Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates the prevalence of citation hallucinations in peer-reviewed conference papers, revealing that while reference-level rates are typically below 1%, significant paper-level failures occur, particularly in high-profile venues like NeurIPS and USENIX Security. Using a novel verification pipeline called RefChecker, the authors found that approximately 5% of papers in 2025 contained multiple likely hallucinated references, with a notable increase post-ChatGPT. These findings highlight the inadequacy of peer review in ensuring citation integrity and underscore the need for systematic auditing of bibliographic claims in scientific literature.
One in twenty papers from top-tier conferences may contain multiple hallucinated citations, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the academic record.
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).
