arXiv:2607. 18360v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set.
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.
arXiv:2606. 09500v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Objective.
arXiv:2608. 11415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists.
arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.
arXiv:2608. 19230v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As language models move from drafting prose to running literature-search agents with tool calls, fabricated references are becoming easier to catch and constrain.
arXiv:2606. 02184v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: These names do not exist.
arXiv:2607. 09349v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation evaluation checks whether model claims are factually grounded in retrieved documents.
arXiv:2608. 16645v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Can a language model recover the true research idea of a published paper when given only that paper's pre-publication bibliography?
arXiv:2605. 04135v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Readers of applied-domain LLM capability evaluations want to know what AI systems can currently do.
MedFabric is a new benchmark for detecting word‑level medical fabrications, comprising 646 fabricated statements each paired with a ground‑truth passage that shares the same LLM authorship and nearly identical wording. The study shows that current detectors perform poorly—expert clinicians achieve only 53.3% macro‑F1 and no detector family surpasses 60% without gold evidence—highlighting that detection hinges on evidence correctness rather than subtlety of fabrication. The authors demonstrate that a retrieval‑confidence gate can substantially improve performance, raising macro‑F1 from 61% to 74%.
arXiv:2608.28596v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly embedded in scientific workflows for literature analysis, drafting, and review. Existing systems adv...