Evidence-Grounded Generation

Scientific language models often access literature through untyped text chunks, which fragment the functional and evidential structure required for mechanism-rich questions. We introduce an evidence-grounded mechanism knowledge substrate that organizes scientific literature into provenance-linked evidence units, role-typed entities, and directed mechanism paths. We instantiate it as MS$^3$, a Material-Sensor-Signal-System schema for conductive-fiber flexible sensors, over 13,689 papers, 131,083 evidence items, and 26,648 mechanism objects. On in-domain and coverage-shift question-answering benchmarks, we compare closed-book generation, Web search, Raw-PDF RAG, and MS$^3$ retrieval across ten language models. MS$^3$ improves macro-averaged scientific correctness. It also improves citation entailment and answer completeness. These results support mechanism substrates as a reliable representation layer for scientific language models and motivate a source-repair workflow in which insufficient MS$^3$ evidence triggers targeted retrieval from its linked papers rather than assuming that a user has already supplied the correct PDFs.

Biomedical large language model (LLM) evaluation requires auditable assessment of narrow, evolving, source-grounded subspecialty knowledge. Multiple sclerosis MRI (MS-MRI) provides a high-stakes textual-knowledge test case because correct reasoning requires current diagnostic criteria, standardized acquisition and reporting knowledge, longitudinal monitoring concepts, lesion morphology, and recognition of difficult mimics. We present MS-Exam-Gen, a reproducible framework for constructing and auditing a text-based multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmark for MS-MRI knowledge; it does not evaluate direct MRI image interpretation. MS-Exam-Gen targets source-grounded criteria, protocols, reporting, and differential diagnosis. The framework combines expert-source indexing, exam-oriented topic induction, evidence-grounded MCQ generation, automated quality audits, a same-family consistency screen, and empirical calibration. From a 66-source corpus indexed into 4,289 retrieval chunks, the pipeline produced a locked 3,058-item candidate benchmark spanning 16 topics and 53 subtopics. Evaluation across 12 primary LLM endpoints yielded 36,696 item-level predictions and separated performance over a 42.8-percentage-point accuracy range (89.7% to 46.9%). Across these endpoints, 25.5% of items were missed by at least four. Post-generation audits showed that refreshed construction reduced measurable answer cues, while option-order testing showed that absolute MCQ scores remain position-sensitive. Generated construction labels remain metadata rather than validated psychometric categories. Because expert adjudication and full option-order counterbalancing remain future work, MS-Exam-Gen is not a clinically certified examination. It should be interpreted as an automatically filtered, source-grounded candidate benchmark and reproducible audit workflow for item-level and topic-specific LLM evaluation.

Large language models (LLMs) have been increasingly used for financial document analysis, including earnings call transcripts (ECTs). Beyond generating standalone claims, users increasingly prefer grounded analyses that pair claims with verifiable citations from source documents to enable independent validation. However, evaluating such analytical claims typically requires extensive expert annotation, which is costly and difficult to scale, and real-world financial analysis commonly involves long context-question-answer triplets, further increasing task complexity. To address these challenges and benchmark the current landscape of grounded analysis by LLMs, we propose a numeric evidence evaluation method that enables groundedness assessment without reliance on expert annotation. We also introduce an automated dataset construction pipeline and construct ECTs-100 from the top 100 constituents of the S&P 500 to support benchmark of both groundedness and correctness. In addition, we examine conscious incompetence, a practical failure mode in financial analysis in which LLMs must detect when available evidence is insufficient and refrain from producing unsupported hallucinations. Empirical results show that LLMs perform well in groundedness but face notable limitations in correctness, with informational insufficiency presenting an additional challenge.

