Scientific Claim Verification

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

6 papers in the last four weeks, against 2 the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 36

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

When Scientific Contradictions Are Lost in Translation

Two scientific findings can disagree without contradicting each other. Determining whether they conflict requires knowing whether they describe comparable measurements. We study how language models behave at this decision point. In a controlled task, we generate an unsatisfiable XOR constraint system and translate its constraints into scientific reports from different laboratories. One assignment satisfies more constraints, while another satisfies fewer but better matches expected biology. This creates a simple dilemma: does the model choose the assignment that best fits the constraints, or the one that better matches biological expectations? When the constraints are stated directly, GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Opus 5 recover the best-supported assignment in 90% and 96% of cases, respectively. In scientific prose, however, the models behave differently. Claude Opus 5 often prefers the biologically expected assignment. Removing that biological preference increases recovery of the better-supported assignment from 27% to 79% (p<.001); recovery reaches 92% when the same Biology-favored record is accompanied by a formalization request and an explicit paired-design cue (p<.001). GPT-5.6 Sol is less sensitive, with neither corresponding change reaching statistical significance. These results suggest that reliable scientific verification depends not only on formal reasoning, but also on how models decide which findings should be compared and what relations they imply.

Tal Zeevi, Trey W. Jensen, Maxwell Strome

Reasoning Consistency in Language Models Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

Can AI Scientists Change Their Minds? Prior-Evidence Conflict in Synthetic Universes

Can a scientific agent distinguish a law it inferred from evidence from one it merely recognizes? We introduce Synthetic Universes, a controlled benchmark that pairs canonical famous worlds with matched twisted twins governed by nearby noncanonical mechanisms. We evaluate each reported law twice: by executing it on held-out continuations and transfer settings, and by independently checking whether it recovers the generating mechanism. In the current checkpoint of a pre-specified 60-cell study, 22 trials were graded and one additional run ended in infrastructure failure. Among 20 twin trials, 8 pass predictive verification while 5 recover the generator. The dissociation is bidirectional: six parsable outputs predict successfully while missing the mechanism, whereas three recover the mechanism but fail predictive rollout. Drag exhibits the first pattern (5/5 predictive pass, 1/5 mechanism recovery); Gravity exhibits the second (1/5 predictive pass, 4/5 mechanism recovery). Because matched famous controls, the corrected identifiability sweep, and the Evidence Ladder remain incomplete, we do not claim a confirmatory causal prior-conflict effect. Instead, the completed runs establish a narrower verification result: predictive adequacy and mechanism recovery are distinct scientific claims and require distinct tests.

Kargi Chauhan

University of California, Santa Cruz

Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models Mechanistic Interpretability Synthetic Benchmark Generation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Sep 27, 2026cs.AI

When Evidence Changes the Subject: Subject-Typed Claim Licensing for Learned Routing

Modern learned systems increasingly combine learned components with search, repair, or external solvers. Benchmarks often measure the resulting end-to-end system, while scientific claims may concern only one component, creating an attribution problem: evidence can fail to support the requested component-level claim while still supporting a positive conclusion about the larger system. Existing evidence-to-claim methods primarily calibrate claim strength. We argue that composite systems require a second dimension: scientific subject. We address this problem with subject-typed claim licensing, which separates weaker conclusions about the requested subject from positive but non-substitutive credit about another subject. We instantiate this idea in SCOPE-Routing for preference-conditioned multigraph routing. Non-authors reproducibly apply the declared semantics; held-out review yields fewer reference-relative upward deviations than unstructured review, while the difference from a strong evidence checklist remains unresolved; and a controlled routing study shows that score-optimal and claim-eligible methods can differ while valid hybrid-system credit is preserved. These results motivate treating claim strength and scientific subject as distinct dimensions of evidence-based evaluation.

Jian Chen, Zixuan Yuan

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou), China

Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Scientific Claim Verification

Sep 27, 2026cs.AI

RINI: Seeing the Prior Is Not Enough

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.

