CiteCheck: Retrieval-Grounded Detection of LLM Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Text

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27700v1
• Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 21:20:40 GMT
• Title: CiteCheck: Retrieval-Grounded Detection of LLM Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Text
• Abstract summary: We introduce CiteCheck, a framework for citation hallucination detection.<n>CiteCheck retrieves candidate publications from external scholarly sources, compares the citation against the retrieved candidate using a structured LLM verifier, and maps verifier scores into three labels: Exact, Minor, and Major.<n>On the held-out test set, CiteCheck achieves 88.7 macro-F1 and 88.9% accuracy, outperforming GPT, Claude, and Gemini baselines, including web-search and few-shot variants.
• Score: 39.146761527401424
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reports, but they can produce references that appear plausible while containing corrupted metadata or pointing to papers that do not exist. We introduce CiteCheck, a hybrid framework for citation hallucination detection that verifies whether a citation corresponds to a real scholarly work and whether its metadata is faithful to that work. CiteCheck retrieves candidate publications from external scholarly sources, compares the citation against the retrieved candidate using a structured LLM verifier, and maps verifier scores into three labels: Exact, Minor, and Major. We also construct a 982-citation physics benchmark with controlled corruptions that capture both subtle metadata drift and fully fabricated references. On the held-out test set, CiteCheck achieves 88.7 macro-F1 and 88.9% accuracy, outperforming GPT, Claude, and Gemini baselines, including web-search and few-shot variants. These results show that reliable citation verification benefits from combining scholarly retrieval, structured LLM-based comparison, and calibrated decision rules.

Related papers

• 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)
• Source or It Didn't Happen: A Multi-Agent Framework for Citation Hallucination Detection [30.352741291341843]
  Existing detectors reduce to binary found/not-found decisions, offering little field-level signal to auditors.<n>We introduce a 12-code taxonomy spanning Real, Potential, and Hallucinated citations.<n>CiteTracer extracts citations from PDF and Bib, fetches evidence through lookup URL, scholar connectors, and web search.<n>It reaches 97.1% accuracy on the synthetic benchmark, with class-level F1 scores of 97.0, 95.8, and 98.5 for Real, Potential, and Hallucinated, respectively, and fabricates hallucinations on the real-world set without abstaining.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-09T00:53:24Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Hallucinations in Bibliographic Recommendation: Citation Frequency as a Proxy for Training Data Redundancy [0.0]
  Large hallucination models (LLMs) have been increasingly applied to a wide range of tasks.<n>This study hypothesizes that an LLM's ability to correctly produce information depends on whether the underlying knowledge is generated or memorized.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-29T10:51:35Z)
• VeriCite: Towards Reliable Citations in Retrieval-Augmented Generation via Rigorous Verification [107.75781898355562]
  We introduce a novel framework, called VeriCite, designed to rigorously validate supporting evidence and enhance answer attribution.<n>We conduct experiments across five open-source LLMs and four datasets, demonstrating that VeriCite can significantly improve citation quality while maintaining the correctness of the answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T13:38:54Z)
• Ground Every Sentence: Improving Retrieval-Augmented LLMs with Interleaved Reference-Claim Generation [51.8188846284153]
  Attributed Text Generation (ATG) is proposed to enhance credibility and verifiability in RAG systems.<n>This paper proposes ReClaim, a fine-grained ATG method that alternates the generation of references and answers step by step.<n>With extensive experiments, we verify the effectiveness of ReClaim in extensive settings, achieving a citation accuracy rate of 90%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-01T20:47:47Z)
• ALiiCE: Evaluating Positional Fine-grained Citation Generation [54.19617927314975]
  We propose ALiiCE, the first automatic evaluation framework for fine-grained citation generation. Our framework first parses the sentence claim into atomic claims via dependency analysis and then calculates citation quality at the atomic claim level. We evaluate the positional fine-grained citation generation performance of several Large Language Models on two long-form QA datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-19T09:16:14Z)
• Large Language Models Reflect Human Citation Patterns with a Heightened Citation Bias [1.7812428873698407]
  Citation practices are crucial in shaping the structure of scientific knowledge, yet they are often influenced by contemporary norms and biases. The emergence of Large Language Models (LLMs) introduces a new dynamic to these practices. Here, we analyze these characteristics in an experiment using a dataset from AAAI, NeurIPS, ICML, and ICLR.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-24T17:34:32Z)
• Deep Graph Learning for Anomalous Citation Detection [55.81334139806342]
  We propose a novel deep graph learning model, namely GLAD (Graph Learning for Anomaly Detection), to identify anomalies in citation networks. Within the GLAD framework, we propose an algorithm called CPU (Citation PUrpose) to discover the purpose of citation based on citation texts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-23T09:05:28Z)

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.