# The 17% Gap: Quantifying Epistemic Decay in AI-Assisted Survey Papers

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.17431 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2601.17431/

## Key facts

- Cited by 2 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 3 of its 14 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 24 Jan 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 3 of 3)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [Survey of Hallucination in Natural Language Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2202.03629/) (2022)
- [Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1402.4578/) (2014)

## Built on by (most cited first, 2 of 2)

- [Does Finetuning with Scientific Data Increase Hallucinations? A Multi-domain Factuality Evaluation of LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.21359/) (2026)
- [Chronofy: A Temporal-Logical Decay Architecture for Information Validity in Time-Aware Retrieval-Augmented Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.20560/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific writing promises efficiency but risks introducing informational entropy. While "hallucinated papers" are a known artifact, the systematic degradation of valid citation chains remains unquantified. We conducted a forensic audit of 50 recent survey papers in Artificial Intelligence (N=5,514 citations) published between September 2024 and January 2026. We utilized a hybrid verification pipeline combining DOI resolution, Crossref metadata analysis, Semantic Scholar queries, and fuzzy text matching to distinguish between formatting errors ("Sloppiness") and verifiable non-existence ("Phantoms). We detect a persistent 17.0% Phantom Rate -- citations that cannot be resolved to any digital object despite aggressive forensic recovery. Diagnostic categorization reveals three distinct failure modes: pure hallucinations (5.1%), hallucinated identifiers with valid titles (16.4%), and parsing-induced matching failures (78.5%). Longitudinal analysis reveals a flat trend (+0.07 pp/month), suggesting that high-entropy citation practices have stabilized as an endemic feature of the field. The scientific citation graph in AI survey literature exhibits "link rot" at scale. This suggests a mechanism where AI tools act as "lazy research assistants," retrieving correct titles but hallucinating metadata, thereby severing the digital chain of custody required for reproducible science.