Abstract
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 scientific 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.