Who's Adam? Benchmarking Hallucinations in Scientific Dialogue

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) are increasingly applied in scientific dialogue, but it remains unclear whether they can reliably ground specific dialogue statements to paper-based evidence. A central challenge is paper-grounded hallucination under a paper-as-truth setting: statements that are contradicted by, not found in, or otherwise not decidable from the paper PDF. These hallucinations can be caused by both human misinterpretations and model-generated assertions, ultimately undermining the efficiency, fairness, and credibility of scientific dialogue. Existing benchmarks often overlook this issue, focusing either on subjective macro-level quality assessments or lacking cross-modal evidence localization. We introduce ADAM-Bench (Auditing Dialogue Assertions with Multimodal Evidence), a benchmark for paper-grounded hallucinations in scientific dialogue. Starting from around 27,000 papers, ADAM-Bench is a multi-layer benchmark with three tiers: Scale, Core, and Gold. ADAM-Bench pairs approximately 1 million atomic claims with over 7 million multimodal evidence objects extracted from the corresponding PDFs. We build it through a four-stage pipeline of claim atomization, candidate evidence recall, model-assisted pre-alignment, and human verification. Based on this dataset, we define two tasks: hallucination detection and minimal evidence set localization. Additionally, to avoid the brittleness introduced by single-rationale supervision, we formalize minimal evidence as a set of equivalent evidence sets and evaluate localization by best-matching against multiple gold evidence sets. We conduct a comprehensive benchmark of 34 LLMs and 10 LMMs, spanning large proprietary models (Claude-Opus-4-6, GPT-5.2) and open-source models (Qwen3-235B, GLM-4.6V 106B). Results are markedly low (25.2%--51.1%), indicating that grounding conversational hallucinations in real multimodal papers remains far from solved. We hope this benchmark will contribute to building scientific assistants that make calibrated judgments, cite minimal, auditable evidence, and mitigate the impact of hallucinations in scientific discovery evaluation.