Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-up citations

Re:Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-... by RossBencina on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @07:06AM (#44508530)

In the past I've had GPT4 output references with valid DOIs. Problem was the DOIs were for completely different (and unrelated) works. So you'd need to retrieve the canonical title and authors for the DOI and cross check it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-... by thoroughburro on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @08:02AM (#44508948)

And then make sure the arguments and evidence it presents are as the LLM represented them to be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-... by ofjcihen on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @12:44PM (#44512162)

At which point it’s more of a hassle to use an LLM than not.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-... by rixed on Thursday July 10, 2025 @01:20AM (#44517526)

And then check that the cited article was not itself an AI piece that managed to get published.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-... by cyclecycle on Wednesday July 09, 2025 @10:29AM (#44510477)

A classic case.

I work on Veracity https://groundedai.company/veracity/ which does citation checking for academic publishers. I see stuff like this all the time in paper submissions. Publishers are inundated

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Springer Nature book on machine learning is full of made-... by rbanffy on Friday July 11, 2025 @04:47PM (#44536646)

Don’t publishers ban authors who attempt such shenanigans?

[ Parent | on HN ]