Hongyi Du, Tianyi Zhang, Heng Wang +7

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign · Harvey Mudd College · National University of Singapore +2

Novelty Search AI-Assisted Scientific Research Evidence-Grounded Generation Scientific Claim Verification

Sep 21, 2026cs.PL

Beyond Natural Language: An Agent-Native Language for Autonomous Science

As autonomous AI agents take on every stage of scientific inquiry, research output is expanding far beyond human review capacity. Yet scientific communication still relies on natural-language prose: an informal medium prone to ambiguity, hidden assumptions, and untracked limitations that machines cannot reliably audit. We introduce Lara, a machine-checkable language and protocol for checking and revising support for research claims. By turning research arguments into executable artifacts, Lara provides an epistemic kernel for autonomous science: it enables automated validation pipelines for research agents, lets declared bridges connect arguments across papers into an auditable network, and allows both humans and machines to recheck the standing of an encoded claim in milliseconds. In a Lara program, authors explicitly declare their claims, supporting evidence and assumptions, and known objections or limitations. A lightweight, deterministic checker adjudicates these interactions, assigning each claim a reproducible status: "justified", "defeated", "contested", or "gap", which marks a claim whose support is incomplete and locates the unanswered question. Case studies cover empirical review, a philosophical debate without measurements, and the loss of support when an assumed axiom is withdrawn. We establish the metatheory of claim checking and cross-context argument transport, and mechanize the semantic guarantees in Lean 4 (roughly 117,000 lines), leaving three arguments on paper. The audited public metatheory is "sorry"-free and uses only Lean's three standard axioms; some executable examples additionally trust native evaluation.

Yifeng He, Jiachen Liu

ARA Lab

AI for Science Scientific Communication Formal Verification Computational Argumentation Scientific Claim Verification

Sep 15, 2026cs.CL

PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress

Autoresearch agents are reshaping the research ecosystem, but they can also let flawed claims enter the literature at scale. Human advisors catch such issues in drafts through careful, traceable feedback, yet advisor-style assessment requires extensive manual effort and does not scale. To shift automated paper assessment from a judge to a diagnostician, we introduce PaperDoctor, an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations. First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through three layers: L1 surface screening, L2 typed verifiers that route each claim to the appropriate evidence, and L3 reproducers that rerun experiments by priority. Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion, making critiques auditable and actionable. Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget, surfacing reproducibility gaps and quantitative limitations that are invisible from the manuscript alone. We evaluate PaperDoctor on 30 in-progress papers, yielding 70.6% agreement and all positive holistic scores, and on 40 manuscripts across machine learning, natural science, and social science, covering human- and AI-authored papers with code. Overall, PaperDoctor produces more auditable feedback than human and other agentic reviewers, pairs critiques with concrete suggestions by design, and complements dimensions often overlooked by human reviewers. We also develop an interactive interface that lets authors browse findings grounded in their paper. PaperDoctor reframes automated paper assessment as diagnosis rather than verdict, taking a concrete step toward AI advisors for more rigorous AI-assisted scientific discovery.

Kevin Qinghong Lin, Siyuan Hu, Pan Lu +14

University of Oxford · 3National University of Singapore · 2Stanford University +3

AI-Assisted Scientific Research Scientific Reproducibility Automated Peer Review Scientific Claim Verification

Sep 1, 2026cs.AI

SciTrue: Reliable Scientific Claim Validation with Frontier and Open Language Models at the NTCIR SciClaimEval Task

We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scientific claims against the tables and figures of a paper. Rather than tuning a single model, we benchmark eleven frontier and open multimodal models under one honest, per-sample protocol and combine them with light, transparent post-processing. On the official, blind test leaderboard (Section~\ref{sec:results}), SciTrue placed first by a clear margin in three of the four evidence-category/subtask combinations, and tied for first on the primary metric in the fourth. Three findings explain the result. First, strong instruction-tuned models are already competitive: Claude Opus~~4.8 and Gemma-4-31B each exceed the strongest public baseline (o4-mini), and GPT-5.5 and Claude Fable~~5 lead both subtasks (97.7 on Subtask~2). Second, the task's pairing structure is the largest lever: a \emph{leak-free pair prior} that recovers the Supported/Refuted pairing from the claim text alone (a visible field) and assigns Supported to the higher-confidence evidence raises Subtask-1 pair-accuracy from 72.2 to 93.5, far more than any model swap or ensemble weighting. Third, a case-by-case audit finds that most residual errors are visually-undetectable label-mapping swaps or dataset label noise, so measured accuracy understates the true ability and the fixable-by-modeling headroom is small. Controlled fine-tuning, distillation, and agentic consistency-checking support the same conclusions, and we document throughout a measurement leak---label information reaching a system through the packaging of the data rather than its content---in which the released file ordering encodes the label, including one instance that briefly misled our own pipeline.

