arXiv:2607. 16989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Introduction.
arXiv:2608. 13786v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used to answer clinical questions with citations to relevant clinical studies.
arXiv:2606. 28363v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Objective: To describe the architecture and design rationale of meta-pipe, an open-source large language model (LLM)-agent pipeline that integrates the complete systematic review and meta-analysis (SR/MA) workflow -- from literature search through statistical analysis, manuscript generation, and quality assurance -- with mandatory human oversight at critical decision points.
arXiv:2606. 05436v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Summarizing the latest medical literature to guide clinical decision-making is essential for evidence-based medicine and high-quality patient care.
arXiv:2510. 02027v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scholarly publishing requires scalable scrutiny supported by auditable evidence.
arXiv:2607. 20923v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building.
arXiv:2607. 28631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist systems capable of autonomous research have the potential to significantly accelerate scientific discovery.
arXiv:2605. 04135v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Readers of applied-domain LLM capability evaluations want to know what AI systems can currently do.
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:2608. 08975v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions.
arXiv:2607. 02175v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multiple-choice medical benchmarks are increasingly saturated, and recent rubric-based evaluations such as HealthBench have shown that open-ended clinical performance is far from solved - its "Hard" subset top score remains 32%.
As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions.
arXiv:2606. 10159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage.