<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2602.23452/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2602.23452/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era — mentioned by tkgally</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49272004</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2602.23452:49272004</guid><pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2026 13:20:36 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I didn’t ask it not to hallucinate. I had it prompt other LLMs to do web searches to confirm whether the citations, references, and other information that it had initially produced were correct. I certainly don’t claim that this technique was original. There have been many reports of people using similar methods: “CiteAudit: You Cited It, But Did You Read It? A Benchmark for Verifying Scientific References in the LLM Era” https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23452v3 “CiteLLM: An Agentic Platform for Trustworthy Scientific Reference Discovery” https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.23075v1 “Source or It Didn’t…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2602.23452/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
