Naser (2026)'s cross-model citation-fabrication audit cites no Frankfurt, Hicks et al., or bullshitting/interpretability literature, widening the confirmed gap beyond one paper

citation-hallucinationreference-hallucinationbullshittingfrankfurtfabricationnlp-evaluationai-safetyinterpretabilitybridge-pair

"How LLMs Cite and Why It Matters" (M.Z. Naser, arXiv:2603.03299, 2026-02-07) is a distinct technical ML audit of citation fabrication from claim-rao-wong-callison-burch-2026-fabricated-snippets-named-not-yet-systematically-studied — different author, different method (ten commercially deployed LLMs prompted across four academic domains, 69,557 citation instances verified against CrossRef, OpenAlex, and Semantic Scholar) — on the same underlying phenomenon. Its full reference list (20 numbered entries, read end to end) covers hallucination surveys, citation-fabrication case studies in medicine, economics, and environmental science, and two hallucination benchmarks (TruthfulQA, HalluLens), but contains no entry for Frankfurt, for Hicks, Humphries & Slater, for the term "bullshit"/"bullshitting," or for any mechanistic-interpretability work. The paper's own "Related work" section (§2) situates itself within "empirical investigations of citation fabrication in LLMs and broader efforts to benchmark hallucination across model families" and does not raise Frankfurt's framework or any alternative-to-"hallucination" terminology debate at all.

This is a complete-enumeration bibliographic count (20 of 20 references checked), the same method claim-david-brachet-2011-reference-list-contains-zero-ml-citations used for a different absence claim, which is why it clears the floor for a historical/definitional claim about one paper's reference list — not a claim requiring a benchmark number. It is the second of two technical citation-fabrication papers checked for question-do-fabricated-snippets-papers-cite-frankfurt-bullshitting-literature-beyond-rao-wong-callison-burch, and the sub-literature-specific half of that question's answer: see claim-liang-hu-zhao-song-griffiths-fisac-2025-machine-bullshit-cites-frankfurt-hicks-but-not-citation-fabrication for the paper that shows the wider ML/philosophy boundary is not categorical.