The paper proposes a normative framework for ethical use of large language models (LLMs) in scientific research, treating reasoning as a distributed process where human control remains essential for epistemic legitimacy. It introduces key constructs—content origin, human verification, responsibility assignment, accountable ownership, and epistemic outcome—to separate claim provenance from verification and responsibility. The authors argue that the ethical boundary hinges on adequate verification and accountable human ownership, and they propose an "epistemic audit" to document delegation, verification, provenance, and responsibility for transparent, reviewable AI-assisted reasoning.
As autonomous AI agents take on every stage of scientific inquiry, research output is expanding far beyond human review capacity. Yet scientific communication still relies on natural-language prose: a...
arXiv:2606. 31273v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI-assisted research has entered a stage in which the central question is not only whether systems can generate hypotheses, run experiments, or produce manuscripts, but whether their scientific claims are calibrated to the evidence that supports them.
arXiv:2608. 05602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI systems are increasingly deployed in high-stakes professional contexts, where their outputs shape what users believe, how they reason, and what they treat as settled.
arXiv:2608.28596v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly embedded in scientific workflows for literature analysis, drafting, and review. Existing systems adv...
arXiv:2501. 05844v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Causal Learning has emerged as a major theme of research in statistics and machine learning in recent years, promising computational techniques to reveal ``true'' causality.
arXiv:2607. 25637v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: F(AI)2R is FAIR research with AI in the loop, twice: an AI-assisted authoring pass and a machine-readable audit pass over every artefact.
The paper investigates when an interpretation in generative AI is considered established, arguing that passing local factual checks is insufficient. It introduces three concepts—interpretive appearance, evaluation contract, and standing substitution—to analyze how interpretations gain recognition within sociotechnical processes. The authors propose delayed closure as a practice to keep recognized interpretations revisable and outline five public requirements for transparency, evidence, failure handling, contract revision, and responsibility.
arXiv:2608. 14804v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have become the dominant interface of clinical artificial intelligence, yet the interface they expose (text in, text out, one context window at a time) maintains no explicit, persistent, governed representation of what is currently true about a patient.
arXiv:2608.28997v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: In May 2026 an OpenAI model produced a counterexample to the Erd\H{o}s unit distance conjecture. Five mathematicians published a human-verified version...
arXiv:2607. 12650v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Tool access alone does not make LLM empirical reasoning governable: accepted outputs need not descend from attested evidence, and accepted deductions need not hold up under formal scrutiny.
arXiv:2607. 25620v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quattrociocchi and colleagues warn that the fluent outputs of large language models may allow linguistic plausibility to substitute for epistemic evaluation, producing the condition they call *Epistemia*: the experience of possessing knowledge without undertaking the practices through which judgment would ordinarily be warranted.
The paper introduces Publication Authority, a single-use, non-transferable capability that ensures AI-assisted claims can be independently challenged by providing a machine-readable, falsifiable publication record. It presents the PAC-2026 protocol, evaluates its fourth bounded semantic freeze (SF-4), and demonstrates through extensive modeling that the system enforces strict obligations on evidence, authorization, and lifecycle continuity. The study confirms internal coherence, bounded safety, and fault sensitivity, though it does not address factual truth or field efficacy.