HALLMARK: Diagnosing Three Failure Modes in LLM Citation Verifiers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.18360v1
• Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2026 13:21:27 GMT
• Title: HALLMARK: Diagnosing Three Failure Modes in LLM Citation Verifiers
• Abstract summary: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set.<n>No shared benchmark compares verifiers and gives detailed failure diagnostics.<n>Hallucination benchmark: 2,526 Bib entries spanning 14 types, three difficulty tiers, six diagnostic sub-tests per entry.
• Score: 30.02579334273979
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set. Rule- and LLM-based verifiers are emerging, but no shared benchmark compares them and gives detailed failure diagnostics. We close that gap with HALLMARK (Hallucination benchmark): 2,526 BibTeX entries spanning 14 hallucination types, three difficulty tiers, six diagnostic sub-tests per entry, and a contamination-resistant held-out split. On it we evaluate a DOI-lookup baseline, frontier LLMs zero-shot, tool-augmented agents, and our own rule-based, co-designed verifier bibtex-updater. Across the benchmark one result is consistent: the false-positive rate, not recall, decides whether a verifier is deployable. HALLMARK makes it concrete through three failure modes: agentic lookups buy recall but inflate false positives; at a venue-realistic base rate, the order-of-magnitude spread in false-positive rates (FPRs) -- not recall -- governs whether a verifier's flags are mostly true catches or mostly noise; and most LLMs over-flag papers published past their training cutoff, where only the two latest-cutoff models hold their false-positive rate near in-distribution levels (a signal we report as descriptive, since it is confounded with possible recall of those entries). Thus FPR is the deployment bottleneck, but an undetected fabrication remains the costlier error for the scientific record.

Related papers

• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• PluginEval: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Fine-Grained Error Attribution in Function Calling [11.1017602726296]
  Large Language Models increasingly operate as autonomous agents.<n>Current benchmarks face three structural limitations.<n>Eval is a benchmark constructed through a two-stage framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T13:25:54Z)
• Fantastic Adaptive Taxonomies and How to Use Them [100.20614173157708]
  AdaMAST converts execution traces into a compact, evidence-grounded failure taxonomy.<n>No code is hand-authored, no trace human-annotated.<n>In agent-system search, taxonomy-coded diagnoses of failed candidates outperform free-form.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T17:41:16Z)
• AgentFairBench: Do LLM Agents Discriminate When They Act? [2.3004655342211078]
  AgentFairBench is a cheap, reproducible, multi-domain benchmark for demographic disparity in the actions of LLM agents.<n>It spans three regulator-anchored domains: hiring, lending, and medical triage.<n>A NumPy-only harness computes counterfactual flip rate, mean absolute score difference (MASD), action-rate disparity, and tool-invocation disparity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-15T13:50:26Z)
• CalBrief: A Pilot Diagnostic Benchmark for Evidence-Calibrated Scientific Briefing with Large Language Models [8.057966659934769]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research assistants, yet it remains unclear whether they can calibrate research takeaways to the strength and scope of the supporting evidence.<n>We study evidence-calibrated scientific briefing: given a bounded package of related papers, a system should generate package-level takeaways with evidence strength, scope boundaries, and missing-evidence caveats.<n>We use CalBrief, an auditable role/gap/strength framework, as a diagnostic probe to locate where briefing breaks down.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-11T06:49:52Z)
• Know2Guess: A Contamination-Aware Multi-Zone Benchmark for Knowledge-Boundary Evaluation in Large Language Models [9.503036150359597]
  We present a contamination-aware, multi-zone benchmark for measuring the transition from answerable knowledge to abstention-expected unknowns.<n>We evaluate FLAN-T5, Qwen2.5-Instruct, and Llama-3-Instruct models under locked answer-or-abstain prompts, answer-only controls, and prompt-template variants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-30T05:46:01Z)
• MARCH: Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for LLM Hallucination [25.50050557327127]
  Hallucination remains a critical bottleneck for large language models (LLMs)<n>We introduce Multi-Agent Reinforced Self-Check for Hallucination (MARCH)<n>MARCH enforces rigorous factual alignment by leveraging deliberate information asymmetry.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-25T17:54:10Z)
• C2-Faith: Benchmarking LLM Judges for Causal and Coverage Faithfulness in Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [0.6138671548064355]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning.<n>We introduce C2-Faith, a benchmark that targets two complementary dimensions of faithfulness: causality (does each step logically follow from prior context?) and coverage.<n>We evaluate three frontier judges under three tasks: binary causal detection, causal step localization, and coverage scoring.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-05T13:36:47Z)
• Do LLMs Know They Are Being Tested? Evaluation Awareness and Incentive-Sensitive Failures in GPT-OSS-20B [1.948261185683419]
  We investigate whether "evaluation scent" inflates measured performance without commensurate capability gains.<n>We run six paired A/B scenarios that hold task content and decoding fixed while varying framing.<n>We provide a reproducible A/B framework (prompt banks, validators, per-run scores, scripts) and practical guidance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T09:49:05Z)
• Do Large Language Model Benchmarks Test Reliability? [66.1783478365998]
  We investigate how well current benchmarks quantify model reliability.<n>Motivated by this gap in the evaluation of reliability, we propose the concept of so-called platinum benchmarks.<n>We evaluate a wide range of models on these platinum benchmarks and find that, indeed, frontier LLMs still exhibit failures on simple tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:58:19Z)
• Factcheck-Bench: Fine-Grained Evaluation Benchmark for Automatic Fact-checkers [121.53749383203792]
  We present a holistic end-to-end solution for annotating the factuality of large language models (LLMs)-generated responses. We construct an open-domain document-level factuality benchmark in three-level granularity: claim, sentence and document. Preliminary experiments show that FacTool, FactScore and Perplexity are struggling to identify false claims.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T14:41:57Z)
• FactCHD: Benchmarking Fact-Conflicting Hallucination Detection [64.4610684475899]
  FactCHD is a benchmark designed for the detection of fact-conflicting hallucinations from LLMs. FactCHD features a diverse dataset that spans various factuality patterns, including vanilla, multi-hop, comparison, and set operation. We introduce Truth-Triangulator that synthesizes reflective considerations by tool-enhanced ChatGPT and LoRA-tuning based on Llama2.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-18T16:27:49Z)
• Generating Benchmarks for Factuality Evaluation of Language Models [61.69950787311278]
  We propose FACTOR: Factual Assessment via Corpus TransfORmation, a scalable approach for evaluating LM factuality. FACTOR automatically transforms a factual corpus of interest into a benchmark evaluating an LM's propensity to generate true facts from the corpus vs. similar but incorrect statements. We show that: (i) our benchmark scores increase with model size and improve when the LM is augmented with retrieval; (ii) benchmark score and perplexity do not always agree on model ranking; (iii) when perplexity and benchmark score disagree, the latter better reflects factuality in open-ended generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-13T17:14:38Z)
• LLMs as Factual Reasoners: Insights from Existing Benchmarks and Beyond [135.8013388183257]
  We propose a new protocol for inconsistency detection benchmark creation and implement it in a 10-domain benchmark called SummEdits. Most LLMs struggle on SummEdits, with performance close to random chance. The best-performing model, GPT-4, is still 8% below estimated human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-23T21:50:06Z)

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.