Phantom References: Hallucinated Citations That Survive Peer Review at Top-Tier Conferences

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.00738v2
• Date: Mon, 06 Jul 2026 08:00:29 GMT
• Title: Phantom References: Hallucinated Citations That Survive Peer Review at Top-Tier Conferences
• Abstract summary: 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.
• Score: 4.766369673059568
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record. Assessing this risk via technical statements is difficult and often requires expert judgment, but citations provide a more auditable surface: a reference either resolves to a real scholarly work with compatible authorship, or it does not. We measure citation hallucination in peer-reviewed proceedings using a conservative definition limited to identity-level failures: non-existent works and substantial author-list mismatches. We explicitly exclude ordinary bibliographic drift (e.g., venue/year differences, publication-status updates, minor name variants). To audit citations at scale, we build RefChecker, a verification pipeline that resolves bibliography entries against multiple bibliographic sources and escalates unresolved cases to web-search re-verification. We apply RefChecker to accepted camera-ready papers from ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and USENIX Security. Hallucinated citations have entered the archival record. While reference-level rates are usually below 1%, proceedings are large enough that paper-level failures are visible: in 2025, roughly one in twenty NeurIPS and USENIX Security papers contains at least two likely hallucinated academic-paper-like references under our strict definition. We also observe post-ChatGPT increases in several venues, including a tail of papers with 5+ failures in a single bibliography, and likely hallucinated citations even among award-winning papers. These results suggest peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity, yet auditing is tractable (about 0.04$ per paper in one venue-scale scan). We open-source RefChecker for routine, reproducible citation verification before publication (https://github.com/markrussinovich/refchecker).

Related papers

• 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)
• CiteCheck: Retrieval-Grounded Detection of LLM Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Text [39.146761527401424]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T21:20:40Z)
• 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)
• HalluCiteChecker: A Lightweight Toolkit for Hallucinated Citation Detection and Verification in the Era of AI Scientists [58.87954687016989]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T16:01:42Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Citation Failure: Definition, Analysis and Efficient Mitigation [56.09968229868067]
  Citations from LLM-based RAG systems are supposed to simplify response verification.<n>This does not hold for citation failure, when a model generates a helpful response, but fails to cite complete evidence.<n>We propose to disentangle this from response failure, where the response itself is flawed, and citing complete evidence is impossible.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-23T07:47:22Z)
• The Noisy Path from Source to Citation: Measuring How Scholars Engage with Past Research [20.649638393774048]
  We introduce a computational pipeline to quantify citation fidelity at scale.<n>Using full texts of papers, the pipeline identifies citations in citing papers and the corresponding claims in cited papers.<n>Using a quasi-experiment, we establish the "telephone effect" - when citing papers have low fidelity to the original claim, future papers that cite the citing paper and the original have lower fidelity to the original.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-27T22:47:03Z)
• CausalCite: A Causal Formulation of Paper Citations [80.82622421055734]
  CausalCite is a new way to measure the significance of a paper by assessing the causal impact of the paper on its follow-up papers. It is based on a novel causal inference method, TextMatch, which adapts the traditional matching framework to high-dimensional text embeddings. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CausalCite on various criteria, such as high correlation with paper impact as reported by scientific experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-05T23:09:39Z)
• 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)

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.