HalluCiteChecker: A Lightweight Toolkit for Hallucinated Citation Detection and Verification in the Era of AI Scientists

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.26835v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 16:01:42 GMT
• Title: HalluCiteChecker: A Lightweight Toolkit for Hallucinated Citation Detection and Verification in the Era of AI Scientists
• Abstract summary: HalluCiteChecker is a toolkit for detecting and verifying hallucinated citations in scientific papers.<n>Our code is released under the Apache 2.0 license on GitHub and is distributed as an installable package via PyPI.
• Score: 58.87954687016989
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: We introduce HalluCiteChecker, a toolkit for detecting and verifying hallucinated citations in scientific papers. While AI assistant technologies have transformed the academic writing process, including citation recommendation, they have also led to the emergence of hallucinated citations that do not correspond to any existing work. Such citations not only undermine the credibility of scientific papers but also impose an additional burden on reviewers and authors, who must manually verify their validity during the review process. In this study, we formalize hallucinated citation detection as an NLP task and provide a corresponding toolkit as a practical foundation for addressing this problem. Our package is lightweight and can perform verification in seconds on a standard laptop. It can also be executed entirely offline and runs efficiently using only CPUs. We hope that HalluCiteChecker will help reduce reviewer workload and support organizers by enabling systematic pre-review and publication checks. Our code is released under the Apache 2.0 license on GitHub and is distributed as an installable package via PyPI. A demonstration video is available on YouTube.

Related papers

• HalluPeer: A Taxonomy-driven Benchmark for Detecting Hallucinations in Scientific Peer Reviews [20.989630888021463]
  HalluPeer is a benchmark for detecting hallucinations in scientific peer reviews.<n>Our pipeline induces a peer-review-specific hallucination taxonomy, identifies review contexts, and injects hallucinations with automated filtering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-03T09:27:54Z)
• Who is the Agent to Blame? Localizing Faithfulness and Citation Mistakes in Agentic Deep Research [75.8770212601511]
  Deep research (DR) systems produce long-form cited reports by orchestrating multiple agents that search and synthesize information from the web.<n> Citations are the primary mechanism for evaluating the faithfulness of these reports, yet current DR systems exhibit poor citation recall.<n>We propose an evaluation method that pinpoints which agent introduced each error by locally testing agent invocations for faithfulness and verifiability relative to their own inputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-25T09:34:18Z)
• Phantom References: Hallucinated Citations That Survive Peer Review at Top-Tier Conferences [4.766369673059568]
  We apply RefChecker to accepted camera-ready papers from ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and USENIX Security.<n>We measure citation hallucination in peer-reviewed proceedings using a conservative definition.<n>Results suggest peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity, yet auditing is tractable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-01T10:21:07Z)
• When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee? [73.47745294608072]
  We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level.<n>We use two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-26T08:03:32Z)
• Peerispect: Claim Verification in Scientific Peer Reviews [12.340116689292726]
  Peerispect is an interactive system that operationalizes claim-level verification in peer reviews.<n>Results are presented through a visual interface that highlights evidence directly in the paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-19T23:40:26Z)
• sciwrite-lint: Verification Infrastructure for the Age of Science Vibe-Writing [0.0]
  Science currently offers two options for quality assurance, both inadequate.<n>We propose a third option: measure the paper itself.<n> sciwrite-lint is an open-source linter for scientific manuscripts that runs entirely on the researcher's machine.<n>We evaluate the pipeline on 30 unseen papers from arXiv and bioRxiv with error injection and LLM-adjudicated false positive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-09T17:46:44Z)
• FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Reviews with Literature Positioning and Execution-Based Claim Verification [57.196748998757954]
  We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification.<n>Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository.<n>It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-05T11:45:22Z)
• CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era [51.63024682584688]
  Large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications.<n>We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing.<n>Our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-26T19:17:39Z)
• CheckIfExist: Detecting Citation Hallucinations in the Era of AI-Generated Content [0.0]
  "CheckIfExist" is an open-source tool designed to provide immediate verification of references against scholarly databases.<n>The proposed tool fills this gap by employing string similarity algorithms to compute multi-dimensional match confidence scores.<n>The system supports both single-reference verification and batch processing of Bib entries through a unified interface.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-27T20:26:24Z)
• Towards generating citation sentences for multiple references with intent control [86.53829532976303]
  We build a novel generation model with the Fusion-in-Decoder approach to cope with multiple long inputs. Experiments demonstrate that the proposed approaches provide much more comprehensive features for generating citation sentences.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-12-02T15:32:24Z)
• ACM-CR: A Manually Annotated Test Collection for Citation Recommendation [6.599344783327053]
  Citation recommendation is intended to assist researchers in the process of searching for relevant papers to cite. Existing test collections for this task are noisy and unreliable since they are built automatically from parsed PDF papers. We present our ongoing effort at creating a publicly available, manually annotated test collection for citation recommendation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-17T11:51:51Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.