Finetuning with Scientific Data Increases Hallucinations: A Multi-domain Factuality Evaluation of LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high stakes use-case. Prior hallucination evaluation work remains largely restricted to the biomedical domain, treats hallucination as a binary task, and has not examined the growing family of scientifically fine-tuned LLMs. We address these gaps with SciFactCheck, a benchmark of 2,500 prompts across five scientific domains, paired with a modular evaluation framework targeting three factuality hallucination types: unverifiability, overclaim, and attribution. Using a controlled minimal-pairing design, we evaluate 18 LLMs by comparing each scientifically fine-tuned model against its general-purpose base. Our results indicate that 1. Scientifically fine-tuned models exhibit degraded factual reliability across all hallucination types and scientific domains, and 2. Fine-tuned models are internally less confident yet linguistically more assertive. A human pilot study further reveals that current fact-checking tools show only modest agreement with expert judgments on scientific content, and that defining scientifically check-worthy claims remains contested even among human annotators. Our findings fundamentally challenge current methods of domain-specific fine-tuning for factuality and call for developing improved verification infrastructure for scientific content.

SciLaD: A Large-Scale, Transparent, Reproducible Dataset for Natural Scientific Language Processing

SciLaD is a novel, large-scale dataset of scientific language constructed entirely using open-source frameworks and publicly available data sources. It comprises a curated English split containing over 10 million scientific publications and a multilingual, unfiltered TEI XML split including more than 35 million publications. We also publish the extensible pipeline for generating SciLaD. The dataset construction and processing workflow demonstrates how open-source tools can enable large-scale, scientific data curation while maintaining high data quality. Finally, we pre-train a RoBERTa model on our dataset and evaluate it across a comprehensive set of benchmarks, achieving performance comparable to other scientific language models of similar size, validating the quality and utility of SciLaD. We publish the dataset and evaluation pipeline to promote reproducibility, transparency, and further research in natural scientific language processing and understanding including scholarly document processing.

NFDI4DS Shared Tasks for Scholarly Document Processing

Shared tasks are powerful tools for advancing research through community-based standardised evaluation. As such, they play a key role in promoting findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR), as well as transparent and reproducible research practices. This paper presents an updated overview of twelve shared tasks developed and hosted under the German National Research Data Infrastructure for Data Science and Artificial Intelligence (NFDI4DS) consortium, covering a diverse set of challenges in scholarly document processing. Hosted at leading venues, the tasks foster methodological innovations and contribute open-access datasets, models, and tools for the broader research community, which are integrated into the consortium's research data infrastructure.

LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge: automating error analysis in natural language generation

Prompting large language models (LLMs) to evaluate generated text, known as LLM-as-a-judge, has become a standard evaluation approach in natural language generation (NLG), but is primarily used as a quantitative tool, i.e. with numerical scores as main outputs. In this work, we propose LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge, an LLM-based evaluation approach with the main output being a structured report of common issue types in the NLG system outputs. Our approach is targeted at providing developers with meaningful insights on what improvements can be done to a given NLG system and consists of two main steps, namely open-ended per-instance issue analysis and clustering of the discovered issues using an intuitive cumulative algorithm. We also introduce a strategy for evaluating the proposed approach, coupled with ~300 annotations of issues in instances from 12 NLG datasets. Our results show that LLM-as-a-qualitative-judge correctly recognizes instance-specific issues in 2/3 cases and is capable of producing error type reports resembling the reports composed by human annotators. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/tunde-ajayi/llm-as-a-qualitative-judge.