The paper introduces a typed reasoning graph framework to compare human and large language model (LLM) reasoning paths in scientific fact‑checking. By modeling explanations as graphs linking false claims to study context, findings, premises, and fallacy labels, the authors enable one‑to‑one alignment of human and LLM reasoning at the sub‑graph level. Using 84 false claims from MISSCIPLUS, they evaluate GPT‑5, Claude Opus 4.7, and Qwen3‑32B, finding distinct performance patterns: Qwen3‑32B has the lowest verdict failure rate, GPT‑5 shows the highest human alignment, and Claude Opus 4.7, while weak at verdict prediction, often produces valid reasoning in successful cases.
arXiv:2511. 03217v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) excel in generating fluent utterances but can lack reliable grounding in verified information.
arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.
arXiv:2606. 15931v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Historical medical archives and traditional medicines hold immense potential for drug discovery and remain a primary source for current drug development.
arXiv:2607. 19678v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI-generated answers in high-stakes domains are often fluent but difficult to verify, especially when they contain multi-step reasoning rather than a single final answer.
arXiv:2606. 16603v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM-based agents have demonstrated strong capabilities in data-intensive analytical tasks, yet their outputs are rarely verifiable: a reliance on linear text trajectories makes their reasoning difficult to audit.
arXiv:2608.15382v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for healthcare decision support, but their evaluations still reward single-answer accuracy r...
arXiv:2607. 17917v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific Reasoning Graph Extraction (SRGE) aims to recover explicit links among observations, evidence, intermediate claims, and paper-level conclusions.
arXiv:2608. 15382v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for healthcare decision support, but their evaluations still reward single-answer accuracy rather than reasoning about interventions, mechanisms, harms, evidence, and uncertainty.
arXiv:2608. 02877v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Causal discovery recovers directed structure from observational data and is increasingly used in clinical settings to support mechanism reasoning and fairness audits of predictive models.
arXiv:2606. 15246v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Provenance-enhanced statements of the form "according to $X$, $\varphi$" are pervasive in contemporary knowledge graphs, especially in domains where graph content primarily represents claims, interpretations, and hypotheses (\emph{capta}) rather than observer-independent facts (\emph{data}).
The paper introduces BioCheck Agent, an LLM-based system that generates structured biomedical fact‑checking reports using agentic search and a reinforcement‑learning framework called EG‑GRPO. Unlike prior methods that output only supported or refuted labels, BioCheck Agent synthesizes conclusions with retrieved evidence from PubMed, employing advanced Boolean search operators. Experiments show that, compared to the base Qwen3.5‑4B model, BioCheck Agent improves label prediction accuracy on SciFact by 9.95 %, raises evidence quality by 3.7 %, and reduces hallucinations by 19.63 %.
arXiv:2603. 05167v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as judges of chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning, yet it remains unclear whether they can reliably assess process faithfulness rather than merely answer plausibility.