arXiv Computation and Language

Quantifying Claim Smoothing by LLM Research Agents

arXiv AI
Sep 1

Redesigning and Auditing Deep Research Writing for Faithful Reports

The paper introduces CLAIMPROBE, a claim-level audit tool that breaks down deep-research reports into individual claims and evaluates them for hallucination, misattribution, citation hygiene, and necessary-fact recall against retrieved evidence. Using CLAIMPROBE, the authors show that even high-scoring deep-research pipelines can omit key evidence and misattribute claims. They also propose CLAIMWRITER, a hierarchical claim-based writer that extracts source facts, maps them to an outline, and drafts sections from a source-linked claim representation, which reduces hallucination by 2.6 to 4.5 times and improves necessary-fact recall by 1.2 to 1.7 times while preserving overall report quality and enabling efficient localized revisions.

By Hiroaki Hayashi, Pranav Narayanan Venkit, Prafulla Kumar Choubey, Chien-Sheng Wu
arXiv AI
Oct 9

When Citations Mislead? A Claim-Level Benchmark for Legal Hallucination Detection

The paper introduces PARCEL, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether legal claims are supported by cited authorities. Using 3,396 claims from New York State Court of Appeals decisions, the authors label each claim as Supported, Refuted, or Not Found and cast the task as a three‑way natural language inference problem. State‑of‑the‑art LLMs achieve up to 0.97 accuracy in zero‑shot settings, yet they still frequently misclassify unsupported claims as supported, especially when fabricated but plausible citations are present.

By M. Mikail Demir, M. Abdullah Canbaz
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9

CiteVQA: Benchmarking Evidence Attribution for Trustworthy Document Intelligence

CiteVQA is a benchmark that evaluates multimodal large language models on both answering document questions and providing element‑level bounding‑box citations for the evidence used. It contains 1,897 questions across 711 PDFs in seven domains and two languages, with ground‑truth citations generated via an automated pipeline and strict quality control. The evaluation metric, Strict Attributed Accuracy (SAA), rewards a prediction only when both the answer and the cited region are correct, revealing widespread attribution hallucination in current models.

By Dongsheng Ma, Jiayu Li, Zhengren Wang, Yijie Wang, Jiahao Kong, Weijun Zeng, Jutao Xiao, Jie Yang, Bangrui Xu, Yuhan Wang, Bin Wang, Conghui He
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 12

OARelatedWork: A Large-Scale Dataset of Related Work Sections with Full-texts from Open Access Sources

OARelatedWork is a large‑scale dataset for generating entire related‑work sections from open‑access papers, comprising 94,450 papers across multiple domains. It includes full texts of cited works and is designed so every source paper is available in full, enabling controlled evaluation of full‑text related‑work generation. The paper benchmarks various models, shows that large language models struggle with massive full‑text contexts, and introduces a statement‑level evaluation framework to better assess long‑form structured outputs.

By Martin Docekal, Martin Fajcik, Pavel Smrz
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 23

Peerify: Benchmarking Peer-Review Claim Verification

arXiv:2609.25046v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Peer review plays a central role in scholarly publishing, yet verifying whether reviewer claims are supported by manuscript evidence remains a largely...

By Alireza Daghighfarsoodeh, Sajad Ebrahimi, Ali Ghorbanpour, Soroush Sadeghian, Radin Cheraghi, Negar Arabzadeh, Ebrahim Bagheri
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Jun 11

Authority, Truth, and Citation Bias: A Large-Scale Multi-Domain Benchmark for Studying Epistemic Susceptibility in Large Language Models

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.

arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 1

Drift Inspector: Exploring and Measuring Scientific Drift with Atomic Contribution Claims

Drift Inspector is an open‑source system that extracts Atomic Contribution Claims (ACCs) from scientific abstracts using an LLM, then clusters these claims over time to map how a research field evolves. Applied to six years of EMNLP, the tool reveals a shift from classic NLP tasks toward LLM‑era capabilities such as reasoning and multimodality—trends that keyword or whole‑abstract counts miss. The pipeline has also processed the entire ACL Anthology, yielding 346,000 claims from 80,000 abstracts across 423 venues, with human‑validated extraction and clustering aligned to an external taxonomy.

By Vsevolod Karimov, Stepan Ostarkov, Anastasia Poroshina, Anatoly Frolov, Alexander Panchenko
arXiv AI
Aug 20

Self-prompting and cross-model consensus enable reproducible data extraction from scientific literature with large language models

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.

By Valentin Romanov, Monique Bax, Steven Niederer
arXiv AI
Sep 7

Attributable by Construction: Claim-Anchored Provenance for Multi-Document Summarization

The paper introduces CAMS, a Claim‑Anchored Multi‑Document Summarization framework that decomposes source documents into atomic claims, resolves provenance deterministically from verbatim quotes to token spans, clusters equivalent claims across documents, and rewrites summaries so each sentence ends with claim identifiers linking back to source spans. CAMS separates provenance (an invariant for each emitted sentence) from faithfulness (an objective encouraged by selection, rewriting, and verification). Evaluations on MultiNews, DiverseSumm, and zero‑shot WCEP show that CAMS matches strong baselines in summary quality while improving faithfulness and citation precision, raising attribution accuracy from 38% to 64% and reducing human verification time per claim by 3.4×.

By Shuo Guan