Qiming Bao, Neşet Özkan Tan, Siyuan Wang +1

University of Auckland · New Zealand · The Chinese University of Hong Kong +1

Document Understanding LLM Evaluation Multimodal Model Evaluation Scientific Claim Verification

Aug 11, 2026cs.IR

TRACES: A Benchmark for Epistemic Reliability in Scientific Reasoning by LLMs

Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists. Such deployment assumes the model can distinguish reliable scientific literature from unreliable literature, a capability that has not yet been directly measured. Existing benchmarks evaluate factuality on questions with known answers; the failure mode we target here is different. We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing. Each probe pairs a preamble extracted near-verbatim from the target paper with a scientifically plausible study-design request. The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment. Two complementary scores measure whether a model rejects the flawed premise outright (IFR-a) and whether it recognizes the unreliability while still engaging (IFR-i). A depth score, the Engagement Depth Index (EDI), quantifies reproduction of paper- or field-specific withheld details. Across 30 models and 10 repeated runs, aggregate IFR-a is 0.93

\pm

0.004 and aggregate IFR-i is 0.809

\pm

0.009. Models engaged with untenable premises in 95% of all non-empty responses. Every evaluated model fails more than 71% of agentic probes, and 22 of 30 models fail more than 90% of the time. Rejections are concentrated on a small number of high-notoriety topics and specific probes, and disappear under matched-structure controls. These results are consistent with topic-keyed safety behavior rather than robust epistemic competence, and indicate an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

Valentin Rodionov, Shamil Assylbekov

Intellicat Cleveland, OH 44106

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Aug 7, 2026cs.CL

HNR-DAC: Hard-Negative Reranking and Distribution-Aligned Classification for Scientific Claim Verification

Scientific claim verification over a cited paper requires predicting the claim--paper relation and identifying the paragraphs that justify that prediction. This setting poses two linked challenges: within-paper distractors often resemble genuine evidence, while a classifier trained on gold evidence must operate on retrieved evidence at inference. We present HNR-DAC, a two-stage framework that trains each stage on the cases it will actually encounter. Hard-Negative Reranking (HNR) quantifies evidence confusability using a base reranker's scores on non-gold paragraphs and contrasts gold evidence against the most confusable candidates. Distribution-Aligned Classification (DAC) trains on the Top-1 paragraph produced by the same frozen HNR used to construct inference inputs, while HNR's Top-3 paragraph identifiers provide the evidence output. On the NLPCC 2026 Task 10 Track 2, the final configuration obtains 97.21% Hit@3, 95.79% Macro-F1, 94.47% Joint@3, and an average score of 95.13%. The corresponding submission ranks third on the official Track 2 leaderboard while achieving the highest overall Macro-F1 of 93.05%, alongside 70.16% Joint@3 and an average score of 81.61%.

Zhenchao Wang, Xin Chen, Luoxi Zhang +2

Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, China · Institute of Artificial Intelligence, Shenzhen University of Advanced Technology, Shenzhen, China · Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shenzhen, China

Claim Verification Distribution Shift Hard Negative Mining Evidence Selection Evidence Retrieval Scientific Claim Verification

Aug 5, 2026cs.IR

From Trajectories to Evidence: Auditable Experimental Records for Industrial Research Agents

Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions. Yet a completed trajectory is not automatically evidence: generated artifacts may be unsupported or incomplete, executed rounds may be invalid or confounded, and later modifications may obscure earlier findings. We study \textbf{trajectory-to-evidence conversion}, asking what a completed research process has actually established. We introduce an evidence-grounded framework that couples bounded verification of consequential artifacts with post-execution claim qualification. A context-isolated generate--verify--repair process checks artifacts for evidence violations and missing downstream requirements before release. After execution, validity and attribution checks consolidate evidence across rounds, qualify intervention-level claims as actionable repairs, diagnostic guards, or withheld findings, and preserve admitted claims as auditable records with explicit provenance and applicability boundaries. A hybrid LLM-assisted controller subsequently applies, defers, or rejects records based on available target evidence. Record audits characterize which claims survive qualification, while downstream diagnostics identify affirmative applicability judgment as a bottleneck for the tested controller. Across paper-to-target adaptations, later rounds often improve on the first, while final rounds frequently underperform an earlier best, exposing non-monotonic trajectory evolution. Candidates produced through the complete workflow also yielded positive online lifts relative to deployed baselines.

