This work presents and evaluates the AtomGPT reference checker, an open, web-accessible tool that verifies citations against the scholarly literature by combining large-language-model field extraction with structured retrieval from Semantic Scholar.
Abstract
Large language models are now commonly used as partners in scientific writing, and this shift has brought a subtler type of failure: made-up references. Fabricated authors, bogus DOIs, wrongly assigned identifiers, and citations that merge elements from multiple genuine articles are now being inserted into manuscripts at a volume that traditional peer review was never meant to handle. Recent audits reveal that such references have already slipped through the review process and made their way into the published literature, including leading journals and conferences. Automated verification that operates at the speed and scale of modern content production has therefore become a necessary safeguard rather than a convenience. This work presents and evaluates the AtomGPT reference checker (https://atomgpt.org/hallucination_detector), an open, web-accessible tool that verifies citations against the scholarly literature by combining large-language-model field extraction with structured retrieval from Semantic Scholar. For each reference, the tool extracts the bibliographic fields, retrieves the closest matching real papers, and scores the agreement across title, authorship, and venue to produce a graded judgment of whether a citation is trustworthy, partially supported, or likely fabricated. We benchmark the tool against an externally curated set of confirmed hallucinated citations from accepted NeurIPS 2025 papers and find that it reliably flags the great majority of them.
It is argued that hallucinated and suspicious references have become a real and growing problem for scientific communication, and that more transparent and multi-source detection systems are still needed.
Fidan Badalova, Philipp Mayr· arXiv.org· 0 citations
This study proposes a novel conceptual framework and taxonomy for hallucination mitigation in low-code AI environments, integrating retrieval, validation, conflict resolution, and workflow orchestration mechanisms to contribute to the development of more reliable, transparent, and scalable AI systems.
I. K. W. Adnyana, Rosalin Theophilia Tayane, Fahmi Fahmi et al.· EDUKASIA Jurnal Pendidikan d...· 0 citations
The study reveals that AI hallucinations have three kinds of manifestations, which include content distortion, evidence failure and improper argumentation, which comprises factual error, false or irrelevant citation, and superficially coherent arguments lacking evidence.
A unified toolkit and interactive web UI for detecting contextual hallucinations in retrieval-augmented, agentic, and memory-grounded LLM systems, and as a faithfulness gate within long-term memory systems is demonstrated.
Julia Belikova, Rauf Parchiev, Mikhail Filimonov et al.· 0 citations
A concise two-axis framework that integrates an “intrinsic-extrinsic” distinction in source attribution introduced by Ji et al. with a “faithfulness-factuality” distinction in contextual grounding surveyed is presented, yielding four clearly defined hallucination types applicable across tasks, modalities and architectu...
Misbah Khan, Preston Billion-Polak, T. Khoshgoftaar· IEEE Access· 0 citations
The findings indicate that hallucinations systematically compromise academic writing quality, distort assessment processes and undermine epistemic trust in scholarly outputs, leading to an integrated conceptual perspective linking hallucinations to epistemic risk, information integrity and digital trust.
K. Lai, N. Mustaffa, C. Preece et al.· Journal of Science and Techn...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.