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 %.
By Jiongxiao Wang, Dingli Ma, Chaoqun Ni
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence.
arXiv:2506. 08134v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Peer review, the bedrock of scientific advancement in machine learning (ML), is strained by a crisis of scale.
By Qiyao Wei, Samuel Holt, Jing Yang, Markus Wulfmeier, Mihaela van der Schaar
arXiv:2606. 06025v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific peer review generation has attracted increasing attention for reducing reviewing burdens and providing timely feedback.
By Xinpeng Qiu, Wang Yihu, Zhifeng Liu, Xiaochen Wang, Jimin Wang
arXiv:2609.22104v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: As automated scientific discovery advances, Large Language Models (LLMs) can now generate research ideas at an unprecedented scale, shifting the bottle...
By Rongcan Pei, Fang Guo, Qinglin Qi, Qi Zhu, Yun Luo, Jianhao Yan, Minjun Zhu, Qiujie Xie, Dehong Zheng, Yue Zhang
arXiv:2606. 28277v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving.
By Rajesh Jayaram, Drew Tyler, David Woodruff, Corinna Cortes, Yossi Matias, Vahab Mirrokni, Vincent Cohen-Addad
arXiv:2608.21808v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multimodal Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) with visual citation is crucial for ensuring the traceability and verifiability of MLLMs. However, curr...
By Suifeng Zhao, Zida Liu, Xinyu Lei, Lei Sun, Jun Gao, Sujian Li
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...
By Yating Pan, Jiajun Zhang, Jun Wang, Qi Su
arXiv:2605.29522v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: As scientific literature grows rapidly and research increasingly involves AI agents, automated survey generation has become a key capability for bo...
By Ziyue Yang, Da Ma, Hanqi Li, Zijian Wang, Tiancheng Huang, Zijian Hu, Chenrun Wang, Yunzhe Zhang, Xiaobao Wu, Kai Yu, Lu Chen
arXiv:2606.13349v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Effective peer review requires adaptive investigation that responds to evidence emerging from each paper. Existing LLM-based reviewers largely orga...
By Haishuo Fang, Yue Feng, Iryna Gurevych
The paper introduces VERA-RL, a reinforcement‑learning framework for proactive scientific error verification in academic papers. It builds on a Reason–Verify–Scan workflow and presents VERA‑13K, a 12,900‑sample dataset with 4,300 matched reasoning chains covering six error categories across natural‑science domains. The authors also define fine‑grained rewards for reasoning completeness, evidence alignment, and error precision, and show that training Qwen3‑VL‑8B with VERA‑RL improves verifiable reasoning to levels comparable with flagship multimodal large language models.
By Rongjin Li, Yuanxin Liu, Hao Zhou, Fandong Meng, Jie Zhou, Xu Sun
The paper introduces a verification‑centric framework and benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as assistants in peer review, focusing on error detection rather than imitation of human reviews. It presents a scalable benchmark that injects synthetic errors into conference papers to test LLMs’ ability to spot logical contradictions, and proposes a Multi‑Layered Review (MLR) framework that emphasizes deep manuscript comprehension before generating reviews. Experiments show the approach aligns well with human review scores, excels at error detection, and offers complementary reviewer insights, while also revealing vulnerabilities to adversarial manipulation.
By Rachel S. Y. Teo, Yutaro Yamada, Shashank Kotyan, Yuki Imajuku, Tarin Clanuwat