Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

Synthesizing unstructured research materials into manuscripts is an essential yet under-explored challenge in AI-driven scientific discovery. Existing autonomous writers are rigidly coupled to specific experimental pipelines, and produce superficial literature reviews. We introduce PaperOrchestra, a multi-agent framework for automated AI research paper writing. It flexibly transforms unconstrained pre-writing materials into submission-ready LaTeX manuscripts, including comprehensive literature synthesis and generated visuals, such as plots and conceptual diagrams. To evaluate performance, we present PaperWritingBench, the first standardized benchmark of reverse-engineered raw materials from 200 top-tier AI conference papers, alongside a comprehensive suite of automated evaluators. In side-by-side human evaluations, PaperOrchestra significantly outperforms autonomous baselines, achieving an absolute win rate margin of 50%-68% in literature review quality, and 14%-38% in overall manuscript quality.

As AI-generated reviews move from experimental tools into peer-review infrastructure, most robustness concerns have focused on explicit attacks such as hidden instructions and prompt injection. We study a harder and more policy-relevant failure mode: no hidden text, no prompt injection, and no changes to methods, experiments, figures, equations, proofs, or numerical results. The attacker modifies only presentation-level content, such as the abstract, contribution framing, related work, discussion, and narrative structure. We introduce adversarial repackaging: a closed-loop attack that uses AI-reviewer feedback to search for presentation-level revisions while keeping the scientific evidence fixed. Across three mainstream AI reviewers, adversarial repackaging achieves a 75.1% attack success rate and a mean score gain of +1.21/10. The effect is not explained by ordinary prose polishing. We also reveal that strategies that change how the reviewer interprets the paper, such as related-work repositioning and analytical discussion expansion, substantially outperform surface edits such as local polishing, table formatting, and algorithm boxes. Our analysis reveals two deeper structural failure modes. First, AI reviewers are easier to impress than to convince: highlighting strengths reliably increases perceived merit, while attempts to dissolve weaknesses frequently backfire. Second, AI reviewers can confuse the appearance of addressing a limitation with actually resolving it, allowing unchanged evidence to be reinterpreted as stronger scientific contribution. These results show that the deployment risk is not only malicious hidden instructions, but the emergence of paper presentation itself as an optimization surface. We release a contamination-free rolling benchmark and attack framework for testing whether AI reviewers remain anchored to scientific content under presentation-only edits.

While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication. We present Prompt-to-Paper, a multi-agent framework that directly addresses this evaluation gap through three integrated innovations. First, a deterministic retrieval-augmented generation pipeline with section-aware relevance scoring and snowball citation expansion grounds every claim in a verifiable corpus of 60--100 papers. Second, an autonomous coding agent executes real computational biology experiments replacing synthetic outputs with genuine numerical results. Third, an eight-dimensional automated quality scorer, benchmarked with approximate reference statistics from published papers and augmented with explicit hallucination penalties, provides standardized, reproducible quality assessments. The quality-driven improvement loop uses a context-rich reviser that routes each iteration to one of three researcher actions and fires a deep research cycle every ten iterations to re-run experiments and re-manuscript from stronger outputs. We validate the system on five bioinformatics case studies; all five cases compiled submission-formatted PDFs with zero out-of-range citations. The improvement loop raises manuscript quality by an average of +17.96 points on a 0--100 scale (maximum +26.04. As partial external checks, a human reviewer scored the five manuscripts at an average of 7.0 out of 10. Complete manuscripts are produced at approximately 0.31 USD per paper.