Fluent LLM explanations may not follow the evidence from a structured system. We present VERITYGATE, a four-gate checker for declared evidence IDs, entities, numbers, and claim types. It checks a fixed schema; it does not verify every fact in the prose. At r=0 and r=1, we test 900 instances per setting (450 grounded-ungrounded pairs) with GPT-4o-mini, Llama-3.3-70B, and Claude Sonnet 4.6. Under this schema-level contract and before repair, 80.3% of mini claims and 47.9% of Sonnet claims fail. These are verifier rejection rates, not prose-hallucination rates. One repair pass raises claim survival from 19.7% to 28.0% for mini and from 52.1% to 54.3% for Sonnet. Verified claims per example change by +0.14 for mini, -0.71 for Llama, and -0.47 for Sonnet, so survival and output volume must be reported together. A second Sonnet pass gives no clear gain. At r=1, Gate 4 covers 97.0%, 98.7%, and 100% of failing claims for mini, Llama, and Sonnet. Small human studies support the rules but show gaps between schema checks and correct prose. A domain-specific GPT-4o judge test shows an order effect, so it is only a usefulness check. We release the code and data.

Reliable infographic generation requires facts, symbols, and visual relations to remain consistent through rendering and revision. Correcting one element also requires tracking its supporting evidence and the dependencies affected by the change. We present \textbf{InfoAgent}, a training-free framework for \emph{evidence-bound visual-symbolic program synthesis}. Its Infographic Visual Description (IVD) records factual payloads, evidence provenance, execution routes, and verification obligations in a typed dependency graph. Retrieved design priors guide compilation, and layered execution combines raster synthesis with editable symbolic and binding objects while retaining their traces. Dependency-aware repair localizes corrections, rechecks affected dependencies, and requires protected obligations to remain satisfied under the declared checkers. Unresolved obligations remain explicit. On IGenBench, InfoAgent achieves 93.0 Q-ACC and 59.0 I-ACC. We also introduce InfoGraphicBench-Evidence, where complete-checklist pass rates on 200 test requests increase from 21.5% for Same-IVD Prompt to 23.5% for the initial layered output and 28.5% after repair, using the same evidence and initial IVD. On 120 audited repair cases, localized repair edits 12.4% of the canvas on average, compared with 67.3% for global regeneration.

Radiology report generation (RRG) increasingly incorporates heterogeneous clinical evidence, such as multi-view radiographs and previous reports, whose availability varies across examinations. However, accommodating different input combinations does not ensure effective evidence use: generated reports may still omit or inaccurately describe clinically relevant findings. To address this problem, we propose PACER, a Progressive Availability-Conditioned Evidence Routing framework for structured incomplete-context RRG that follows a Refine-Calibrate-Commit pipeline. It first refines observed visual representations through endpoint-preserving patchwise routing across frozen encoder depths, incorporating complementary cues while retaining the pretrained terminal representation. It then calibrates the language-model prefix according to the observed evidence and availability state, adapting the shared generator's conditioning as the available source set changes. Finally, it generates polarity-structured clinical commitments before the report in the same autoregressive trajectory, providing structured clinical context for subsequent generation. Experiments demonstrate state-of-the-art clinical efficacy across all four MIMIC-RG4 settings and strong MIMIC-CXR performance, while maintaining competitive language-generation quality.

A research proposal can describe an established mechanism correctly while claiming to introduce it. We study whether providing the earlier paper corrects such contribution claims. Three controlled experiments compare proposals generated with a contribution-bearing prior and a same-topic control. Providing the prior yields no clear aggregate reduction in unsupported novelty. Human analysis of 175 interpretable exposed proposals finds that 137 recognize the prior's relevance, but 61 correctly attribute the established contribution. Of 71 proposed remaining distinctions, 37 are covered by the same prior. We introduce Research Idea Novelty Inspection (RINI), which audits contribution claims against evidence, checks the remaining distinction, and applies local revisions. Five human annotators evaluate 1,080 original-revision pairs across three methods. On the same 240 originals judged to require correction, successful repair is 11.7% for Self-Revision, 39.1% for Retrieve-and-Revise, and 72.2% for RINI, with research tasks weighted equally. The improvement over same-evidence direct revision is 33.0 percentage points. The revised proposals retain their research questions and technical methods. These results motivate explicit contribution attribution when using literature to generate and revise research proposals.

