Do Deployment Constraints Make LLMs Hallucinate Citations? An Empirical Study across Four Models and Five Prompting Regimes

Scientific research relies on citation integrity, yet large language models (LLMs) have introduced a critical risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications. As manual verification becomes infeasible and existing automated tools remain fragile, we introduce CiteAudit, a comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations. We design a multi-agent verification pipeline that decomposes citation checking into metadata extraction, memory lookup, web-based retrieval, and final judgment. To evaluate this, we construct a large-scale, human-validated dataset spanning diverse domains and hallucination types. Experiments demonstrate that our framework achieves superior verification performance over state-of-the-art LLMs and commercial baselines. Our work provides the necessary infrastructure to audit citations at scale and safeguard the trustworthiness of scholarly discourse. Code is available at https://github.com/shiiiikw/CiteAudit.

GPTZero found 53 NeurIPS 2025 accepted papers with hallucinated citations, and venues now screen submissions with automated reference checkers. Rule- and Large Language Model (LLM)-based verifiers are emerging, but many are released without a shared evaluation and each flags a different kind of error, so it is unclear which to trust or when to deploy them. We address this with HALLMARK (Hallucination benchmark): 2,526 BibTeX entries spanning 14 hallucination types, with per-type and diagnostic sub-test labels and further temporal, cross-domain, and real-world evaluation splits. We evaluate zero-shot and tool-augmented LLMs, a DOI-lookup baseline, and our own co-designed rule-based verifier, bibtex-updater. Verifiers can miss hallucinations and wrongly flag correct papers, so every flag still needs human review. The false positive rate (FPR) determines the review effort and thus limits deployment. The tested models exhibit an order-of-magnitude spread in FPR; agentic lookups buy recall but inflate FPR, and neither smaller models nor prompt optimization reach the frontier's operating point. A two-stage cascade with bibtex-updater avoids that inflation, providing an upper bound, given the co-design. These rankings, however, depend on what counts as a hallucination: re-scoring the types that describe a real work cited inaccurately changes which verifier ranks first, and venues have not agreed on a definition. We call for a community definition and release per-type labels and a re-scoring protocol so that any agreed definition can be scored against every verifier.

LLMs frequently generate fictitious yet convincing citations, often expressing high confidence even when the underlying reference is wrong. We study this failure across 9 models and 108{,}000 generated references, and find that author names fail far more often than other fields across all models and settings. Citation style has no measurable effect, while reasoning-oriented distillation degrades recall. Probes trained on one field transfer at near-chance levels to the others, suggesting that hallucination signals do not generalize across fields. Building on this finding, we apply elastic-net regularization with stability selection to neuron-level CETT values of Qwen2.5-32B-Instruct and identify a sparse set of field-specific hallucination neurons (FH-neurons). Causal intervention further confirms their role: amplifying these neurons increases hallucination, while suppressing them improves performance across fields, with larger gains in some fields. These results suggest a lightweight approach to detecting and mitigating citation hallucination using internal model signals alone.