arXiv:2607. 02931v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI tools are accelerating scientific publication while the systems that review it struggle to keep up, and independent verification of published research has become both harder and more important.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
arXiv:2602. 11354v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The literature has witnessed an emerging interest in AI agents for automated assessment of scientific papers.
arXiv:2606. 07591v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify.
arXiv:2608. 05179v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used across the scientific research lifecycle: ideation, literature search, experiment design and execution, analysis, manuscript drafting, and review.
arXiv:2409. 11363v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research.
arXiv:2607. 02703v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this paper, we describe LLMoxie, an institutional AI platform whose three-tiered architecture supports multi-cloud and on-premise inference, a LiteLLM/MLflow control plane for authentication, budgeting, PII masking, and observability, and an application augmentation layer for AI coding agents.
arXiv:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.