LLM hallucinations in the wild: Large-scale evidence from non-existent citations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.07723v1
• Date: Fri, 08 May 2026 13:26:41 GMT
• Title: LLM hallucinations in the wild: Large-scale evidence from non-existent citations
• Abstract summary: We audit 111 million references across 2.5 million papers in arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and PubMed Central.<n>We find a sharp rise in non-existent references following widespread large language models adoption.<n>These errors are diffusely embedded across many papers but especially pronounced in fields with rapid AI uptake.
• Score: 5.051133029117994
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are known to generate plausible but false information across a wide range of contexts, yet the real-world magnitude and consequences of this hallucination problem remain poorly understood. Here we leverage a uniquely verifiable object - scientific citations - to audit 111 million references across 2.5 million papers in arXiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, and PubMed Central. We find a sharp rise in non-existent references following widespread LLM adoption, with a conservative estimate of 146,932 hallucinated citations in 2025 alone. These errors are diffusely embedded across many papers but especially pronounced in fields with rapid AI uptake, in manuscripts with linguistic signatures of AI-assisted writing, and among small and early-career author teams. At the same time, hallucinated references disproportionately assign credit to already prominent and male scholars, suggesting that LLM-generated errors may reinforce existing inequities in scientific recognition. Preprint moderation and journal publication processes capture only a fraction of these errors, suggesting that the spread of hallucinated content has outpaced existing safeguards. Together, these findings demonstrate that LLM hallucinations are infiltrating knowledge production at scale, threatening both the reliability and equity of future scientific discovery as human and AI systems draw on the existing literature.

Related papers

• Testing Our Foundations: Citation Trends, Errors, and Emerging Hallucinations in the Computing Education Literature [3.299067446425981]
  We analyze referencing trends across 24,751 computing education papers and compare them with the broader ACM corpus of more than 723,000 papers and 15 million references.<n>In 2025, hallucinated references appeared across five SIGCSE-sponsored or LLM-cooperation venues.<n>Although still relatively rare for now, this growth poses an integrity risk our community should not ignore.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T03:18:20Z)
• 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)
• The 17% Gap: Quantifying Epistemic Decay in AI-Assisted Survey Papers [0.0]
  "Hallucinated papers" are a known artifact, but the systematic degradation of valid citation chains remains unquantified.<n>We conducted a forensic audit of 50 recent survey papers in Artificial Intelligence published between September 2024 and January 2026.<n>We detect a persistent 17.0% Phantom Rate -- citations that cannot be resolved to any digital object despite aggressive forensic recovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-24T12:00:55Z)
• Hallucinate or Memorize? The Two Sides of Probabilistic Learning in Large Language Models [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly applied to a wide range of tasks, from natural language understanding to code generation.<n>While they have also been used to assist in citation recommendation, the hallucination of non-existent papers remains a major issue.<n>This study hypothesizes that an LLM's ability to correctly produce records depends on whether the underlying knowledge is generated or memorized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-12T01:29:12Z)
• Confabulations from ACL Publications (CAP): A Dataset for Scientific Hallucination Detection [8.258841312112986]
  The CAP dataset is a multilingual resource for studying hallucinations in large language models (LLMs) within scientific text generation.<n>The dataset comprises 900 curated scientific questions and over 7000 LLM-generated answers from 16 publicly available models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-25T18:42:22Z)
• Are We There Yet? Revealing the Risks of Utilizing Large Language Models in Scholarly Peer Review [66.73247554182376]
  Large language models (LLMs) have led to their integration into peer review.<n>The unchecked adoption of LLMs poses significant risks to the integrity of the peer review system.<n>We show that manipulating 5% of the reviews could potentially cause 12% of the papers to lose their position in the top 30% rankings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T16:55:03Z)
• Hallucination Detection: Robustly Discerning Reliable Answers in Large Language Models [70.19081534515371]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained widespread adoption in various natural language processing tasks. They generate unfaithful or inconsistent content that deviates from the input source, leading to severe consequences. We propose a robust discriminator named RelD to effectively detect hallucination in LLMs' generated answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T18:47:42Z)
• Delving into LLM-assisted writing in biomedical publications through excess vocabulary [4.58733012283457]
  Large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT can generate and revise text with human-level performance.<n>We study vocabulary changes in over 15 million biomedical abstracts from 2010--2024 indexed by PubMed.<n>We show that LLMs have had an unprecedented impact on scientific writing in biomedical research, surpassing the effect of major world events such as the Covid pandemic.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-11T07:16:34Z)
• Mapping the Increasing Use of LLMs in Scientific Papers [99.67983375899719]
  We conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-01T17:45:15Z)
• Insights into Classifying and Mitigating LLMs' Hallucinations [48.04565928175536]
  This paper delves into the underlying causes of AI hallucination and elucidates its significance in artificial intelligence. We explore potential strategies to mitigate hallucinations, aiming to enhance the overall reliability of large language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-14T12:30:28Z)
• Siren's Song in the AI Ocean: A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models [124.90671698586249]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities across a range of downstream tasks.<n>LLMs occasionally generate content that diverges from the user input, contradicts previously generated context, or misaligns with established world knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-03T16:56:48Z)

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.