Zijie Zhuang, Changxin Lao, Pengbo Xu +13

Kuaishou Technology, Beijing, China

Data Provenance Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Autonomous Experimentation Autonomous Research Agents Scientific Claim Verification

Aug 2, 2026cs.CL

When Retrieval Helps and Distracts: Evaluating Evidence-Generating LLMs for Biomedical Claim Verification

Biomedical fact-checking systems must do more than predict whether a claim is supported, contradicted, or unaddressed: they should also produce evidence that is faithful, complete, and useful for verification. We study this evidence-generation setting on CARE-XAI, a unified benchmark spanning five biomedical and health fact-checking sources. We compare base instruction LLMs, PubMed retrieval-augmented LLMs, fine-tuned LLMs, label-only LLMs, and biomedical encoder classifiers under a shared evaluation protocol. Biomedical classifiers remain strongest for verdict-only prediction, while fine-tuned LLMs are the strongest evidence-generating systems. PubMed retrieval is mixed: it helps PubMed-aligned sources such as PubMedQA and SciFact, but can distract models on broader public-health claims. We introduce Bio-GRACE, a gold-reference-normalized diagnostic for measuring whether retrieved evidence recovers the decision benefit of reference evidence. Bio-GRACE shows that retrieval utility is source-dependent, motivates selective retrieval, and exposes why retrieval recall and lexical evidence overlap are insufficient for biomedical fact-checking.

Pritam Deka, Prabhjot Singh

Queen’s University Belfast United Kingdom · University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas, USA

Explainable Artificial Intelligence Automated Fact-Checking RAG Evaluation Evidence-Grounded Generation Scientific Claim Verification

Aug 2, 2026cs.AI

Auditing Discovery Claims: A Two-Sided Criterion for Agentic Science, with the Negative Side Decidable

When a self-improving AI-for-science system claims a new capability, the evidence is usually a benchmark delta, a description-length gate, or a p-value. None separates a real gain from extra search, from a changed verifier, or from adaptation to a fallible oracle. We build a two-sided audit whose negative side is a formal fact: a pseudoknot-free oracle provably cannot represent a crossing base pair, so the prior verifier's range is bounded exactly, offline, before any run. "New" is relative to the agent's prior self, never to the base model. First, how far a single fallible oracle can inflate a capability claim. An invented, solver-free operator solves 43/60 crossing RNA targets under the predictor it optimizes, above a context-free floor of 0/60; under three predictors, 1/60 survives. Paired on the same 43 targets, a predictor the operator never saw confirms 2 of its designs against 26 for a minimum-free-energy solver (p = 8e-7). No statistic computed from the system and its own oracle sees that gap. Second, agent-written procedures can beat a human-written one under a judge no objective can flatter, at a fraction of the compute. Of six frontier models, the two whose operators ran without timeouts carry over at 0.293 against our 0.095 (n = 951 paired units, target-clustered [+0.108, +0.297], p = 5e-5) while spending 4.6-10x fewer oracle calls. Three rungs: difference under an outside adjudicator (reached), not bought with compute (reached, both directions), mechanism identified and transferable (not reached; seven candidates tested, none moves the statistic). The ceiling is the panel itself: its three predictors share nearest-neighbour thermodynamic parameters, two agreeing at kappa = 0.673. The audit is as unsparing about our own system: matched undirected search is an exact zero, and a search-free probe puts 84% of our headline effect on targets a random sequence already solves.

