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.
By Valentin Romanov, Monique Bax, Steven Niederer
arXiv:2607. 20926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources.
By Yinhao Tang, Youqing Fang, Yanan Sun, Wenran Liu, Weiming Zhang, Bin Liu, Kuikun Liu, Wenwei Zhang, Kai Chen
The paper introduces SGHA, a fully automated system that discovers research problems by structuring scientific literature into evidence-linked objects and a typed evidence graph. SGHA operates entirely on a local 9B open‑weight language model, avoiding proprietary frontier‑model APIs, and outputs traceable research‑problem families with assumptions, objectives, success criteria, and ambiguities. Comparative experiments in five machine‑learning domains show that SGHA’s corpus‑first, evidence‑constrained approach yields inspectable research‑problem formulation without relying on external models.
By Sarvesh Gharat, Junpei Komiyama
Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs.
arXiv:2603. 22327v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) are a demanding and high-stakes form of scientific knowledge synthesis that remains underspecified as an evaluation setting for large language models (LLMs).
By Shreyansh Padarha, Ryan Othniel Kearns, Tristan Naidoo, Lingyi Yang, {\L}ukasz Borchmann, Piotr B{\L}aszczyk, Christian Morgenstern, Ruth McCabe, Sangeeta Bhatia, Philip H. Torr, Jakob Foerster, Scott A. Hale, Thomas Rawson, Anne Cori, Elizaveta Semenova, Adam Mahdi
arXiv:2606. 21005v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scientific discovery workflows often depend on structured curation from the literature.
By Sheng Zhang, Qin Liu, Renqian Luo, Shufang Xie, Reuben Tan, Sean Hayes, Gregory Bryman, Wendong Ge, Ruilian Zhang, Oluwaseun Egbelowo, Kelly Yee, Hoifung Poon
Tree-of-Concerns is a multi‑agent framework that uses specialized skeptic personas to conduct parallel debate trees, each focusing on a specific category of potential limitations in scientific papers. The system employs structured, evidence‑grounded argumentation and a panel review mechanism to correct drift and miscalibration, ultimately extracting unstated limitations. Experiments on the ToC‑Bench benchmark show that the approach improves precision by 79% and coverage by 11% over leading baselines, providing reviewers with specific, evidence‑based concerns for systematic evaluation.
By Sahil Mishra, Niranjan Rajeev, Tanmoy Chakraborty
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...
By Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu, Haidong Xue, Dong Liang, Jigao Fu, Wu YanBiao, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li
arXiv:2606. 18060v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As Large Language Model based agents enter autonomous scientific research, their ability to resist pseudoscience becomes increasingly important.
By Xinyang Liao, Lingyu Li, Huacan Liu, Tianle Gu, Yang Yao, Tong Zhu, Yan Teng, Yingchun Wang
arXiv:2509. 21028v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We introduce SciTrek, a synthetic question-answering dataset for assessing and improving long-context numerical reasoning in large language models (LLMs).
By Miao Li, Alexander Gurung, Irina Saparina, Mirella Lapata
arXiv:2606. 26449v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented systems routinely present citations alongside generated answers, yet a citation does not confirm that the corresponding source meaningfully shaped the output.
By Mohammad Faizan, Dalal Alharthi
arXiv:2505. 02763v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: One of the central promises of legal AI is to automate drudgery -- the formal, repetitive tasks of lawyers' work that consume time without calling for much discretion.
By Matthew Dahl, Eric Mart\'inez