Large Language Models (LLMs) often hallucinate, generating nonsensical or false information that can be especially harmful in sensitive fields such as medicine or law. To study this phenomenon systematically, we introduce FalseCite, a curated dataset designed to capture and benchmark hallucinated responses induced by misleading or fabricated citations. Running GPT-4o-mini, Falcon-7B, and Mistral 7-B through FalseCite, we observed a noticeable increase in hallucination activity for false claims with deceptive citations, especially in GPT-4o-mini. Using the responses from FalseCite, we can also analyze the internal states of hallucinating models, visualizing and clustering the hidden state vectors. From this analysis, we noticed that the hidden state vectors, regardless of hallucination or non-hallucination, tend to trace out a distinct horn-like shape. Our work underscores FalseCite’s potential as a foundation for evaluating and mitigating hallucinations in future LLM research.

As neural networks are increasingly deployed in dynamic environments, they face the challenge of catastrophic forgetting, the tendency to overwrite previously learned knowledge when adapting to new tasks, resulting in severe performance degradation on earlier tasks. We propose Selective Forgetting-Aware Optimization (SFAO), a dynamic method that regulates gradient directions via cosine similarity and per-layer gating, enabling controlled forgetting while balancing plasticity and stability. SFAO selectively projects, accepts, or discards updates using a tunable mechanism with efficient Monte Carlo approximation. Experiments on standard continual learning benchmarks show that SFAO achieves competitive accuracy with markedly lower memory cost, a 90% reduction, and improved forgetting on MNIST datasets, making it suitable for resource-constrained scenarios.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities across various tasks, yet their potential to reason about and construct scientific methodologies remains under explored. This work introduces a novel benchmark evaluating LLMs’ capacity to predict methodological details in AI research papers. We construct a dataset of 88 papers with redacted methodology sections and zero-shot prompt several state-of-the-art LLMs to generate methodology predictions. Our evaluation framework then employs a LLM-as-judge system with multiple LLM judges, majority voting, and self-omission techniques to minimize biases. We validate our LLM judge scores against human judgments. We then briefly analyze the judging results of our zero-shot prediction pipeline, suggesting that even state-of-the-art LLMs struggle with the task of methodology generation without more advanced techniques. This benchmark lays the groundwork for future research into evaluating LLMs’ potential for aiding in AI research.