arXiv:2610.07937v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Redpine Science gives models and agents a single access point to a wide range of peer-reviewed literature, queried directly through the Model Context P...
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: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:2607. 28618v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Chemistry literature synthesis often requires assembling specific findings scattered across many publications, yet existing literature-search systems primarily return ranked document lists.
arXiv:2609.24101v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated biomedical evidence synthesis depends on retrieving published studies, but the biomedical literature is systematically skewed toward positive...
arXiv:2607. 28229v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The web is increasingly accessed by AI agents rather than humans.
Automated biomedical evidence synthesis depends on retrieving published studies, but the biomedical literature is systematically skewed toward positive findings. Deeper retrieval can therefore make a...
AtomCite is an agentic framework that verifies and corrects page‑level citations in multi‑page documents by parsing answers into claims, checking each claim against the cited page image, and applying a deterministic repair policy. The authors introduce DocCite, the first benchmark for this task, built on MP‑DocVQA and DUDE, containing 928 injected instances and 1,909 verified natural errors. Across Gemini, Claude, and GPT models, AtomCite achieves about 93% verification accuracy and improves citation precision from 34% to 87‑90%, while also enhancing hallucination detection in open‑source models.
MedRAGChecker is a claim-level verification framework designed for biomedical retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG). It decomposes generated answers into atomic claims and assesses each claim’s support by combining evidence‑grounded natural language inference with biomedical knowledge‑graph consistency signals. The aggregated claim decisions provide diagnostics that distinguish retrieval and generation failures, such as faithfulness, under‑evidence, contradiction, and safety‑critical errors, and the system is distilled into compact models for scalable evaluation.
arXiv:2509. 00761v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models are increasingly deployed for legal question answering, where evaluations typically focus on multiple-choice accuracy.
BioStudyBench is a new benchmark that tests AI agents on 25 long‑horizon analysis tasks derived from biomedical studies published between July and September 2026, after the models’ knowledge cutoffs. Each task gives the agent a neutral research question but no data files, requiring it to locate and download relevant public data, search literature using tools limited to pre‑cutoff records, and perform data analysis to report findings. The benchmark shows that providing data and tools improves model performance by an average of 47 percentage points, with closed‑weight models outperforming open‑weight ones (best open‑weight 81.3% vs. best closed‑weight 94.7%).
We evaluate whether AI agents can match the reported findings of published biomedical studies using public data. Existing evaluations do not consistently separate analysis from prior knowledge or retr...