paper-with-me

홈 › Papers

Compound Deception in Elite Peer Review: A Failure Mode Taxonomy of 100 Fabricated Citations at NeurIPS 2025

2026-02-05 · Samar Ansari arxiv

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic writing workflows, yet they frequently hallucinate by generating citations to sources that do not exist. This study analyzes 100 AI-generated hallucinated citations that appeared in papers accepted by the 2025 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), one of the world's most prestigious AI conferences. Despite review by 3-5 expert researchers per paper, these fabricated citations evaded detection, appearing in 53 published papers (approx. 1% of all accepted papers). We develop a five-category taxonomy that classifies hallucinations by their failure mode: Total Fabrication (66%), Partial Attribute Corruption (27%), Identifier Hijacking (4%), Placeholder Hallucination (2%), and Semantic Hallucination (1%). Our analysis reveals a critical finding: every hallucination (100%) exhibited compound failure modes. The distribution of secondary characteristics was dominated by Semantic Hallucination (63%) and Identifier Hijacking (29%), which often appeared alongside Total Fabrication to create a veneer of plausibility and false verifiability. These compound structures exploit multiple verification heuristics simultaneously, explaining why peer review fails to detect them. The distribution exhibits a bimodal pattern: 92% of contaminated papers contain 1-2 hallucinations (minimal AI use) while 8% contain 4-13 hallucinations (heavy reliance). These findings demonstrate that current peer review processes do not include effective citation verification and that the problem extends beyond NeurIPS to other major conferences, government reports, and professional consulting. We propose mandatory automated citation verification at submission as an implementable solution to prevent fabricated citations from becoming normalized in scientific literature.

📄 PDF Abstract BibTeX arXiv:2602.05930

Code (0)

등록된 구현이 없습니다.

Similar Papers 제목 키워드 기반

WOLF: Werewolf-based Observations for LLM Deception and Falsehoods

2025-12-09 · Mrinal Agarwal, Saad Rana, Theo Sundoro, Hermela Berhe 외 arxiv

Deception is a fundamental challenge for multi-agent reasoning: effective systems must strategically conceal information while detecting misleading behavior in others. Yet most evaluations reduce deception to static clas…

Paper Copilot: Tracking the Evolution of Peer Review in AI Conferences

2025-10-15 · Jing Yang, Qiyao Wei, Jiaxin Pei arxiv

The rapid growth of AI conferences is straining an already fragile peer-review system, leading to heavy reviewer workloads, expertise mismatches, inconsistent evaluation standards, superficial or templated reviews, and l…

Reimagining Peer Review Process Through Multi-Agent Mechanism Design

2026-01-27 · Ahmad Farooq, Kamran Iqbal arxiv

The software engineering research community faces a systemic crisis: peer review is failing under growing submissions, misaligned incentives, and reviewer fatigue. Community surveys reveal that researchers perceive the p…

Multi-agent Reinforcement Learning

When AI reviews science: Can we trust the referee?

2026-04-26 · Jialiang Wang, Yuchen Liu, Hang Xu, Kaichun Hu 외 arxiv

The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capab…

Fact Checking

Does AI Reviewer See the Full Picture? Attacking and Defending Multimodal Peer Review

2026-06-10 · Xinyu Zhao, Rana Muhammad Shahroz Khan, Zhen Xu, Zhen Tan 외 arxiv

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) into scientific peer-review workflows introduces novel and significant risks for adversarial manipulation, especially given the multimodal natur…