arXiv:2608. 16795v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Systems that generate scientific research questions are evaluated today by expert scores, LLM-as-judge ratings, or curated case studies -- all subjective, none falsifiable.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2607. 05682v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM systems for scientific discovery increasingly assist with ideation, literature synthesis, experiment planning, and report generation, but the first research question they propose can remain difficult to audit: it may sound plausible without exposing the mechanism, falsifier, or assumption that a scientist should inspect.
arXiv:2608. 09968v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current AI systems are optimized for answering questions; the scientific enterprise is bottlenecked earlier, at discovering the questions worth investigating.
arXiv:2607. 00276v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current large-language-model (LLM) physics benchmarks are usually scored by answer accuracy, which cannot distinguish genuine reasoning from recall of familiar problem patterns and reveals little about where a model's reasoning breaks down.
arXiv:2606. 27383v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as research assistants, yet it remains unclear whether they can calibrate research takeaways to the strength and scope of the supporting evidence.
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:2608. 09393v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We identify and quantify temporal misgrounding: the systematic retrieval and citation of the currently in-force version of a legal article when the applicable version is an earlier or future one.