Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

Atsuyuki Miyai, Mashiro Toyooka, Zaiying Zhao, Kenta Watanabe +2 more

Published

Apr 1, 2026

Citations

0

Trust level

High

Usefulness score

65/100 (Medium)

Extraction confidence

80% (High)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Apr 1, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics Coding Rubric Rating

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Use this as a practical starting point for protocol research, then validate against the original paper.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Human feedback signal
Detected
From extracted signals
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
65/100
Moderate-confidence candidate

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents. While AI-driven paper writing has become a growing concern, rigorous evaluation of the quality and potential risks of AI-written papers remains limited, and a unified understanding of their reliability is still lacking. We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal additional resources, and the result is subsequently compared against the original paper. PaperRecon disentangles the evaluation of the AI-written papers into two orthogonal dimensions, Presentation and Hallucination, where Presentation is evaluated using a rubric and Hallucination is assessed via agentic evaluation grounded in the original paper source. For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025. Our experiments reveal a clear trade-off: while both ClaudeCode and Codex improve with model advances, ClaudeCode achieves higher presentation quality at the cost of more than 10 hallucinations per paper on average, whereas Codex produces fewer hallucinations but lower presentation quality. This work takes a first step toward establishing evaluation frameworks for AI-driven paper writing and improving the understanding of its risks within the research community.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Rubric Rating

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Paperwrite Bench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025."

Reported Metrics

missing

Not extracted

No metric anchors detected.

"This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents."

Benchmarks and datasets

Paperwrite-Bench

Reported metrics

No metric terms were extracted from the available abstract.

Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
Yes
Feedback types
Rubric Rating
Rater population
Not reported
Unit of annotation
Multi Dim Rubric
Expertise required
Coding
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
None
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
High
Use this page as
Secondary protocol comparison source

Research brief

Metadata summary

This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents.
  • While AI-driven paper writing has become a growing concern, rigorous evaluation of the quality and potential risks of AI-written papers remains limited, and a unified understanding of their reliability is still lacking.
  • We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal additional resources, and the result is subsequently compared against the original paper.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Check the full text for explicit evaluation design choices (raters, protocol, and metrics).
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Rubric rating evaluation

Contribution summary

  • This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents.
  • We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal…
  • For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025.

Why it matters for eval

  • We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal…
  • For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Rubric Rating

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Paperwrite-Bench

  • Metric reporting is present

    No metric terms extracted.