100篇顶会论文藏了假参考文献,揭示AI写作的隐蔽造假模式。
Compound Deception in Elite Peer Review: A Failure Mode Taxonomy of 100 Fabricated Citations at NeurIPS 2025
- 按五类失效模式分类,发现所有假引用都复合多层欺骗。
- 92%论文仅1-2个假引用,8%含4-13个,反映使用强度差异。
- 假引用常伪装成真实条目,绕过人工审稿,适合研究可信度者看。
大型语言模型在学术写作中日益普及,但常产生不存在的参考文献。本研究分析了在2025年神经信息处理系统会议(NeurIPS)录用的100篇论文中出现的AI生成假引用。尽管每篇论文经3-5名专家评审,仍有53篇(约1%)包含假引用。我们提出五类失效模式分类:完全虚构(66%)、部分属性篡改(27%)、标识符劫持(4%)、占位符幻觉(2%)、语义幻觉(1%)。分析发现,所有假引用(100%)均具复合失败特征,其中语义幻觉(63%)和标识符劫持(29%)常与完全虚构结合,增强可信度与可查证假象。该分布呈双峰模式:92%含1-2个假引用(轻度使用),8%含4-13个(重度依赖)。结果表明当前同行评审缺乏有效引用验证机制,问题已扩展至其他顶级会议、政府报告与专业咨询领域。建议在投稿时强制引入自动化引用验证以防止假引用常态化。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic writing workflows, yet they frequently hallucinate by generating citations to sources that do not exist. This study analyzes 100 AI-generated hallucinated citations that appeared in papers accepted by the 2025 Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), one of the world's most prestigious AI conferences. Despite review by 3-5 expert researchers per paper, these fabricated citations evaded detection, appearing in 53 published papers (approx. 1% of all accepted papers). We develop a five-category taxonomy that classifies hallucinations by their failure mode: Total Fabrication (66%), Partial Attribute Corruption (27%), Identifier Hijacking (4%), Placeholder Hallucination (2%), and Semantic Hallucination (1%). Our analysis reveals a critical finding: every hallucination (100%) exhibited compound failure modes. The distribution of secondary characteristics was dominated by Semantic Hallucination (63%) and Identifier Hijacking (29%), which often appeared alongside Total Fabrication to create a veneer of plausibility and false verifiability. These compound structures exploit multiple verification heuristics simultaneously, explaining why peer review fails to detect them. The distribution exhibits a bimodal pattern: 92% of contaminated papers contain 1-2 hallucinations (minimal AI use) while 8% contain 4-13 hallucinations (heavy reliance). These findings demonstrate that current peer review processes do not include effective citation verification and that the problem extends beyond NeurIPS to other major conferences, government reports, and professional consulting. We propose mandatory automated citation verification at submission as an implementable solution to prevent fabricated citations from becoming normalized in scientific literature.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。