arXiv:2607. 18360v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now routinely draft literature reviews and assist with academic writing, which means a higher risk of fabricated references: GPTZero found 53 papers with hallucinated citations among NeurIPS 2025's accepted set.
arXiv:2607. 00738v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can generate polished scientific text that includes unsupported claims, allowing hallucinations to enter the archival record.
arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.
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. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.
arXiv:2606. 30689v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Spec-Driven Development (SDD) frameworks guide Large Language Model (LLM)-powered code generation through formal specifications, yet they differ fundamentally in how they enforce traceability between requirements and generated code.
arXiv:2608. 11415v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists.
arXiv:2607. 23514v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence.
arXiv:2607. 09349v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation evaluation checks whether model claims are factually grounded in retrieved documents.
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.
arXiv:2604. 12243v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Identifying promising research directions in fast-moving subareas is one of the most cognitively expensive tasks in modern AI research.
arXiv:2606. 09500v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Objective.
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.