arXiv:2606. 02184v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: These names do not exist.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.
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...
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. 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.
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...
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.