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.