Generative artificial intelligence can turn learning analytics into personalized support, but feedback systems must decide when to intervene, which evidence to use, and how much assistance to provide. We developed a risk-adaptive, evidence-constrained framework for introductory programming using 2993 failed-submission states from 215 students. Student-disjoint models predicted persistent failure and related outcomes; four matched feedback conditions were generated for 136 cases; and calibrated risk informed capacity-limited intervention policies. The validation-selected logistic regression model achieved a test precision-recall area under the curve of 0.550 and a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.681. Broader student histories improved prediction of unmodified resubmission. After standardized repair and evidence gating, 519 of 544 newly generated messages contained all required components. A fixed-threshold sequential policy selected 17.8% of eligible test states and captured 25.2% of observed persistent failures. These findings support an evidence-gated progressive assistance strategy: calibrated risk guides intervention timing, recorded evidence constrains feedback content, and assistance progresses from self-checks to localized hints when warranted. The framework connects prediction, decision-making, and grounded generation while keeping their evaluation outcomes distinct.

Generating coherent meta-reviews from multiple peer reviews is challenging when reviewer evidence conflicts and varies in reliability. Existing approaches typically formulate meta-review generation as a multi-document summarization task and aggregate reviewer feedback uniformly, making it difficult to determine which opinions should be prioritized under disagreement. In this paper, we study meta-review generation through reliability-aware evidence aggregation. Our framework first extracts aspect-level opinions from peer reviews and identifies conflicting evidence within each aspect. It then estimates opinion-level support and review-level quality to measure evidence reliability. Based on these signals, the framework assigns reliability-aware weights to reviewer feedback, enabling the generator to prioritize better-supported arguments while preserving diverse perspectives. Experiments demonstrate that our method consistently improves meta-review generation over strong baselines on both automatic and human evaluations, with clear gains in conflict recognition and resolution under high-conflict review scenarios. The code and implementation details are publicly available at https://github.com/Wangxz729/reliability-aware-meta-review.

Scientific agents support a range of literature-based research tasks, such as retrieval, question answering, evidence-grounded generation, and claim assessment. Most existing systems, however, are organized around individual tasks: the same papers are repeatedly retrieved, segmented, and interpreted, and the understanding built in one task is difficult to reuse in the next. We present ScholarStack, a layered research asset framework that compiles a paper collection into reusable, versioned, and provenance-preserving assets at three complementary levels: source-grounded paper-level statements, domain-level organization, and evidence-grounded cross-paper syntheses. A common access interface returns task-specific views at the evidence granularity each task requires, preserving study conditions, source traceability, and verification status. We instantiate the framework on four task families spanning ten task settings, comparing agents that use the compiled assets with task-specific baselines under matched base models. Quality gains concentrate on tasks that require cross-paper evidence, such as multi-paper question answering and literature review generation, and query-time token cost falls on every task where it is measured, with assets compiled once and reused across tasks. These results suggest that layered research assets can serve as shared infrastructure for scientific agents, shifting literature-based assistance from isolated document processing toward cumulative, evidence-grounded workflows.

Longitudinal electronic health records (EHRs) capture years of patient history across notes, codes, labs, and procedures, and contain evidence needed to reason about likely clinical outcomes. However, comprehensive clinician review of these records is impractical, and LLM-based processing is costly and often unreliable, missing some relevant observations while hallucinating others. We therefore propose EviGen, a three-layer framework for verifiable clinical rationale generation that addresses these challenges. The first layer is a patient-conditioned retriever that uses learnable queries to find evidence predictive of, not just textually relevant to, a clinical outcome and ranks it by prediction attribution scores. The second layer is an LLM generator that consumes this ranked evidence as a scaffold to produce a clinical rationale grounded in the retrieved spans. The third layer is a process-supervised verifier that checks the generated rationale at the reasoning-step level, flagging unreliable claims. Across three medical prediction datasets, EviGen improves prediction performance and rationale faithfulness over full-context LLM and RAG baselines, and is preferred by clinical reviewers in a usability evaluation.

Grounded language-model systems are often evaluated by final answer accuracy, yet a correct answer can be unsupported, drawn from the wrong source, or produced when evidence is insufficient or contradictory. We introduce EviScope, a paired counterfactual benchmark that holds the question fixed while adding, removing, distracting, or contradicting its evidence. EviScope-v1.1 contains 40 four-condition quartets with repaired counterfactual claims and span-level support labels for automatic evaluation. Across 960 gold-blind generations from Qwen2.5-7B, Llama 3.1 8B, and Gemini 3.5 Flash, paired metrics expose model-dependent grounding behavior that answer accuracy hides. On two local open models, an explicit evidence-action gate underperforms vanilla RAG on QCS: 0.15 vs. 0.50 for Qwen and 0.10 vs. 0.375 for Llama. Gemini reaches 0.944 joint success under both prompts, yet still answers 5% of conflict cases after contradiction insertion. EviScope therefore distinguishes unsupported answering, conflict blindness, and wrong non-answer actions rather than scoring answers alone.

