AtomCite is an agentic framework that verifies and corrects page‑level citations in multi‑page documents by parsing answers into claims, checking each claim against the cited page image, and applying a deterministic repair policy. The authors introduce DocCite, the first benchmark for this task, built on MP‑DocVQA and DUDE, containing 928 injected instances and 1,909 verified natural errors. Across Gemini, Claude, and GPT models, AtomCite achieves about 93% verification accuracy and improves citation precision from 34% to 87‑90%, while also enhancing hallucination detection in open‑source models.
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:2609.10293v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the sou...
arXiv:2606. 18385v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) remain prone to hallucinations, producing fluent but visually unfaithful outputs.
arXiv:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.
arXiv:2607. 18240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong fact-checking accuracy, yet forced binary decisions conceal a critical reliability problem: systems may issue confident verdicts even when supporting evidence is weak, sparse, or internally inconsistent.
arXiv:2607. 29677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Enterprise workflows increasingly rely on agents for \emph{schema-guided extraction}: given a document and a user-defined schema, the agent faithfully follows the schema to produce the correct output with source evidence as grounding metadata.
The paper introduces CAMS, a Claim‑Anchored Multi‑Document Summarization framework that decomposes source documents into atomic claims, resolves provenance deterministically from verbatim quotes to token spans, clusters equivalent claims across documents, and rewrites summaries so each sentence ends with claim identifiers linking back to source spans. CAMS separates provenance (an invariant for each emitted sentence) from faithfulness (an objective encouraged by selection, rewriting, and verification). Evaluations on MultiNews, DiverseSumm, and zero‑shot WCEP show that CAMS matches strong baselines in summary quality while improving faithfulness and citation precision, raising attribution accuracy from 38% to 64% and reducing human verification time per claim by 3.4×.
arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.
arXiv:2607. 00738v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record.
arXiv:2608. 15574v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Video question answering systems built on vision-language models often produce timestamped claims with high confidence even when unsupported by the cited frame.
arXiv:2609.00654v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scien...
arXiv:2606. 19749v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: A new class of agentic review systems are emerging as a remedy to the pressure placed on peer review systems by AI-assisted research, but it is unclear how they should be evaluated.