It is very concerning that these hallucinations passed through peer review. It's not like peer review is a fool-proof method or anything, but the fact that reviewers did not check all references and noticed clearly bogus ones is alarming and could be a sign that the article authors weren't the only ones using LLMs in the process...

▲

amanaplanacanal 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Is it common for peer reviewers to check references? Somehow I thought they mostly focused on whether the experiment looked reasonable and the conclusions followed.

▲

emil-lp 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In journal publications it is, but without DOIs it's difficult.

In conference publications, it's less common.

Conference publications (like NEURips) is treated as announcement of results, not verified.

	▲	empiko 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Nobody in ML or AI is verifying all your references. Reviewers will point out if you miss a super related work, but that's it. This is especially true with the recent (last two decades?) inflation in citation counts. You regularly have papers with 50+ references for all kinds of claims and random semirelated work. The citation culture is really uninspiring.