We describe tus-nlp's Lit3R (Retrieve-Relate-Read) system for LitTraceQA, a shared task for literature-grounded question answering that requires systems to retrieve relevant papers, identify supporting evidence, and generate answers. Lit3R combines off-the-shelf retrieval, reranking, and large language model (LLM) components without task-specific training. The retriever iteratively combines BM25-based sparse and dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and LLM-based verification, and complements retrieval based on the question with paper-to-paper expansion. The reader first identifies supporting evidence within individual papers and then synthesizes evidence across papers to produce the final answer and evidence trace. On the official test set, our system ranked 4th on the leaderboard. Our code is available at https://github.com/tus-ist-nlp/littraceqa.

Medical knowledge evolves continuously, whereas the parametric knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) is fixed at training time. External retrieval, including retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), can provide access to newly available evidence, but retrieved information may be irrelevant, incomplete, or conflicting. As a result, external retrieval can in turn degrade the factual accuracy and evidence grounding of LLM outputs. To address this challenge, we propose \textbf{CLEAR}, an agentic framework for cross-source evidence adjudication in LLMs in medicine. CLEAR independently generates candidate answers from three complementary pathways---parametric knowledge, locally curated corpora, and dynamically retrieved evidence---reflecting three common sources of information available to LLMs. An aggregation verifier jointly evaluates the candidates, supporting evidence, provenance, and source-quality information to identify agreement and conflict across sources. An adjudication module then determines whether the current conclusion should be preserved or revised through complementary override-guard and challenge-audit mechanisms, while unresolved conflicts trigger targeted follow-up search and re-adjudication.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve access to complex information; however, retrieving evidence alone does not ensure that answers are grounded, citation-valid, or appropriately refused. This paper introduces CiteGuard-RAG, a validation-centered AI system for evidence-grounded question answering. The system integrates hybrid semantic-lexical retrieval, citation-constrained generation, sentence-level grounding validation, and single-pass regeneration. Validation is used at runtime to determine whether a candidate answer should be accepted, refused, or regenerated before final delivery. CiteGuard-RAG is evaluated on 400 questions across a controlled housing-law dataset, PrivacyQA, and CUAD. In the controlled evaluation, it achieves 99.1% retrieval accuracy, 98.3% grounded-answer accuracy, and 98.3% citation validity, with no validation-detected hallucinations. Ablation results show that grounded-answer accuracy drops sharply when validation is removed, even when retrieval accuracy remains unchanged. External evaluation shows that while citation validity remains strong, evidence utilization, span alignment, and refusal calibration become harder under domain shift. These findings indicate that trustworthy RAG systems require explicit validation between retrieval and final answer delivery. CiteGuard-RAG provides a practical architecture for linking retrieval, generation, citation checking, abstention, and regeneration in high-stakes information access.

In high-stakes domains such as legal practice, a language-model answer is only useful to the extent that a reader can verify each claim against the source the system cites. Current grounded-generation pipelines score the answer as a whole, so a correct conclusion can rest on fabricated or loosely matched citations and still score well. Closing this gap requires both a system built for per-claim verification and an evaluation that measures it. We introduce GANDR (Grounded ANswer DRafter), a two-agent system in which a Drafter writes an answer in a structured legal-reasoning format and a separate Critic, with the same view as a human verifier, audits each claim against its cited source and emits a per-claim audit trace on every round. We pair it with a strict correctness criterion requiring every citation to resolve to a passage the retriever returned. On a 185-item legal benchmark where all six systems share one backbone, one retrieval surface, and one citation instruction, GANDR ranks first on every primary metric, reaching 70.8% strict accuracy and leading the strongest baseline by 11.3 points (p<0.01). Reverting the protocol-anchored commit rule lowers strict accuracy by 22.7 points, and the strict lead stays positive on three further backbones, at +3.2 to +6.5 points. This lead traces to the Drafter configuration and the protocol-anchored commit, not to rewriting. Against two law-trained annotators the audit flags under-supported claims at F1 0.84 as a binary detector, while its four-way verdict labels agree only weakly and are advisory. Code is available upon request.

