To Err Is Human: Systematic Quantification of Errors in Published AI Papers via LLM Analysis
Open accessAbstract
How many mistakes do published AI papers contain? Peer-reviewed publications form the foundation upon which new research and knowledge are built. Errors that persist in the literature can propagate unnoticed, creating confusion in follow-up studies and complicating reproducibility. The accelerating pace of research and the increasing demands on the peer-review system make such mistakes harder to detect and avoid. To address this, we developed a Paper Correctness Checker based on GPT-5 to systematically identify mistakes in papers previously published at top AI conferences and journals. Our analysis focuses on objective mistakes-e.g., errors in formulas, derivations, calculations, figures, and tables-that have a clearly verifiable ground truth. We intentionally exclude subjective considerations such as novelty, importance, or writing quality. We find that published papers contain a non-negligible number of objective mistakes and that the average number of mistakes per paper has increased over time-from 3.8 in NeurIPS 2021 to 5.9 in NeurIPS 2025 (55.3% increase); from 4.1 in ICLR 2018 to 5.2 in ICLR 2025; and from 5.0 in TMLR 2022/23 to 5.5 in TMLR 2025. Human experts reviewed 316 potential mistakes identified by the AI Checker and confirmed that 263 were actual mistakes, corresponding to a precision of 83.2%. While most identified issues are relatively minor, correcting them would reduce confusion in the literature and strengthen reproducibility. The AI Checker also surfaced potentially more substantive mistakes that could affect the interpretation of results. Moreover, we show that the AI Checker can propose correct fixes for 75.8% of the identified mistakes. Overall, this study highlights the potential of frontier LLMs to detect and correct objective mistakes in published papers, helping to establish a firmer foundation of knowledge.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cumulative nature of scientific research makes the knowledge ecosystem vulnerable to perpetuating errors.
“the cumulative nature of scientific research [12] makes the knowledge ecosystem vulnerable to perpetuating errors [13], [14]”
From LLM hallucinations in the wild: Large-scale evidence from non-existent citations (2026) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers
Xi, S., Rao, V., Payan, J., & Shah, N. B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21843 · cited 1×
“Only a few papers evaluated the ability of LLMs to detect errors [10, 11, 12].”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- [1]Paper Copilot. ICLR Statistics. URL: https://papercopilot.com/statistics/ICLR-statistics/ . Retrieved on December 3, 2025.
- [2]Chris R Brewin. Inaccuracy in the scientific record and open postpublication critique. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 18(5):1244-1253, 2023.
- [3]HS Darling. Statistical errors in scientific research: A narrative review. Cancer Research, Statistics, and Treatment , 7(2):241-249, 2024.
- [4]Martin Shepperd, Yuchen Guo, Ning Li, Mahir Arzoky, Andrea Capiluppi, Steve Counsell, Giuseppe Destefanis, Stephen Swift, Allan Tucker, and Leila Yousefi. The prevalence of errors in machine learning experiments. In International Conference on Intelligent Data Engineering and Automated Learning , pages 102-109. Springer, 2019.
- [6]Ruiyang Zhou, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. Is LLM a reliable reviewer? a comprehensive evaluation of LLM on automatic paper reviewing tasks. In Nicoletta Calzolari, Min-Yen Kan, Veronique Hoste, Alessandro Lenci, Sakriani Sakti, and Nianwen Xue, editors, Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024) , pages 9340-9351, Torino, Italia, May 2024. ELRA and ICCL.
- [7]Zhenzhen Zhuang, Jiandong Chen, Hongfeng Xu, Yuwen Jiang, and Jialiang Lin. Large language models for automated scholarly paper review: A survey. Inf. Fusion , 124(C), December 2025.
- [8]Zhijian Xu, Yilun Zhao, Manasi Patwardhan, Lovekesh Vig, and Arman Cohan. Can llms identify critical limitations within scientific research? a systematic evaluation on ai research papers. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02694 , 2025. · arXiv
- [9]Tianmai M Zhang and Neil F Abernethy. Detecting reference errors in scientific literature with large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.06101 , 2024. · arXiv
- [10]Ryan Liu and Nihar B Shah. Reviewergpt? an exploratory study on using large language models for paper reviewing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.00622 , 2023. · arXiv
- [12]Xiaoyuan Li, Wenjie Wang, Moxin Li, Junrong Guo, Yang Zhang, and Fuli Feng. Evaluating mathematical reasoning of large language models: A focus on error identification and correction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.00755 , 2024. · arXiv
- [14]Nitya Thakkar, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jake Silberg, Animesh Garg, Nanyun Peng, Fei Sha, Rose Yu, Carl Vondrick, and James Zou. Can llm feedback enhance review quality? a randomized study of 20k reviews at iclr 2025. ArXiv , abs/2504.09737, 2025. · arXiv
- [15]Federico Bianchi, Owen Queen, Nitya Thakkar, Eric Sun, and James Zou. Exploring the use of ai authors and reviewers at agents4science. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.15534 , 2025. · arXiv
- [16]Zachary Izzo, Sandeep Silwal, and Samson Zhou. Dimensionality reduction for wasserstein barycenter. In A. Beygelzimer, Y. Dauphin, P. Liang, and J. Wortman Vaughan, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2021.
- [17]Yongchan Kwon and James Zou. WeightedSHAP: analyzing and improving shapley based feature attributions. In Alice H. Oh, Alekh Agarwal, Danielle Belgrave, and Kyunghyun Cho, editors, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , 2022.
- [18]Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Pratyusha Kalluri, Dan Jurafsky, and James Zou. When and why vision-language models behave like bags-of-words, and what to do about it? In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations , 2023.
- [19]Kevin Fu Jiang, Weixin Liang, James Zou, and Yongchan Kwon. Opendataval: a unified benchmark for data valuation. In Thirty-seventh Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems Datasets and Benchmarks Track , 2023.
- [20]Yongchan Kwon, Eric Wu, Kevin Wu, and James Zou. Datainf: Efficiently estimating data influence in loRA-tuned LLMs and diffusion models. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations , 2024.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
LLM hallucinations in the wild: Large-scale evidence from non-existent citations
Zhao, Z., Wang, Y., Stuart, T., De Vaan, M., Ginsparg, P., & Yin, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.07723 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“While the widespread use of GenAI in scientific production has already reshaped productivity dynamics and quality signals [11], the cumulative nature of scientific research [12] makes the knowledge ecosystem vulnerable to perpetuating errors [13], [14].”
Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation
Baumann, J., Pei, J., Koyejo, S., & Hovy, D. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2605.03202
“AI tools for detecting errors in papers, such as errors in proofs or statistical analyses, are becoming increasingly common (Liu & Shah, 2023; Bianchi et al., 2025a).”
- Authors
- Bianchi, F., Kwon, Y., Izzo, Z., Zhang, L., & Zou, J.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2512.05925
- OpenAlex
- W4417144655
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (acceptedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Research
- Keywords
- reproducibility, large language models, GPT-5, peer review, NeurIPS, ICLR
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
