The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at Hugging Face Trending Papers.
REPAIR is a self‑evolving data augmentation framework designed to improve scientific dense retrievers by addressing long‑tail concept gaps and fact sensitivity. It iteratively generates training data through diagnosis of long‑tail concepts, API‑guided evidence expansion, and hard negative mining, thereby grounding retrieval in factual reality. Experiments show that REPAIR outperforms 19 strong baselines across nine materials science and biomedical benchmarks.
The paper introduces the task of Scientific Claim Unlearning and presents a new benchmark, SciUnlearn, to evaluate it. It highlights that language models trained on static scientific corpora risk disseminating outdated or retracted claims as scientific knowledge evolves. Current machine unlearning methods fail to effectively remove claim-level knowledge, often only suppressing it superficially, underscoring the need for specialized techniques for structured knowledge removal.
arXiv:2607. 20926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources.
arXiv:2606.21359v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses signific...
arXiv:2608. 03860v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce SciRet, a compute-aware empirical study of retrieval-augmented generation for scientific question answering over CORD-19.
The paper investigates why retrieval‑based open‑ended evaluation fails in medical fact verification. By creating two detailed taxonomies—one for retrieval‑stage errors across five quality dimensions and another for verifier‑reasoning errors across six steps—the authors automatically label evidence quality and reasoning errors using an LLM‑as‑Judge pipeline. Their large‑scale stress tests across multiple retrieval methods and verifier models show that increasing model size, reasoning effort, source breadth, or medical fine‑tuning does not eliminate these failure modes, indicating fundamental limits of the retrieve‑then‑verify paradigm in open‑ended medical contexts.