Oncology care operates at constant pressure of absorbing rapidly evolving evidence base in biomedicine. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) addresses this through living guidelines, but the format introduces a new burden: any recommendation can change at any point, across multiple versioned documents. We present SENTRYLINE, a living guideline-aware clinical question answering system. SENTRYLINE retrieves guideline passages through a vectorless hierarchical RAG pipeline and returns a role-specific answer with inline citations, factual and temporal verification reports, and drift detection notes that surface when a guideline has been updated. We construct ASCOBENCH, a benchmark of 405 three-turn conversations across four question categories with gold answers from expert annotators(clinicians), and use test set to evaluate SENTRYLINE against five baselines under an LLM-as-judge framework. Experiments across three generation backbones show consistent improvements over four retrieval baselines and ASCO's guideline assistant, with particularly strong gains on Reasoning and Role-Specific questions where multi-hop synthesis and register adaptation are required

Production content-generation systems must integrate a user's immediate task, long-term brand identity, historical evidence, and revision feedback. We present Aegix Pulse, a production-oriented three-stage architecture that separates current-task clarification and Task Persona finalization, long-term Account Profile (Brand DNA) assembly, and controlled generation and revision while preserving provenance across content versions. We evaluate four preregistered claims using 96 synthetic social-media generation tasks. Four initial-generation conditions progressively introduced a Task Persona, Account Profile, and successful-history style evidence, while two revision conditions compared plain and context-preserving revision. The experiment produced 480 completed generation records and 1,440 blinded LLM-Judge evaluations, supplemented by human review. Adding the Account Profile increased mean brand-consistency scores by 0.1562 points on a five-point scale compared with Task Persona alone (Holm-adjusted p=.1224). Preserving task and brand context during revision increased mean task-preservation scores by 0.2917 points compared with plain revision (Holm-adjusted p=.2432). Neither improvement was statistically conclusive after multiple-comparison correction. Task Persona alone showed a small observed effect, while successful-history evidence provided no additional improvement in brand consistency under the current setting. Human validation did not consistently reproduce the LLM-Judge effect directions and showed low inter-reviewer agreement. These findings provide preliminary evidence for persistent brand context and context-preserving revision while identifying priorities for stronger evidence processing and evaluation.

AI reviewers can now produce many specific criticisms, but more criticism is not necessarily a better review. A review may miss a consequential weakness or retain an allegation that available evidence does not support. These failures require opposite corrections, yet generation-oriented systems and aggregate measures obscure the distinction. We therefore recast AI-assisted review as evidence-guided refinement of a structured concern set, with omission and overcritique treated as separate risks. Building on this formulation, we introduce EquiReview-R, which resolves existing concerns against localized evidence, searches for missing issues from independent and review-conditioned perspectives, and returns stop, continue, or defer. To expose the failure mode that motivates this design, we construct an evidence-linked trajectory corpus. Its retrospective analysis shows why revision must precede further search: nearly all concerns in a high-recall review lack a definitive evidential disposition, while an earlier refinement mechanism cannot revise them. On a frozen cohort of previously unseen papers, EquiReview-R satisfies the prespecified non-inferiority criterion for major omission, reduces major overcritique from 15.5% to 8.1%, and attains a one-sided omission upper bound of 9.9% while stopping on 52.4% of papers. Computation-matched controls, controlled pairs, and ablations show that the gain comes from revision rather than extra inference or shorter output. We release the corpus as ReviewTrace, an evidence-linked resource for studying review revision, disagreement, and provenance.

