scientific publishers

Abstract: Hallucinated citations make it harder to trace sources and verify the evidence behind scientific claims. Detecting them is difficult because bibliographic records can be incomplete or differ across source types and publication versions. A plausible match alone neither validates the citation nor establishes its underlying source. We introduce CiteResolve, a benchmark of 423 real-world hallucinated citations annotated for source recoverability. We further propose CiteAnchor, a source-aware grounding framework that adapts retrieval and field-level verification to each source type and separately determines citation validity and whether a unique source can be recovered. On an existing detection benchmark, CiteAnchor achieves 0.841 F1 with GPT-5.6 Luna and 0.784 with an open-weight backbone, outperforming the baseline with the same backbones by 7.9 and 36.8 points. On CiteResolve, it achieves 74.7% and 70.7% end-to-end task success, outperforming the corresponding web search baselines by 16.3 and 65.3 percentage points. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/oldwizard7/CiteANCHOR_code.

Abstract: Recent agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in generating images from textual prompts, motivating their utilization for scientific diagram generation. Scientific diagrams naturally span diverse types, each characterized by distinct visual structures and content organization. Consequently, during peer review and other scientific evaluation, human experts naturally consider type-specific criteria when assessing their quality. However, existing VLM-based evaluation benchmarks fail to reflect the above human evaluation practices for two main reasons: 1) benchmark datasets typically lack a systematic categorization of different diagram types and thus adopt the same generic criteria for all diagrams, and 2) their evaluation criteria are often designed heuristically, without explicit alignment to human evaluation preferences. Motivated by these limitations, we introduce SciDiagBench, which consists of a benchmark dataset that systematically categorizes scientific diagrams into 11 types and a human preference-guided evaluation method. Specifically, SciDiagBench contains 165 scientific diagrams across 10 broad domains, with types including graphical abstracts, technical roadmaps, and illustrative cases. Based on this dataset, SciDiagBench develops an evaluation method that leverages a preference-guided calibration process to incorporate human preferences into the generation of type-specific criteria. Ultimately, SciDiagBench enables more reliable automated evaluation that better aligns with human evaluation across diverse scientific diagrams.

Abstract: NoveltyScope is a prototype that compares a scientific paper with retrieved prior work and produces a structured report and a five-level novelty score. The system extracts the core task and at most two author-claimed contributions, then searches a closed local corpus using BM25 and dense retrieval with reciprocal rank fusion. Contribution comparisons request paired passages for potential refutations, and quotations are checked against cached source text. Four scoring roles (Prosecutor, Defender, Judge, and Critic) use the resulting evidence, with at most one revision of the Judge's score. Evaluation uses 50 class-balanced RINoBench samples whose idea-level labels are retained for full-paper input. Mean absolute error is 1.48 and 1.26 for single-LLM and multi-agent scoring with Gemini, respectively, and 1.22 and 1.16 with Qwen3. The vector-similarity baseline has an error of 1.68. A HiCLIP case study illustrates the contribution comparisons and paired evidence passages. Overall, the results demonstrate the feasibility of evidence-grounded novelty assessment and show that the multi-agent configurations achieve lower scoring errors than their single-LLM counterparts across both evaluated models.

Abstract: As large language models become increasingly capable of generating, and assisting with, scientific writing, there is a need for greater transparency and disclosure around the use of AI in research. Consequently, a veritable subfield of research and a number of commercial services aim to flag AI-generated content automatically. However, existing detectors which rely only on text extracted from PDFs fail to benefit from the rich visual information contained in the formatting of math-heavy scientific content. To study this, we select human-written proof and prose passages from pre-2022 arXiv LaTeX sources and re-generate them using 15 modern LLMs within the context of the same paper. This leaves us with coupled human and AI outputs in three different representations: the LaTeX source, a rendered image of the PDF, and the text extracted from the PDF. We find that the accuracy of the state-of-the-art Pangram 4 drops significantly as the mathematical content in a passage increases, especially when evaluated on text as opposed to LaTeX. However, this is not an inherent limitation of detecting AI-generated math: finetuning Qwen-3.5-27B based detectors on this domain recovers the gap, with LaTeX inputs performing significantly better than text since they preserve more formatting information. Since LaTeX sources are rarely available in practice, we also train SnapJudge: an image-based detector operating on screenshots of both prose and proofs from papers. At 0.1% false positive rate, SnapJudge achieves a detection rate of 92% on proofs and 93% on prose generated by frontier models, substantially outperforming both Pangram 4 and our text-based detector. We release our data, models and code at https://nlplab.cs.duke.edu/snapjudge.

Abstract: Large language models are moving from helping write up research to helping do it, which makes it important to know how the scientific text they produce differs from human writing. Work on this question has stayed mostly at the surface, using lexical and stylistic cues that light paraphrasing erases. We look instead at rhetorical structure, the sequence of argumentative moves through which a text makes its case. We study research-article introductions under Swales' CARS model, and compare original introductions from published linguistics articles with generated counterparts of the same papers. We find that human-written introductions are more flexible in which moves they use and in what order, while the generated ones are more uniform. Giving the models the CARS definitions makes them more rigid.

Abstract: AI-generated content, often called AI slop, is increasingly common everywhere, particularly in academia. Slop in AI-generated scientific papers, however, has more complex patterns that cannot be easily detected by existing token-based AI detectors. Each part of such a paper looks plausible while the scientific reasoning that connects the parts breaks down, which can mislead how readers assess the work. We benchmark these failures as scientific slop through six measures across Structure, Argument, and Artifacts. We construct SciSlopBench with 390 AI-generated papers, mostly in computer science but spanning the life, social, and natural sciences, each paired with a human-written paper matched by research problem and contribution type. Our measures identify the AI paper in each pair with 85.9% accuracy, compared with 68.7% for Binoculars. Higher scientific slop accompanies lower ICLR ratings and distinguishes rejected from accepted papers above chance in every year from 2017 to 2025. Reducing these patterns, however, is not as simple as directly optimizing the measures. We therefore propose SciSlopHarness, a harness-level framework that guides a fixed LLM to revise slop only where the experiment records support the change. While standard revisions leave residual slop and direct slop-aware prompting triggers reward hacking, SciSlopHarness reduces the remaining AI-human gap by 63% over the strongest revision baseline without requiring human reference targets. Overall, we demonstrate that AI-generated scientific papers leave fundamental traces in their global reasoning, and that responsible mitigation demands strict evidentiary grounding rather than mere prose refinement.

Abstract: Language models leave a distinctive vocabulary in the prose they help write, and we measure how much of the astronomy literature now carries it. From the full text of 207,111 astro-ph papers spanning 2015 to mid-2026, we count those words in each paper and model the counts, in proportion to paper length, as a mixture of assisted and unassisted writing in a hierarchical Bayesian model. Papers from before 2020 calibrate the unassisted rate, and the 392 papers that disclose model use calibrate the assisted one. Our answer depends on how often these words would appear today if nobody used a model, a rate that must be modeled rather than observed, so we extend it past 2020 under three assumptions and report all three. For 2025 that gives $54^{+8}_{-8}\,(\mathrm{stat},\,95\%)\,^{+26}_{-0}\,(\mathrm{sys,\ background})$% of papers, the second error being the spread across the three. The estimate stays at or above 36% when we vary that choice, the calibration, and the requirement that adoption only rises. A word list built from the astro-ph corpus, keeping only words that rose across every subfield, leaves 2025 in the same range. Assisted writing is also getting harder to see, since authors adapt to the words that reveal it and the marker excess more than halves between 2023 and 2026. Our model allows for that fading, so it can separate a fainter trace from reduced use. More than half of recent astro-ph papers therefore carry a language-model trace, while only 0.81% of 2025 papers disclose it, one declaration for every $\sim$66 papers with a trace.