arXiv:2606. 24894v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models have shown strong fluency in scientific writing, yet the evaluation of related work generation (RWG) remains limited.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2606. 08036v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in academic research workflows, but scholarly tasks require high factual precision and therefore expose a key weakness: overconfidence.
arXiv:2606.22342v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: How does research evolve, and can we trace it at the level of individual claims? Scientific progress is not simply a uniform accumulation of facts....
arXiv:2609.01432v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentionin...
arXiv:2605.29522v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As scientific literature grows rapidly and research increasingly involves AI agents, automated survey generation has become a key capability for bo...
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 presents a controlled comparison of six retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) strategies for scientific question answering on a large arXiv corpus. All pipelines use the same LLM generator and evaluation protocol, differing only in retrieval design—ranging from classic dense retrieval to late‑interaction methods like ColBERTv2. The authors also release a synthetic question dataset and code to enable reproducible, large‑scale evaluation of RAG trade‑offs.