Policy analysis requires more than predicting whether a proposal will pass: it requires identifying who will be affected, how those actors respond, and what follows. LLM-based policy simulations model these processes at scale, but their validity is hard to establish when plausible behaviour is never compared with observed outcomes. We introduce GPS-Bench, an evidence-grounded benchmark for governance policy simulation that links policies to relevant actors, actor actions and downstream impacts using legislative records, lobbying disclosures, regulatory documents, corporate filings, economic data and other public evidence. Actors are reconstructed from the dated record rather than prompted as archetypes, so a persona is an evidence object with provenance; a human-annotated pool forms the Gold evaluation set, while cases labelled by a separate LLM from retrieved evidence are treated as Silver supervision and never as test labels. Because every inference mode reads the same grounded state and emits the same schema, GPS-Bench turns "does multi-agent simulation help?" into a controlled comparison: we contrast joint reasoning, independent and communicating actor agents, graph-based methods and weight-level fine-tuning over one policy state. Fine-tuning on the grounded record gives the strongest actor-level impact prediction, and decomposition does not beat it; what decomposition adds is mechanism. Agents hold private, non-identical evidence, each seeing its own exposure clause, and address named partners with concrete joint proposals, what they offer, what they need in return, and why acting together beats acting alone, so the coalitions that form can be checked against the commitments the record holds. GPS-Bench therefore gives a common empirical setting for studying when evidence, actor modelling and multi-agent interaction improve the prediction and interpretation of policy outcomes.

Mineral exploration requires integrating heterogeneous geochemical, geophysical, and geological evidence, yet existing prospectivity systems often provide only opaque scores or heatmaps. We present MineTRACE, a web-based system for evidence-grounded exploration of eight commodities: Cu, Au, Ni, W, Sn, Co, Ta, and Mn. Users can explore prospectivity maps, query locations or regions, inspect supporting evidence, and interact through natural language. A transparent expert tree, informed by geological knowledge and known deposits, combines multi-source evidence into interpretable prospectivity scores. For a new location, the conversational assistant retrieves the score and supporting evidence from the analysis pipeline and presents them in natural language. The scorer achieves spatial AUC values of up to 0.917 across different test scenarios, while end-to-end evaluation assesses query accuracy and response grounding. MineTRACE makes public geoscience data easier to access, interpret, and verify, supporting more efficient and transparent mineral exploration.

Recorded lecture videos, often enhanced with search and summarization features, are a standard study resource. However, students cannot easily ask course specific questions or verify answers against an instructor's lecture. We report a semester-long deployment of VideoPoints platform with a retrieval-augmented chatbot that answers from course lecture materials and returns timestamped citations. The chatbot retrieves only from the active course, uses chapter summaries to guide transcript ranking, and returns clickable timestamped citations. Students used it for quick lookups and exam review. Across 833 messages, 70.5% included citations, none crossed a course boundary, and when no lecture evidence matched, the chatbot usually declined rather than answering. Among the users, citations were the most consistently useful feature, while practice-question generation was the strongest unmet request. We also evaluated the design on the real-world test split of EduVidQA, a public multimodal benchmark for lecture-video question answering. Our design improved correct-lecture retrieval by 6.3 percentage points over dense-only retrieval. Together, the results show that effective deployment depends on course isolation, supported citations, and alignment with students' study practices.

We argue that financial report generation should operate at the analytical rather than structural level, composing content from data-derived insights rather than high-level topics or sections. To this end, we propose AnalysisBank, which distills expert reports into a reusable library of Analyses, each pairing a data signal, an analytical move, and the expert span it was derived from. At inference time, AnalysisBank matches input signals to library entries and applies the retrieved moves to compose the report. A study of Analyses distilled from 550 expert reports reveals a heavy-tailed distribution of 47-52 signal types spanning 13 move types. On two financial benchmarks across four LLM backbones, AnalysisBank increases the proportion of novel, data-grounded insights by 1.7-3.7x over structural-level baselines. Transfer to scientific writing suggests that the distinction generalizes beyond finance. Code and the distilled Analysis library are available at https://github.com/yajingyang/AnalysisBank.

