To Err Is Human: Systematic Quantification of Errors in Published AI Papers via LLM Analysis

By: Federico Bianchi, Yongchan Kwon, Zachary Izzo, Linjun Zhang, James Zou

Published: 2025-12-08

View on arXiv →
#cs.AIAI Analyzed#Scientific Integrity#Automated Peer Review#LLM Analysis#Reproducibility#Meta-Research#Hallucination DetectionAcademic PublishingScientific ResearchEducation TechnologyResearch Grant FundingSoftware Development

Abstract

This paper systematically quantifies errors in published AI papers using large language model analysis, providing valuable insights for improving the reliability and integrity of AI research.

Impact

practical

Topics

6

💡 Simple Explanation

Imagine a super-powered spell-checker, but instead of fixing typos, it checks scientific papers for math errors, logical flaws, and bugs in computer code. This paper demonstrates using AI to scan thousands of other AI research papers. It found that 'to err is human' applies even to scientists, revealing a surprising number of mistakes in published works. This suggests we need automated AI tools to act as 'proofreaders' for science to ensure research is reliable and reproducible.

🔍 Critical Analysis

The paper addresses the critical bottleneck of peer review in the era of exponential AI publishing. By utilizing LLMs to automate the detection of mathematical and logical inconsistencies, it offers a scalable solution to the reproducibility crisis. The methodology is robust in parsing LaTeX sources and cross-referencing claims with code artifacts. However, the study relies heavily on the capabilities of current LLMs, raising the question of 'who critiques the critic?' There is a risk of high false-positive rates regarding semantic nuances, potentially leading authors to optimize papers for algorithmic approval rather than scientific clarity. Furthermore, the restriction to open-access papers may introduce selection bias regarding the types of errors found.

💰 Practical Applications

  • SaaS platform for universities to pre-screen theses and papers before submission.
  • Integration plugin for Overleaf/LaTeX editors providing real-time logic checking.
  • B2B service for academic publishers (Elsevier, Springer, IEEE) to filter submissions.
  • Trust-score API for preprint servers like arXiv to flag high-quality/low-error papers.
  • Consultancy service for research labs to audit internal codebases and papers.

🏷️ Tags

#Scientific Integrity#Automated Peer Review#LLM Analysis#Reproducibility#Meta-Research#Hallucination Detection

🏢 Relevant Industries

Academic PublishingScientific ResearchEducation TechnologyResearch Grant FundingSoftware Development
FEEDBACK

Projects

No projects yet

To Err Is Human: Systematic Quantification of Errors in Published AI Papers via LLM Analysis | ArXiv Intelligence