Cross-Source Reasoning-based Correction for Author Name Disambiguation

Understanding the historical allocation and distribution of research funding advances our knowledge of how scientific research is supported across fields, institutions, and regions. However, large-scale analyses are hindered by the lack of comprehensive funder name disambiguation solutions, as funder names often exhibit spelling variations, translations, abbreviations, and inconsistent levels of granularity. In this paper, we present a framework for developing multilingual, multi-functional funder name disambiguation models and demonstrate its application to research publications in biodiversity conservation. To construct a training dataset, we integrated the Research Organization Registry (ROR), which provides unique identifiers for research organizations, with two publication datasets: the Web of Science (WoS) and the Crossref Open Funder Registry (OFR). We used multi-task learning with Contrastive Loss and Multiple Negatives Ranking Loss to fine-tune three open-weight embedding models from the Sentence Transformer, Gemma, and Qwen3 families. The best-performing models achieved accuracy above 0.90 when matching WoS funder names to ROR identifiers, outperforming general-purpose LLMs, including GPT-5.2, Claude-Sonnet-4.6, and Gemini-2.5-Flash, by more than 0.1. For funder names not indexed in ROR, we constructed a similarity network among funder names and identified clusters within it. Finally, we analyzed the disambiguation results and highlighted challenges arising from limited knowledge of smaller funders and funders from non-English-speaking countries. This work provides a reusable framework for funder name disambiguation with potential applicability across different model architectures and datasets, featuring cost-effective training data creation and multi-task learning and disambiguation.

Accurate citations are the foundation of academic writing, tracing intellectual origins and substantiating core claims. However, manually navigating the growing volume of scientific literature is increasingly difficult, prompting reliance on automatic citation recommendation. While modern retrieval-augmented architectures have largely mitigated the fabrication of non-existent papers, current systems relying on semantic similarity struggle with misattribution, often citing authentic papers that fail to logically support the author's claim. To address this challenge, we argue that accurate citation requires a shift from similarity-based search to active, claim-level reasoning. We propose ReCite, a decoupled agentic framework that orchestrates location perception, intent-aware query planning, and reflective verification. Trained on synthesized reasoning trajectories, our agent verifies claim-evidence consistency and triggers self-correction loops when retrieved candidates lack logical support. Experiments demonstrate that our lightweight framework outperforms state-of-the-art massive generative models in strict citation accuracy. By grounding literature matching in verifiable logic rather than semantic overlap, ReCite establishes a reliable foundation for automated academic writing.

LLM-empowered paper-code discrepancy detection has received growing concern since the scaling of research submissions exceeds the manual review capability. However, the limited context capacity and one-sided discrepancy detection of existing single-agent LLM paradigms lead to an inferior recall performance in detecting discrepancies. In this paper, we propose Dude, the first Dual-Detection Multi-Agent System for paper-code discrepancy detection. We discover that the granularity asymmetry of the paper-language and code-language introduces over-interpretation and over-reporting challenges in a multi-agent system design for discrepancy detection, resulting in increasing false positives. To address this, we propose a granularity-aligned negotiation and a two-stage salience-filtering mechanism in Dude, which effectively prevents agents from falsely reporting discrepancies. Experimental results in real-world paper-code discrepancy datasets showcase Dude's significant recall and precision improvement by up to 22.8%, increasing F1 score by up to 18.7% compared to baseline methods.