Corrosion accounts for approximately 4% of global GDP, and reliable prediction is essential for timely mitigation. Machine learning effectively predicts corrosion rates from composition, microstructure, and environmental variables, but cannot explain the underlying mechanisms. A reliable approach in safety-critical materials engineering requires not only accurate retrieval but also mechanistically defensible reasoning, a capability that existing factuality metrics cannot assess. This work presents a domain-adapted retrieval-augmented generation framework for corrosion knowledge synthesis, demonstrated on magnesium alloy corrosion. Three open-weight language models (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen-2.5-7B, Mistral-7B) are fine-tuned on 3,309 expert-verified question-answer pairs from 840 peer-reviewed papers and integrated with a hybrid dense-lexical retrieval pipeline. Retrieval augmentation produces Token F1 gains of 143-194%, with system faithfulness of 0.964 and context recall of 0.988. Blind external validation on newly published literature and in-house electrochemical data confirms trend-level generalisation. Reason Map, a proposition-graph framework, is further introduced; it independently constructs directed evidence graphs from generated answers and retrieved literature, enabling systematic detection of causal direction inversions and unsupported inferential leaps that flat factuality metrics cannot expose. The modular architecture can be applied across domains, offering a generalizable blueprint for trustworthy AI-assisted knowledge synthesis to circumvent corrosion, which can also be applied to other engineering domains.

Trajectory data is getting more vital for training large language models for boosting the agentic abilities. Unlike the verifiable domains such as coding or mathematics, scaling trajectory data for open-ended tasks is much more difficult because these tasks lack singular ground truth and are costly to annotate or verify. In this paper, we propose RetroGen, a self-improving framework of retrospective process supervision. Our key observation is that although expert trajectories are scarce, high-quality final artifacts such as literature reviews, analyst reports and legal judgments, are abundant in pre-training data and can be viewed as compressed traces of the evidence-seeking processes that produced them. RetroGen reconstructs candidate latent trajectories from expert artifacts, verifies them against both the artifact and supporting evidence, and trains models on their own successful reconstruction data, without requiring trajectory data from stronger models. Experiments show that RetroGen improves grounding, faithful synthesis, and long-form evidence-seeking agent tasks.

Large language models can convert medical documents into structured data, but plausible output may still be unsupported by the source. Persisting such output in a longitudinal health record, a record that accumulates patient information over time, therefore creates an integrity risk: unverified data may influence later summaries, trends, or preventive-care computations. We introduce an evidence-gated trust-promotion model that keeps generated data provisional until a deterministic monitor verifies it against the source document. The monitor admits a candidate for a specified downstream use only when the source contains a unique supporting quotation, the relevant fields occur within the same laboratory row, and the required provenance is preserved. The generator cannot approve its own output, missing or ambiguous evidence causes refusal, and refused candidates remain available for human review rather than being silently discarded. We implement the model in Medical DataCloud, a personal health-record application, and evaluate it through automated tests and a replay of saved extraction outputs. All 22 conformance and mutation tests pass. The replay covers nine historical laboratory PDF reports containing 102 manually labelled rows. The reports produce 97 numeric candidates: schema validation accepts all 97, an earlier packet-level evidence check accepts 94, and the hardened quotation- and row-level policy admits 72 while retaining 25 for review. The study evaluates system integrity rather than clinical correctness or clinical safety. The results demonstrate the technical feasibility of an enforceable boundary that prevents generated claims from authorizing their own reuse in a longitudinal health record.

Autonomous research systems are increasingly capable of executing long research workflows, yet automation alone does not ensure that the resulting process remains scientifically grounded. We introduce AutoResearch, a two-stage system that connects Idea Generation with Idea Execution to address both how research ideas are formed and how they are reliably established through experimentation. In Idea Generation, AutoResearch continuously integrates emerging research signals with accumulated domain knowledge, identifies transferable mechanistic insights, and uses multi-model generation and cross-review to produce grounded, testable research plans. In Idea Execution, coordinated agents decompose these plans into experiments, iteratively implement and diagnose them, and employ independent evidence-based review before accepting research conclusions. Across representative settings in cross-modal retrieval, systems optimization, and benchmark-driven machine learning, AutoResearch turns generated ideas into measurable progress, detects and corrects unreliable experimental results, and makes evidence-conditioned decisions to continue, revise, or terminate research directions. For example, on RSICD benchmark, an AutoResearch-generated idea improves mean Recall from 32.84 to 34.69, while recording only 5 audit-confirmed issue events compared with 11-27 for other autonomous research systems. These results demonstrate a research process in which meaningful insight is grounded before experimentation and conclusions are grounded before acceptance: Insight In, Hallucination Out.

