HalluPeer is a new benchmark designed to detect hallucinations in scientific peer reviews. It provides aligned triples of paper content, human-written reviews, and hallucination-injected reviews, annotated for detection, classification, and localization. Experiments on 12K papers and 38K reviews show that current detectors struggle to distinguish hallucinations from legitimate critique, and real peer reviews contain HalluPeer-defined hallucination patterns, underscoring the need for source-aware verification.
arXiv:2604.01461v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Reducing hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for accurate data extraction from large text corpora. Current methods, like pr...
By Daniel Xie, Maxwell J. Jacobson, Adil Wazeer, Haiyan Wang, Xinghang Zhang, Yexiang Xue
arXiv:2603. 20450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews.
By Rounak Saha, Gurusha Juneja, Dayita Chaudhuri, Naveeja Sajeevan, Nihar B Shah, Danish Pruthi
arXiv:2606.21359v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses signific...
By Raia Abu Ahmad, Nikolas Rauscher, Ekaterina Borisova, Fabio Barth, Georg Rehm, Sebastian M\"oller
arXiv:2609.25046v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Peer review plays a central role in scholarly publishing, yet verifying whether reviewer claims are supported by manuscript evidence remains a largely...
By Alireza Daghighfarsoodeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Ali Ghorbanpour, Soroush Sadeghian, Radin Cheraghi, Negar Arabzadeh, Ebrahim Bagheri
AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities.
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence.
arXiv:2608. 03581v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are.
By Alexander M. Fichtl, Lukas Ellinger, Josefin Kelber, Kry\v{s}tof Ol\'ik, Georg Groh
arXiv:2506. 08134v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale.
By Qiyao Wei, Samuel Holt, Jing Yang, Markus Wulfmeier, Mihaela van der Schaar
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 examines a specific type of hallucination in large language models caused by spurious correlations—unintended, statistically prominent associations in training data such as surnames linked to nationalities. These hallucinations are confidently produced, persist regardless of model scaling or refusal fine‑tuning, and evade existing detection methods like confidence filtering and inner‑state probing. The authors use controlled synthetic experiments and evaluations on both open‑source and proprietary LLMs, including GPT‑5, to demonstrate the failure of current detection techniques and provide a theoretical explanation for why statistical biases undermine confidence‑based approaches.
By Shaowen Wang, Yiqi Dong, Ruinian Chang, Tansheng Zhu, Yuebo Sun, Kaifeng Lyu, Jian Li
The paper introduces BioCheck Agent, an LLM-based system that generates structured biomedical fact‑checking reports using agentic search and a reinforcement‑learning framework called EG‑GRPO. Unlike prior methods that output only supported or refuted labels, BioCheck Agent synthesizes conclusions with retrieved evidence from PubMed, employing advanced Boolean search operators. Experiments show that, compared to the base Qwen3.5‑4B model, BioCheck Agent improves label prediction accuracy on SciFact by 9.95 %, raises evidence quality by 3.7 %, and reduces hallucinations by 19.63 %.
By Jiongxiao Wang, Dingli Ma, Chaoqun Ni