Blog
hedwigaihedwigaihedwigai

Reference checker

Check every reference in a thesis before you submit it

A reference list can look right and still be wrong. A reference checker has to answer three questions about each entry: does the work exist, are its authors and year right, and does the sentence citing it say what the work says. A citation-style checker only answers a fourth, whether the commas are in the right places.

hedwigai answers the three. Give it the whole draft, from Word, Google Docs, LaTeX or a PDF turned into text. It looks up every entry under References or Bibliography in Crossref and on the web, then reads each sentence that cites one, whether as [3], (Smith et al., 2020) or a footnote, against the work found. Your words come back exactly as written, with a verdict and its source beside each.

Why an AI-written draft needs it

More theses, literature reviews and grant proposals are now drafted with an AI, and AI writing tools produce references that look exactly like real ones. Walters and Wilder checked all 636 works cited in 84 papers ChatGPT wrote. More than half of GPT-3.5’s references did not exist. GPT-4 did better, but still invented almost one in five, and a quarter of its real references had the wrong year, authors or pages.

Works cited in 84 papers written by ChatGPT (Walters & Wilder, Scientific Reports, 2023)
GPT-3.5GPT-4
References that don't exist55%18%
Real references with an error in authors, title, year, journal or pages43%24%

Newer models invent fewer, but none invents none. And a sentence can cite a real paper that says something else. Your examiner checks by hand, so check first.

What it says about each reference

The three answers for a reference
VerdictWhat it means
FoundA record with this title whose first author and year agree, the year within one. The record is linked.
Found, butCrossref has the work, but its year or authors differ from the entry, and the note says how.
Not foundNeither Crossref nor a scholarly site on the web has it. The note asks you to check it exists as written.

It tries the DOI first, when the entry gives one. Then it searches Crossref for the title and reads every record with that title, not just the top hit, because titles get reused. When we built it, the top Crossref hit for “Language models are few-shot learners” was a 2026 record with the same title, not the 2020 paper. Only when Crossref has nothing does it search scholarly sites on the web for the exact title.

It never calls a reference fake. Books, theses, reports and very new or non-English work are often missing from Crossref, so “not found” means look it up yourself, not delete it.

Each sentence that cites a reference gets its own verdict: cited when the work states it, contradicted when a source says otherwise, with the passage quoted, and no source when nothing read states it. A sentence whose reference wasn’t found says so.

One draft, checked

Three sentences and three references: one correct, one with the wrong year, and one we made up for the test. The check took 53 seconds.

Multi-layer neural networks learn layered representations of data [1]. A 2023
study reported that GPT-3.5 fabricated more than half of the works it cited [2].
Spectral methods on citation graphs flag invented references [3].

## References

1. LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436-44.
2. Walters WH, Wilder EI. Fabrication and errors in the bibliographic citations
   generated by ChatGPT. Sci Rep. 2020;13:14045.
3. Halvorsen K, Delacroix M. Spectral sparsification of citation graphs for
   detecting fabricated references. J Sch Integr. 2021;14(2):88-104.
What the check returned
ReferenceVerdictNote
[1] LeCun, Bengio, Hinton (2015)FoundNature, 2015, doi:10.1038/nature14539. The sentence citing it was read against the paper and marked cited.
[2] Walters, Wilder (2020)Found, but“Crossref has it, but it was published in 2023.” The paper is real; the year is wrong.
[3] Halvorsen, Delacroix (2021)Not found“Not found in Crossref or on the web — check that this reference exists as written.” The sentence citing it is marked as citing a reference that could not be found.

Run it from the agent you already use

In Claude, connect hedwigai from the connector directory, attach your draft and ask it to check the references. In Claude Code, Codex, Cursor or any agent that reads skills, add the reference-checker skill, which tells the agent how to turn your file into markdown, start the check and report what it found:

npx skills add un-seen/hedwigai-skills --skill reference-checker

A check is billed per reference. A thesis with 80 references costs a few dollars, and your first workbook is covered by sign-up credit.

More head-to-head evals

SubQ, jev, Perplexity's Decider and Bespoke's Nimble on biotech diligence memos: finding the sentences a column is aboutFour decision models judge every sentence of ten biotech diligence memos for five columns, scored against sentences a person marked.
MeasureSubQjevDeciderNimble
Found, mean of five columns at section length64%65%66%68%
Mechanism of action, found at section length57%51%61%54%
Read the comparison
Leads with a reason to write: hedwigai ask, Apollo and treg on one brief40 leads each, every one checked: the right person, an inbox that accepts, and a dated reason to write.
MeasureaskApollotreg
Usable leads13 of 407 of 406 of 28
Cost per usable lead$0.037$0.27$0.23
Read the comparison
Self-hosted decisions for ask: Perplexity's open Decider in place of jev on 92 company questionsThe decisions inside hedwigai ask made by Perplexity's open Decider on two NVIDIA RTX 3090s, against jev.
Measureask with jevask with Decider
Questions right, of 928989
Wrong answers12
Read the comparison
Clinical decisions: jev and ask on System One, PubMedQA, SciFact and a 370-decision setEdgeEvals' System One board, PubMedQA, SciFact, and a clinical set built to System One's rules.
Measurejevask
Our 370 clinical decisions, right94.6%93.0%
PubMedQA, right (best EdgeEvals scored: 62.2%)77.0%74.4%
Read the comparison
Executive lookup for US-listed companies: Claude Opus 5.5 and ask on 95 questionsWho runs a public company, and how to email them: a frontier model from memory against hedwigai ask.
MeasureaskClaude Opus 5.5
Questions right, of 955963
Small companies right, of 20139
Read the comparison
Rental comps: floor-plan rents and amenities on 14 listings, five assistants comparedRent per floor plan and amenities for US rentals: hedwigai realestate-us against Claude, GPT, Gemini and Perplexity with web search.
Measurerealestate-usBest of four assistants
Floor-plan rents right, of 262623
Amenities claimed the listing doesn't state12129
Read the comparison
Company screening from SEC filings: jev, Vela 2.0 and ask on 92 yes/no questionsYes-or-no questions about public companies, answered by two decision models alone and by hedwigai ask.
Measureaskjev
Right, of the questions answered98%79%
Wrong answers, of 92219
Read the comparison
Defect localization in industrial images: four frontier models and a trained localizerFour frontier models asked to put a box around what they just described.
MeasureTrained localiserBest of four frontier models
Mean overlap with the defect (IoU, 0 to 1)0.4210.109
Read the comparison