias-in-IR.