arXiv:2608. 05157v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Double blind peer review serves as the scientific community primary defense against status and affiliation bias.
arXiv:2609.01432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentionin...
Large language models are increasingly deployed in citation-augmented settings, yet the effect of citation presence on model behavior independent of factual content remains poorly understood. We introduce AuthorityBench, a 220,564-prompt multi-domain benchmark that isolates how citation-based authority signals influence epistemic behavior in LLMs.
The paper introduces AttriBench, a benchmark dataset that balances author fame and demographics to study quote attribution in large language models (LLMs). Using AttriBench, the authors evaluate 11 popular LLMs and find that accurate attribution remains difficult, with significant disparities across race, gender, and intersectional groups. They also identify a new failure mode—suppression—where models omit attribution entirely, which is unevenly distributed across demographics and not reflected by standard accuracy metrics.
Can a language model recover the true research idea of a published paper when given only that paper's pre-publication bibliography? We introduce Reconstruction, a blind idea-recovery benchmark that withholds the seed paper and all contemporaneous or future literature, and asks models to propose hypotheses that an independent large language model judge matches against the held-out ground-truth idea.
The paper investigates how large language models can extract contextualized data from scientific literature. It presents four workflows: expert‑written prompts, self‑generated prompts, autonomous literature discovery, and dataset creation from guidelines. While models perform well with prompts, they struggle with context, hallucinate references, and still need human oversight for final validation.
arXiv:2608. 16645v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Can a language model recover the true research idea of a published paper when given only that paper's pre-publication bibliography?
arXiv:2603. 20450v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A number of scientific conferences and journals have recently enacted policies that prohibit LLM usage by peer reviewers, except for polishing, paraphrasing, and grammar correction of otherwise human-written reviews.
arXiv:2506. 17467v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown significant potential to change how we write, communicate, and create, leading to rapid adoption across society.
The paper evaluates browser-based large language models (LLMs) for extracting detailed, contextualized data from scientific papers. It presents four workflows: (1) expert-curated prompts yield good extraction but struggle with nuance; (2) LLMs can generate effective prompts from simple instructions; (3) autonomous literature discovery is challenging, with missing or hallucinated references; (4) LLMs can build new datasets from guidelines that align closely with human experts, yet still need human oversight. The study outlines a practical, auditable workflow where experts set standards, models cross-check extractions, and researchers resolve disputes, enabling scalable scientific data curation.
This study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and how susceptible they are to manipulation by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritize knowledge from selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading, demonstrating that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment.
These names do not exist. Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived.
Large language models (LLMs) are widely used to assist writing, but this study shows they alter both tone and meaning of human text. A user study found that heavy LLM use increased neutral essays by nearly 70% and made writers feel less creative and less in their voice. Even when prompted to make only grammar edits, LLMs changed the semantic content of essays and produced AI-generated scientific reviews that were less focused on clarity and significance and scored higher on average.