Source or It Didn't Happen: A Multi-Agent Framework for Citation Hallucination Detection

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reports, but they can produce references that appear plausible while containing corrupted metadata or pointing to papers that do not exist. We introduce CiteCheck, a hybrid framework for citation hallucination detection that verifies whether a citation corresponds to a real scholarly work and whether its metadata is faithful to that work. CiteCheck retrieves candidate publications from external scholarly sources, compares the citation against the retrieved candidate using a structured LLM verifier, and maps verifier scores into three labels: Exact, Minor, and Major. We also construct a 982-citation physics benchmark with controlled corruptions that capture both subtle metadata drift and fully fabricated references. On the held-out test set, CiteCheck achieves 88.7 macro-F1 and 88.9% accuracy, outperforming GPT, Claude, and Gemini baselines, including web-search and few-shot variants. These results show that reliable citation verification benefits from combining scholarly retrieval, structured LLM-based comparison, and calibrated decision rules.

Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record. Assessing this risk via technical statements is difficult and often requires expert judgment, but citations provide a more auditable surface: a reference either resolves to a real scholarly work with compatible authorship, or it does not. We measure citation hallucination in peer-reviewed proceedings using a conservative definition limited to identity-level failures: non-existent works and substantial author-list mismatches. We explicitly exclude ordinary bibliographic drift (e.g., venue/year differences, publication-status updates, minor name variants). To audit citations at scale, we build RefChecker, a verification pipeline that resolves bibliography entries against multiple bibliographic sources and escalates unresolved cases to web-search re-verification. We apply RefChecker to accepted camera-ready papers from ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS, and USENIX Security. Hallucinated citations have entered the archival record. While reference-level rates are usually below 1%, proceedings are large enough that paper-level failures are visible: in 2025, roughly one in twenty NeurIPS and USENIX Security papers contains at least two likely hallucinated academic-paper-like references under our strict definition. We also observe post-ChatGPT increases in several venues, including a tail of papers with 5+ failures in a single bibliography, and likely hallucinated citations even among award-winning papers. These results suggest peer review alone does not reliably enforce citation integrity, yet auditing is tractable (about 0.04$ per paper in one venue-scale scan). We open-source RefChecker for routine, reproducible citation verification before publication (https://github.com/markrussinovich/refchecker).

Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set. Rule- and LLM-based verifiers are emerging, but no shared benchmark compares them and gives detailed failure diagnostics. We close that gap with HALLMARK (Hallucination benchmark): 2,526 BibTeX entries spanning 14 hallucination types, three difficulty tiers, six diagnostic sub-tests per entry, and a contamination-resistant held-out split. On it we evaluate a DOI-lookup baseline, frontier LLMs zero-shot, tool-augmented agents, and our own rule-based, co-designed verifier bibtex-updater. Across the benchmark one result is consistent: the false-positive rate, not recall, decides whether a verifier is deployable. HALLMARK makes it concrete through three failure modes: agentic lookups buy recall but inflate false positives; at a venue-realistic base rate, the order-of-magnitude spread in false-positive rates (FPRs) -- not recall -- governs whether a verifier's flags are mostly true catches or mostly noise; and most LLMs over-flag papers published past their training cutoff, where only the two latest-cutoff models hold their false-positive rate near in-distribution levels (a signal we report as descriptive, since it is confounded with possible recall of those entries). Thus FPR is the deployment bottleneck, but an undetected fabrication remains the costlier error for the scientific record.