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

TL;DR

This paper presents PaperRecon, a framework for evaluating AI-generated papers' quality and hallucination risks, using a benchmark of recent papers and analyzing model trade-offs.

Contribution

It introduces a novel evaluation framework and benchmark for assessing AI-written papers, focusing on presentation quality and hallucination risks.

Findings

ClaudeCode has higher presentation quality but more hallucinations.

Codex produces fewer hallucinations but lower presentation quality.

Both models improve with advances, yet trade-offs persist.

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.