AI tools that help people judge online claims are usually evaluated while the tool is present. This paper asks a different question: after using such a tool, what can the user still do on their own?
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
arXiv:2608. 08882v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI tools that help people judge online claims are usually evaluated while the tool is present.
arXiv:2606. 31273v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI-assisted research has entered a stage in which the central question is not only whether systems can generate hypotheses, run experiments, or produce manuscripts, but whether their scientific claims are calibrated to the evidence that supports them.
arXiv:2607. 26159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An AI benchmark result rarely reaches a consequential claim in one step.
arXiv:2605. 27914v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Benchmarking is mature where answers are verifiable -- math, code, reasoning -- but the fastest-growing uses of LLMs are subjective and human-facing: companionship, emotional support, counseling.
arXiv:2608. 05235v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions.
arXiv:2608. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text.