Xiang Li

Zuyao Xu, Yuqi Qiu, Lu Sun et al.

Citations provide the basis for trusting scientific claims; when they are invalid or fabricated, this trust collapses. With the advent of Large Language Models (LLMs), this risk has intensified: LLMs are increasingly used for academic writing, yet their tendency to fabricate citations (``ghost citations'') poses a systemic threat to citation validity. To quantify this threat and inform mitigation, we develop CiteVerifier, an open-source framework for large-scale citation verification, and conduct the first comprehensive study of citation validity in the LLM era through three experiments built on it. We benchmark 13 state-of-the-art LLMs on citation generation across 40 research domains, finding that all models hallucinate citations at rates from 14.23\% to 94.93\%, with significant variation across research domains. Moreover, we analyze 2.2 million citations from 56,381 papers published at top-tier AI/ML and Security venues (2020--2025), confirming that 1.07\% of papers contain invalid or fabricated citations (604 papers), with an 80.9\% increase in 2025 alone. Furthermore, we survey 97 researchers and analyze 94 valid responses after removing 3 conflicting samples, revealing a critical ``verification gap'': 41.5\% of researchers copy-paste BibTeX without checking and 44.4\% choose no-action responses when encountering suspicious references; meanwhile, 76.7\% of reviewers do not thoroughly check references and 80.0\% never suspect fake citations. Our findings reveal an accelerating crisis where unreliable AI tools, combined with inadequate human verification by researchers and insufficient peer review scrutiny, enable fabricated citations to contaminate the scientific record. We propose interventions for researchers, venues, and tool developers to protect citation integrity.

Xinxin Lin, Guangxin Dai, Yi Zhong et al.

Large language models (LLMs) hold transformative potential for medical decision support yet their application in psychiatry remains constrained by hallucinations and superficial reasoning. This limitation is particularly acute in light-parameter LLMs which are essential for privacy-preserving and efficient clinical deployment. Existing training paradigms prioritize linguistic fluency over structured clinical logic and result in a fundamental misalignment with professional diagnostic cognition. Here we introduce ClinMPO, a reinforcement learning framework designed to align the internal reasoning of LLMs with professional psychiatric practice. The framework employs a specialized reward model trained independently on a dataset derived from 4,474 psychiatry journal articles and structured according to evidence-based medicine principles. We evaluated ClinMPO on a unseen subset of the benchmark designed to isolate reasoning capabilities from rote memorization. This test set comprises items where leading large-parameter LLMs consistently fail. We compared the ClinMPO-aligned light LLM performance against a cohort of 300 medical students. The ClinMPO-tuned Qwen3-8B model achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 31.4% and surpassed the human benchmark of 30.8% on these complex cases. These results demonstrate that medical evidence-guided optimization enables light-parameter LLMs to master complex reasoning tasks. Our findings suggest that explicit cognitive alignment offers a scalable pathway to reliable and safe psychiatric decision support.