arXiv:2604. 04074v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based reviewing systems typically assess manuscripts in isolation, leaving literature- and code-dependent claims difficult to verify.
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.
Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence. However, most existing static benchmarks risk contamination: they primarily consist of outdated claims verifiable using an LLM's internal knowledge without external evidence.
arXiv:2606. 18037v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents increasingly use the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to answer from heterogeneous evidence sources, including search, APIs, databases, clinical records, and formulary tools.
arXiv:2607. 23514v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence.
arXiv:2606. 04990v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly solve complex tasks by interacting with external tools, retrieval systems, memory modules, environments, and other agents.
arXiv:2607. 26066v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing volume of scientific submissions has motivated interest in using large language models (LLMs) to assist peer review.
arXiv:2607. 26512v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI agents can draft claims faster than authors can check whether the cited or retrieved evidence supports them.
arXiv:2510. 02027v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scholarly publishing requires scalable scrutiny supported by auditable evidence.
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.
arXiv:2606. 01120v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In RAG-based fact-checking, LLMs are increasingly used as verifiers to check given claims against retrieved evidence.
arXiv:2608. 02677v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLM code reviewers often estimate patch risk and make approval decisions in one prompt.
arXiv:2608. 05235v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions.