Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions

Post by sj01f » Fri, Dec 12, 2025, 8:04 AM UTC

If the inaccuracies are limited to metadata and do not constitute scientific fabrication, the most plausible explanation is that the author attempted to patch incomplete Zotero exports using GPT, inadvertently introducing errors.

Such errors arise from the uncritical adoption of automated tools and a failure to verify outputs manually. This reflects academic laxity and an excessive trust in LLMs. As AI tools become ubiquitous in research—even for generating encyclopedic content—some individuals have developed a misplaced confidence in GPT, leading them to undervalue the importance of citation accuracy.

However, while this is undeniably negligent, it does not validate wholesale dismissal of the paper’s scientific merit, nor does it warrant ad hominem attacks. Demanding the end of an academic career for citation errors is a draconian measure akin to a witch hunt.

Post by noitpmeder » Sat, Dec 13, 2025, 1:38 AM UTC

vkou wrote: post #306

noitpmeder wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd go one further and say all published papers should come with a clear list of "claimed truths", and one is only able to cite said paper if they are linking in to an explicit truth. Then you can build a true hierarchy of citation dependencies, checked 'statically', and have better indications of impact if a fundamental truth is disproven, ...

Have you authored a lot of non-CS papers? Could you provide a proof of concept paper for that sort of thing? Not a toy example, an actual example, derived from messy real-world data, in a non-trivial[1] field? --- [1] Any field is non-trivial when you get deep enough into it.

I'd say my expectation is papers should be minimal in their effect, and compounding. If your project proves new facts, either they should be clearly enumerable (with as much specificity as possible), or your project/presentation/paper should be broken up to the point your findings ARE enumerable.

Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions

Re: Over fifty new hallucinations in ICLR 2026 submissions