aiqbench analysis
This paper reframes generative AI hallucinations in scientific contexts not as data contamination but as inherent generative artifacts, proposing a reliabilist framework where human-curated workflows act as essential filters for epistemic validation. By analyzing case studies like AlphaFold and SEEDS, the author demonstrates how pre-existing domain knowledge prevents erroneous outputs from propagating, effectively turning scientific processes into autonomous units of evaluation. This work is critical for understanding the limits and reliability of generative models within rigorous research environments.
From Hallucination to Reliability: Generative Modeling and the Structure of Scientific Inference
arXiv:2504.08526v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Generative AI is increasingly used in science, but is unavoidably prone to hallucination. I develop a reliabilist account of how generative AI nevertheless gives rise to new scientific knowledge. I analyze hallucinations as non-strategic misrepresentations of the target phenomenon, introduced by a model's generative activity, rather than inherited from training data. Through case studies of AlphaFold and SEEDS, I show how scientific workflows draw on pre-existing knowledge of target phenomena to filter or qualify hallucinatory outputs, thereby preventing their erroneous content from propagating into downstream inference. Finally, I show that workflows are units of epistemic evaluation in their own right.
Abstract:Generative AI is increasingly used in science, but is unavoidably prone to hallucination. I develop a reliabilist account of how generative AI nevertheless gives rise to new scientific knowledge. I analyze hallucinations as non-strategic misrepresentations of the target phenomenon, introduced by a model's generative activity, rather than inherited from training data. Through case studies of AlphaFold and SEEDS, I show how scientific workflows draw on pre-existing knowledge of target phenomena to filter or qualify hallucinatory outputs, thereby preventing their erroneous content from propagating into downstream inference. Finally, I show that workflows are units of epistemic evaluation in their own right.
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2504.08526 [cs.CY]
(or arXiv:2504.08526v3 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.08526 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 196 words
Related coverage

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 18, 2026

[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · Sep 10, 2026
Accelerating Scientific Research with Gemini in the Real-World
arXiv · Aug 28, 2026
Introducing North Mini Code: Cohere’s First Model For Developers
Hugging Face · Jun 9, 2026