These names do not exist. Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived.
arXiv:2609.15369v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Word-level detectors identify unedited AI-generated text almost perfectly, but the literature documents their brittleness under rewording, and a word-l...
By Jochen Madler (Sitefire)
The study examined biomedical research articles from 2022 to March 2026 that employed large language models (LLMs). It found that 42% of the most frequently used models were already retired or scheduled to retire within two years of publication, with a median retirement interval of 538 days. This high rate of model deprecation threatens the reproducibility of biomedical AI research.
By Nathan Wolfrath, Meghan Conroy, Thomas Kosten, Dave Bell, Bhabishya Neupane, Jonah Kindel, Anjishnu Banerjee, Priya Deshpande, Bradley Taylor, Anai N. Kothari
arXiv:2606. 11105v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Hallucinations, where language models (LMs) generate factually ungrounded responses, pose serious risks, as users tend to blindly rely on them.
By Haeji Jung, Hila Gonen
arXiv:2609.14988v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Background. Large language models are increasingly used to help write biomedical text but may fabricate references to nonexistent work. How often large...
By Maxim Topaz, Zhihong Zhang, Nir Roguin, Pallavi Gupta, Zichao Li, Laura-Maria Peltonen
The paper audits a 366‑day autobiographical book generated by a large language model (LLM) against an independent verification corpus. Using a four‑level rubric, 354 of the 366 days (96.7%) failed verification, with only 12 days containing corroborated scenes and 19 days containing actively contradicted claims. Regenerating the same days with current models yielded 100% verification failure, while grounding the generation in the subject’s own corpus improved the rate to 83.3% but still left substantial residual failure.
By Heather Renze
INDRA is a research platform that integrates multiple archival collections—such as UCSF’s Industry Documents Library, Columbia and CUNY’s ToxicDocs, and Stanford’s SRITA—into a single, LLM‑readable corpus. It employs three safeguards: a closed evidentiary sandbox, real‑time provenance tagging, and a deterministic system‑level protocol to ensure that model outputs are clearly distinguished from archival evidence and from the model’s own inferences. The platform enables large‑language‑model‑powered investigations across these archives while keeping the conditions of knowledge production transparent and auditable.
By Daniel Akselrad, Robert N. Proctor
arXiv:2607. 22513v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Commercial large language models are increasingly used as knowledge references, yet their stance on contested scientific claims is neither stable nor transparent.
By Davide Scarso, Hugo Noronha de Almeida, Joaquim Pina
arXiv:2607. 00738v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record.
By Mark Russinovich, Ram Shankar Siva Kumar, Ahmed Salem
The paper demonstrates that large language models (LLMs) used for forecasting real‑world events can be manipulated by simply publishing new articles, even without direct access to the model or its retriever. By injecting a small number of targeted news pieces into a common crawl corpus, an adversary can flip over half of the forecast probabilities and significantly degrade forecast accuracy. The study also shows that common defense strategies can be cheaply bypassed, highlighting the vulnerability of probabilistic LLM judgments to information‑supply‑chain attacks.
By Yuan Lu, Yukuan Zhang
Generative-AI evaluations can become historical before publication, yet calendar age does not affect every conclusion equally. This paper has two linked purposes.
arXiv:2608. 05157v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Double blind peer review serves as the scientific community primary defense against status and affiliation bias.
By Bulambo Mwendelwa Gloire, Prasenjit Mitra