BibTeX Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Publishing Agents: Evaluation and Mitigation
This addresses citation reliability issues for researchers and publishers using AI-assisted scientific writing, representing an incremental improvement through better integration of existing tools.
The paper tackled the problem of BibTeX citation errors in scientific publishing agents using large language models with web search, finding that overall accuracy was 83.6% but only 50.9% of entries were fully correct. They evaluated a mitigation tool called clibib, which increased accuracy to 91.5% and fully correct entries to 78.3% with only 0.8% regression.
Large language models with web search are increasingly used in scientific publishing agents, yet they still produce BibTeX entries with pervasive field-level errors. Prior evaluations tested base models without search, which does not reflect current practice. We construct a benchmark of 931 papers across four scientific domains and three citation tiers -- popular, low-citation, and recent post-cutoff -- designed to disentangle parametric memory from search dependence, with version-aware ground truth accounting for multiple citable versions of the same paper. Three search-enabled frontier models (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet-4.6, Gemini-3 Flash) generate BibTeX entries scored on nine fields and a six-way error taxonomy, producing ~23,000 field-level observations. Overall accuracy is 83.6%, but only 50.9% of entries are fully correct; accuracy drops 27.7pp from popular to recent papers, revealing heavy reliance on parametric memory even when search is available. Field-error co-occurrence analysis identifies two failure modes: wholesale entry substitution (identity fields fail together) and isolated field error. We evaluate clibib, an open-source tool for deterministic BibTeX retrieval from the Zotero Translation Server with CrossRef fallback, as a mitigation mechanism. In a two-stage integration where baseline entries are revised against authoritative records, accuracy rises +8.0pp to 91.5%, fully correct entries rise from 50.9% to 78.3%, and regression rate is only 0.8%. An ablation comparing single-stage and two-stage integration shows that separating search from revision yields larger gains and lower regression (0.8% vs. 4.8%), demonstrating that integration architecture matters independently of model capability. We release the benchmark, error taxonomy, and clibib tool to support evaluation and mitigation of citation hallucinations in LLM-based scientific writing.