Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper introduces Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), a framework for evaluating AI-written papers by having an agent reconstruct a paper from an overview and comparing it to the original. The framework assesses Presentation quality using a rubric and Hallucination via agentic evaluation grounded in the original paper. Experiments on PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 post-2025 papers, reveal a trade-off between presentation quality and hallucination frequency in ClaudeCode and Codex.
AI-written papers are surprisingly prone to hallucination, with even state-of-the-art models like ClaudeCode averaging over 10 factual errors per paper despite strong presentation.
This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents. While AI-driven paper writing has become a growing concern, rigorous evaluation of the quality and potential risks of AI-written papers remains limited, and a unified understanding of their reliability is still lacking. We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal additional resources, and the result is subsequently compared against the original paper. PaperRecon disentangles the evaluation of the AI-written papers into two orthogonal dimensions, Presentation and Hallucination, where Presentation is evaluated using a rubric and Hallucination is assessed via agentic evaluation grounded in the original paper source. For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025. Our experiments reveal a clear trade-off: while both ClaudeCode and Codex improve with model advances, ClaudeCode achieves higher presentation quality at the cost of more than 10 hallucinations per paper on average, whereas Codex produces fewer hallucinations but lower presentation quality. This work takes a first step toward establishing evaluation frameworks for AI-driven paper writing and improving the understanding of its risks within the research community.
