arXiv:2607. 20916v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative AI lets large language models produce scholarly-looking text within seconds, yet fluency does not equal valid explanation.
arXiv:2605.30947v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM-based research agents have advanced rapidly in science and engineering, where research is organized around executable experiments, code, and qu...
arXiv:2607. 04049v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We argue that generative AI can degrade research by eroding the very practices through which scholarly judgement is formed and academic trust is built.
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:2607. 22684v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence systems increasingly mediate how science is found and credited.
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:2606. 29437v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing use of Large Language Models (LLMs) in education, software engineering, academic writing, and technical documentation raises a key question: how can we evaluate not only AI-assisted outputs, but also the interaction process that produced them?
The paper examines how large language model (LLM) outputs are increasingly used in contexts that demand justified interpretations, such as law, education, policy analysis, and public moral debate. It identifies a recurring failure—interpretive misplacement—where model-generated readings are treated as settled meanings without explicit interpretive frames, provenance, or defensible alternatives, leading to accountability loss. Drawing on philosophical hermeneutics, the author proposes design principles for human‑AI co‑interpretation, reorganizes existing LLM techniques into hermeneutically responsible patterns, and discusses implications for legal practice, education, scholarship, and public discourse, while framing digital hermeneutics as a literacy for critically engaging with AI‑mediated texts.
PaperDoctor is an agent framework that provides evidence‑grounded, actionable feedback for scientific papers before submission. It evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through a three‑layer hierarchical system, linking each critique to specific evidence and revision suggestions. The system selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments to uncover reproducibility gaps, and an interactive interface lets authors explore findings tied to their manuscript.
INDRA is a research platform that integrates multiple archival collections—such as UCSF’s Industry Documents Library, Columbia and CUNY’s ToxicDocs, and Stanford’s SRITA—into a single, LLM‑readable corpus. It employs three safeguards: a closed evidentiary sandbox, real‑time provenance tagging, and a deterministic system‑level protocol to ensure that model outputs are clearly distinguished from archival evidence and from the model’s own inferences. The platform enables large‑language‑model‑powered investigations across these archives while keeping the conditions of knowledge production transparent and auditable.
arXiv:2606. 01613v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper presents an agentic multimodal retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework for domain-specific literature reasoning, instantiated on a curated corpus of several thousand papers in intelligent tires, vehicle dynamics, vehicle control, sensing, estimation, and machine learning.
The paper introduces CoSLR, a Human‑AI collaborative system for systematic literature reviews that incorporates mandatory human checkpoints within a three‑phase pipeline using large language models and Retrieval‑Augmented Generation. In a survey of 63 participants, 42.9 % rated the system’s usability highly, yet 34.9 % indicated they would trust AI‑generated summaries without further human verification after brief interaction. The study highlights that effective human oversight in AI‑assisted literature reviews depends on users’ willingness to engage with the checkpoints, underscoring a calibration issue that interface design must directly address.
arXiv:2606. 01613v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper presents an agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework for domain-specific technical reasoning support, instantiated over a curated corpus of approximately 2,100 academic papers in intelligent tires, vehicle dynamics, and vehicle control.