So your solution to get it to not hallucinate was to ask it not to hallucinate? And you suppose that this was a novel approach? What, that people just hadn’t tried that before?
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 Happen: A Multi-Agent Framework for Citation Hallucination Detection”
https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.08583v1
I also don’t claim that such techniques are 100% effective. While the chance of different LLMs producing the same hallucinated reference is extremely small, they still rely on bibliographic information found on the web being accurate. But a human checking a paper’s references for accuracy is likely to rely on the same sources.