Can a language model recover the true research idea of a published paper when given only that paper's pre-publication bibliography? We introduce Reconstruction, a blind idea-recovery benchmark that withholds the seed paper and all contemporaneous or future literature, and asks models to propose hypotheses that an independent large language model judge matches against the held-out ground-truth idea.
arXiv:2608. 16645v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Can a language model recover the true research idea of a published paper when given only that paper's pre-publication bibliography?
arXiv:2609.14248v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Faithful citation attribution begins with identifying the intended source for a scientific claim. We study this source-identification capability thro...
arXiv:2609.13760v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Publishing a research manuscript is a routine yet demanding part of scientific life: time-consuming, stressful, and often uncertain in outcome. Recent...
The paper "Learning to Ideate for Scientific Impact" explores using delayed signals of scientific uptake—specifically citation-normalized impact—as feedback to steer large language models toward generating high‑impact research ideas. The authors build a dataset of over 100,000 computer science papers, train a reward model to predict citation impact from goal‑idea pairs, and align an idea generator via supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning. Evaluation with a reference‑grounded protocol shows that the RL‑tuned model consistently produces ideas with higher estimated impact than baseline models.
arXiv:2608. 05157v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Double blind peer review serves as the scientific community primary defense against status and affiliation bias.
The paper investigates how large language models can extract contextualized data from scientific literature. It presents four workflows: expert‑written prompts, self‑generated prompts, autonomous literature discovery, and dataset creation from guidelines. While models perform well with prompts, they struggle with context, hallucinate references, and still need human oversight for final validation.
arXiv:2608. 19230v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As language models move from drafting prose to running literature-search agents with tool calls, fabricated references are becoming easier to catch and constrain.
arXiv:2605.30947v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM-based research agents have advanced rapidly in science and engineering, where research is organized around executable experiments, code, and qu...
Scientific weak signals are early, low-visibility research directions that later become central to mature scientific topics, yet existing resources such as trend tracking, citation forecasting, and fo...
arXiv:2509. 00761v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed for legal question answering, where evaluations typically focus on multiple-choice accuracy.
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
arXiv:2607. 18360v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set.