Wenhui Chen, Jianlin Chen, Ziyao Lin +1

University of Macau · 2South China University of Technology

Reward Hacking AI for Science AI Agent Auditing AI Agent Evaluation Scientific Claim Verification

Jul 24, 2026cs.CY

Opaque Epistemic Mediation: How LLM Deployment Configurations Shape the Validation of Pseudo-Science

Commercial large language models are increasingly used as knowledge references, yet their stance on contested scientific claims is neither stable nor transparent. We tested how four major LLM families (Claude, Grok, GPT, Gemini) evaluate ethnonationalist pseudo-science derived from Frank Salter's biosocial framework across four temporal snapshots (October 2025-February 2026), via both API and web interfaces. Grok's Fast versions (which power the default user experience on X) consistently assigned credibility scores of 70-75, two to five times higher than all other models (which scored 15-40). This pattern was absent from control prompts testing basic evolutionary consensus and refuted Lamarckian claims, where all models performed comparably. Three additional findings emerged: (1) a silent patch reversed Grok's behaviour from chaotic to stably high validation overnight, without any public documentation; (2) the same Grok model identifier produced radically divergent outputs via API (75) and an unstable, near-zero collapse via web (mean 5.5) three months later; (3) refusal to rate the pseudo-scientific claim, the most defensible response observed, appeared in two model families through different interfaces (Claude Opus 4.1 categorically via web, GPT-5.1 Chat intermittently via API) and eroded in the successor version of each. These results indicate that the epistemic stance of a commercial LLM is not a stable property of the model but a contingent effect of deployment configuration: system prompts, safety layers, interface routing, and silent updates. This remains opaque to users and researchers alike. We argue this constitutes a matter of public concern requiring new forms of epistemic accountability.

Davide Scarso, Hugo Noronha de Almeida, Joaquim Pina

CIUHCT - Interuniversity Centre for the History of Science and Technology · MARE - Marine and Environmental Sciences Centre, ARNET - Aquatic Research Network Associate Laboratory

LLM Evaluation LLM Auditing LLM Reliability Scientific Claim Verification

Jul 19, 2026cs.LG

Grounded verification of chemical and materials reasoning: detection is the bottleneck

Large language models confabulate chemical objects (molecular formulas, space groups, formation energies) in fluent reasoning traces, concentrated on long-tail entities where confidence is least trustworthy. Deterministic, database-grounded verification can catch and repair such errors without the coverage cost of blanket retrieval; the binding constraint, we find, is detection, not repair. Our tiered verifier extracts each checkable claim, checks it against authoritative databases and physics, and feeds the reference into a gated correction loop. Across four models and 528 condition-pinned prompts, gated correction cuts committed-formula error from 22% to 4% at

3.2\times

fewer retrievals than blanket augmentation, beating a conversational oracle. Repair succeeds wherever a flag fires (80--97%); the bottleneck is in-loop detection recall. Grounding improves the final answer only when the verifier's scope reaches the deliverable (83% to 90%), and the lift appears only where extractable long-tail error exists: absent on near-ceiling physical constants, large on isotope half-lives (11% to 0%).

Can Polat, Mustafa Kurban, Erchin Serpedin +1

Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA · Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Texas A&M University at Qatar, Doha, Qatar · Department of Prosthetics and Orthotics, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey +1

LLM Self-Correction LLM Grounding LLM Answer Verification Scientific Claim Verification

Jul 18, 2026cs.CL

Though Language Models Err While They Strive: Conformal Prediction for Self-Correcting Scientific Generation

Large language models frequently violate fundamental scientific principles when generating technical content, undermining their reliability in scientific applications. We introduce Scientific Feasibility Control SFC, a graph-structured conformal prediction framework that provides statistical guarantees for scientific reasoning validity through progressive absolute-coherent-factuality validation. Our approach decomposes scientific reasoning into atomic absolute-coherent-factuality units requiring both individual correctness against physical laws and logical substantiation from preceding context, addressing the cascade effect where early scientific errors contaminate subsequent reasoning steps. Unlike independence-based methods that treat claims in isolation, SFC models logical dependencies as approximate deducibility graphs and operates through real-time validation with dynamic branching when scientific violations are detected, the system branches to alternative generation paths using verified context as foundation. We demonstrate SFC across established scientific reasoning benchmarks including PhyX multimodal physics, MATH, ScienceQA, and ARC Challenge, achieving 50.1 percent accuracy on PhyX physics reasoning, substantially outperforming recent reasoning models including DeepSeek-R1 49.8 percent and GPT-4 45.8 percent while providing 91.7 percent scientific validity with formal conformal coverage guarantees at alpha equals 0.10 confidence level and reducing scientific law violations by 73 percent across multiple model architectures.

