arXiv:2604. 04074v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based reviewing systems typically assess manuscripts in isolation, leaving literature- and code-dependent claims difficult to verify.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2607. 18240v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can achieve strong fact-checking accuracy, yet forced binary decisions conceal a critical reliability problem: systems may issue confident verdicts even when supporting evidence is weak, sparse, or internally inconsistent.
Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence. However, most existing static benchmarks risk contamination: they primarily consist of outdated claims verifiable using an LLM's internal knowledge without external evidence.
arXiv:2606. 18037v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tool-using LLM agents increasingly use the Model Context Protocol (MCP) to answer from heterogeneous evidence sources, including search, APIs, databases, clinical records, and formulary tools.
arXiv:2607. 23514v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multimodal automated fact-checking (MAFC) verifies claims by retrieving and reasoning over external evidence.
arXiv:2606. 04990v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based agents increasingly solve complex tasks by interacting with external tools, retrieval systems, memory modules, environments, and other agents.
arXiv:2607. 26066v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The growing volume of scientific submissions has motivated interest in using large language models (LLMs) to assist peer review.