Recent advances in foundation models have enabled AI scientists to automate increasingly complete research workflows, from hypothesis generation and code execution to manuscript preparation. Yet workflow coverage alone does not provide access to the full evidence on which scientific discovery depends. Existing systems typically reason over text, code, labels, or precomputed summaries, leaving scientifically decisive spatial, temporal, cross-channel, and procedural relations unavailable to the agent. We introduce OmniScientist, an end-to-end, omni-modal AI scientist that conducts multidisciplinary research directly from heterogeneous raw evidence. A perception layer and 3 autonomous agents for ideation, experiment, and writeup operate within a deterministic pipeline, allowing observations to shape research questions, experimental decisions, and final claims throughout the research lifecycle. By running idea, rigour, and claim checks in code, the system enforces novelty screening, statistical validity, execution provenance, and numerical traceability. We evaluate OmniScientist on 36 real-data cases spanning 5 discipline families, 4 families of scientific evidence, and modalities including images, signals, audio, video, 3-D structures, trajectories, tables, formulae, and graphs. The system completes the full path from raw data to a compiled manuscript in all 36 cases and achieves a mean overall paper score of 6.3 with the reference reasoning backbone. In paired comparisons against a blind variant that receives only precomputed scalar features, direct perception improves all 7 evaluation dimensions and wins 85% of head-to-head judgments. These results show that lifecycle-wide perception is essential for evidence-grounded scientific discovery and provides a practical path toward broadly capable AI scientists.

Long-form research reports generated by large language models drift, contradict themselves, and lose provenance: the same metric appears with different values, and rumor is quoted as confidently as an audited filing. We present a two-tier agentic system that separates a maintained, point-in-time knowledge library from report writing. A deterministic "librarian" ingests timestamped sources into a trust-tiered ontology, layering evidence cards, an authoritative metric ledger, and a claim graph into an always-current source of truth, not per-query RAG over raw chunks. A portable multi-agent "writer" runtime then composes a contradiction-free, evidence-grounded report at any knowledge cutoff T, reading only evidence with as_of <= T (no look-ahead); red-team verdicts flow back into the librarian. We evaluate on a self-collected, public corpus of 6,130 sources yielding 555,926 evidence cards (SEC EDGAR filings across 295 issuers and 11 sectors, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics releases, and Wikipedia). From the one library we compose four point-in-time reports on distinct theses and run eight reproducible experiments, whose headline metrics come from a deterministic quality-control gate, itself validated by defect-injection meta-evaluation at recall 1.0 and precision 1.0. A shared metric ledger removes 6,845 cross-section contradictions to zero. Tier-first selection is correct on 22/22 gold cases where a popularity-first baseline scores only 9/22; trust tiering leaks zero media-sourced numbers, and no government statistic displaces a company's own filing. A red-team refutation propagates back and self-corrects a later run with zero manual edits. Replay exhibits zero look-ahead violations across seven cutoffs while the library grows from 235,373 to 555,312 cards. Difficulty-tiered model routing exceeds the all-Opus quality ceiling while running 3.7x faster than serial.

Medical devices are becoming more software-intensive, connected, and AI-enabled. Their development requires risk-management evidence aligned with ISO 14971 and, for software, IEC 62304. This evidence must be kept consistent across requirements, design decisions, software changes, verification results, complaints, and post-market data. These tasks are costly and depend on scarce safety and domain experts. Large language models (LLMs) may reduce parts of this effort because medical-device safety work is highly document-based. However, current LLM-based safety-engineering studies often address isolated methods, rely on generic prompting or public examples, and provide limited support for source links, traceability, uncertainty handling, lifecycle updates, and recorded expert review. This limits their use in regulated medical-device development. This paper argues that the central research problem is not safety-text generation, but source-linked safety-knowledge support. We propose an evidence-grounded framework that connects device artifacts, controlled knowledge storage and retrieval, method-specific generation of candidate safety items, critique and uncertainty checks, and recorded expert review. The framework prepares, links, checks, and updates candidate safety artifacts for expert decision-making. It does not decide whether a device is safe and does not provide regulatory approval. We also outline an evaluation strategy using non-public or newly built medical-device case studies and expert reference analyses to assess coverage, correctness, relevance, traceability, duplicate rate, unsupported claims, and review effort.