I’ve been working on tools that specifically address this problem, but from the level upstream of citation. They don’t check whether a citation exists — instead they measure whether the reasoning pathway leading to a citation is stable, coherent, and free of the entropy patterns that typically produce hallucinations.

The idea is simple: • Bad citations aren’t the root cause. • They are a late-stage symptom of a broken reasoning trajectory. • If you detect the break early, the hallucinated citation never appears.

The tools I’ve built (and documented so anyone can use) do three things: 1. Measure interrogative structure — they check whether the questions driving the paper’s logic are well-formed and deterministic. 2. Track entropy drift in the argument itself — not the text output, but the structure of the reasoning. 3. Surface the exact step where the argument becomes inconsistent — which is usually before the fake citation shows up.

These instruments don’t replace peer review, and they don’t make judgments about culture or intent. They just expose structural instability in real time — the same instability that produces fabricated references.

If anyone here wants to experiment or adapt the approach, everything is published openly with instructions. It’s not a commercial project — just an attempt to stabilize reasoning in environments where speed and tool-use are outrunning verification.

Code and instrument details are in my CubeGeometryTest repo (the implementation behind ‘A Geometric Instrument for Measuring Interrogative Entropy in Language Systems’). https://github.com/btisler-DS/CubeGeometryTest This is still a developing process.