What exactly is the analogy you’re suggesting, using LLMs to verify the citations?

not OP, but that wouldn't really be necessary.

One could submit their bibtex files and expect bibtex citations to be verifiable using a low level checker.

Worst case scenario if your bibtex citation was a variant of one in the checker database you'd be asked to correct it to match the canonical version.

However, as others here have stated, hallucinated "citations" are actually the lesser problem. Citing irrelevant papers based on a fly-by reference is a much harder problem; this was present even before LLMs, but this has now become far worse with LLMs.

▲

thfuran a day ago | parent [-]

Yes, I think verifying mere existence of the cited paper barely moves the needle. I mean, I guess automated verification of that is a cheap rejection criterion, but I don’t think it’s overall very useful.

	▲	alexcdot a day ago \| parent [-]
		really good point. one of the cofounders of gptzero here! the tool gptzero used in the article also detects if the citation supports the claim too, if you scroll to "cited information accuracy" here: https://app.gptzero.me/documents/1641652a-c598-453f-9c94-e0b... this is still in beta because its a much harder problem for sure, since its hard to determine if a 40 page paper supports a claims (if the paper claims X is computationally intractable, does that mean algorithms to compute approximate X are slow?)