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:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.
By Ramsha Kamran, Maheera Amjad, Zartasha Mustansar, Arsalan Shaukat, Salma Sherbaz, Muhammad U. S. Khan
LongCat-DeepResearch is a deep research system that merges an enhanced LongCat model with a multi‑agent workflow to produce comprehensive, evidence‑grounded reports. The workflow separates global planning from detailed investigation, using planning agents to create a ResearchSpec and research agents to draft sections in parallel, followed by targeted local revisions guided by global review. The system achieves strong benchmark scores, including 55.25 on DeepResearchBench and 79.83 on ResearchRubrics, and shows benefits from combining planning perspectives and additional editing for readability.
By Meituan LongCat Team, He Zhu, Yue Xu, Wanli Wu, Haolin Ren, Yuxin Bian, Jiarui Zhao, Rongzhi Zhang, Quanchi Weng, Jinghao Cui, Yu Fan, Yuhan Liu, Yunhu Ye, Jiyuan Ren, Fengcheng Yuan, Zhao Yang, Jiacheng Zhang, Yuchuan Dai, Ruixuan Xiao, Haozhe Sun, Xiangyuan Liu, Cheng Sun, Yao Du, Yiming Hao, Hongbo Guo, Shuo He, Lei Wang, Xunliang Cai, Yan Chen, Fan Yang, Lingchuan Liu
arXiv:2609.14738v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it le...
By Vidushee Vats, Karun Sharma, Shengzhi Li, Shichao Pei
arXiv:2606. 18191v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep research (DR) systems are increasingly used for complex information-seeking tasks, but existing works mainly focus on generating reports and summaries.
By Md Tawkat Islam Khondaker, Raymond Li, Muhammad Abdul-Mageed, Laks V. S. Lakshmanan, Issam H. Laradji
arXiv:2605. 29861v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced autonomous agents from deep search, which retrieves concise factual answers, to deep research, which synthesizes scattered evidence into long-form reports.
By Chenghao Zhang, Guanting Dong, Yufan Liu, Tong Zhao, Xiaoxi Li, Zhicheng Dou
arXiv:2606. 31651v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent automated research systems show that language-model agents can generate hypotheses, run experiments, and write complete manuscripts, but most evidence still comes from selected examples, human-framed topics, or a few pre-defined research tasks.
By Qiong Tang, Xiangkun Hu, Xiangyang Liu, Yiran Chen, Yunfan Shao
arXiv:2610.08364v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Frontier AI evaluations increasingly use open-ended, agentic, long-horizon tasks whose transcripts can span hundreds of pages of outputs and actions fr...
By Toby D. Pilditch, Konstantinos Voudouris, Alexandra Abbas, Cozmin Ududec
arXiv:2606. 09748v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing benchmarks for deep research agents (DRAs) assess only single-shot outputs, ignoring a key question: can DRAs improve their reports when guided by feedback?
By Rishabh Sabharwal, Hongru Wang, Amos Storkey, Jeff Z. Pan
arXiv:2601. 14171v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details.
By Qianli Ma, Chang Guo, Zhiheng Tian, Siyu Wang, Jipeng Xiao, Yuanhao Yue, Zhipeng Zhang
arXiv:2608.20488v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: AI tools increasingly support tasks across the scientific research cycle, from experiment design and manuscript preparation to peer review. At the same...
By Anirudh Sundar, Min Chen, Divya Tadimeti, Gemma Zhang, Alice Li, Nigel Boachie Kumankumah, Pavan Uttej Ravva, Sadid Hasan, Somya Chatterjee, Pruthvi Prakash Navada, Xiao Wang, Yue Kang, Sulaiman Vesal, Larry Heck
Goldsmith is an agentic pipeline that transforms a small set of expert-annotated calibration examples into a reusable structured annotation definition treated as a trainable textual object. Candidate definitions are evaluated on the same gold examples using an executable structured loss, and a large language model editor revises high-loss failures only when loss decreases. The approach outperforms direct rewriting, OPRO, APE, and PromptBreeder in prompt-optimization tests and enhances downstream annotation across typed span, pair-level relation, and fixed-trigger event-argument tasks when combined with retrieval, score-based routing, and human review.
By Yihan Li, Hanyi Zhang, Xiaoxi Jiang, Man Guo