Mingqiao Mo, Yunlong Tan, Hao Zhang

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

LLM Self-Correction Scientific Reasoning Conformal Prediction LLM Reliability Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Jul 17, 2026cs.CL

ToolSciVer: Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification with Visual Tool Augmented Reinforcement Learning

Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification (MSCV) requires models to verify scientific claims using visually grounded evidence from papers, including figures, tables, charts, and textual context. However, existing methods often fail because they struggle to locate decisive visual evidence, accurately read structured scientific visuals, and integrate multimodal observations into reliable reasoning. We introduce ToolSciVer, the first tool-augmented framework for MSCV to our knowledge. ToolSciVer equips a VLM with three type-aware visual tools, table row/column focus, chart-to-structure parsing, and high-resolution region zoom, which convert dense scientific visuals into explicit, claim-facing evidence, and trains the policy with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) under a composite reward of answer correctness, format validity, length control, tool-use efficiency, and tool-validity penalties. Experiments on SciVer and MuSciClaims datasets on five VLMs from three model families (Qwen, InternVL, Gemma) demonstrate that our method achieves superior performance compared to four competitive baselines including prompting-based and RL-based tool-use methods, highlighting the effectiveness of learned, type-aware tool use for scientific claim verification.

Binglin Zhou, Peng Shi, Ryo Kamoi +2

1The Pennsylvania State University · University of Waterloo

Tool Use in VLMs Scientific Claim Verification Multimodal Tool Use

Jul 3, 2026cs.AI

VERITAS: Towards a General-Purpose Replication Tool for Scientific Research

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. As manual replication is slow and expensive, a growing line of work uses coding agents to automate parts of the process. Existing efforts are largely packaged as benchmarks with companion agents that only run inside the benchmark's own pipeline, and no general-purpose replication tool exists. We present VERITAS, a domain-agnostic replication framework built around CLI coding agents. Given a paper, a code repository, or both, VERITAS extracts the paper's claims, runs the methodology while resolving issues as they arise, and judges each claim against the evidence from experiment runs. The pipeline returns an importance-weighted Replication Score, a severity-rated log of every fix applied, and the patched codebase. We evaluate VERITAS on CORE-Bench and ReplicationBench, 65 papers spanning computer science, social science, medicine, and astrophysics. Against two strong Claude Code baselines on the same model and host environment, VERITAS achieves state-of-the-art performance and leads on every metric on both benchmarks.

Haokun Liu, Filbert Aurelian Tjiaranata, Chenhao Tan

University of Indonesia

AI Coding Agents Scientific Reproducibility Scientific Claim Verification

Jul 2, 2026cs.AI

Coding-agents can replicate scientific machine learning papers

Scientific machine learning papers typically make computational claims, e.g., that the relative mean square error is less than 5% or that the 95% predictive credible interval covers the test data. A coding agent can be prompted to replicate those claims from paper materials alone, but the prompt does not by itself reliably preserve progress or check whether generated evidence supports the paper's claims. We introduce Paper-replication, a workflow that makes each selected paper claim a target with recorded evidence, and implement it as a coding-agent skill. The workflow makes the agent record those targets, reconstruct the paper's method, run computational experiments, link generated outputs to provenance and comparisons with the paper's claims, record where matched evidence appears in the replication report, and pass validation checks before completion. We evaluate Paper-replication on twelve independent runs across four scientific machine learning papers. All twelve workspaces pass the completion gate, and all 158 recorded targets are matched with report coverage. Even in this completed workspace state, repeated runs differ in how papers are divided into targets, in numerical fidelity to the source papers, in elapsed replication time, in the number of intermediate executions replaced before final evidence is accepted, and in the rules used to accept evidence. Paper-replication makes completion depend on workspace evidence and validation checks rather than on the agent's final message.

Atharva Hans, Ilias Bilionis

School of Mechanical Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47907, USA

Coding Agents LLM Agent Evaluation ML Reproducibility Scientific Reproducibility Scientific Workflow Automation Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 28, 2026cs.AI

SFBench: The SciFy Scientific Feasibility Benchmark

We present SFBench, a benchmark dataset for evaluating systems that assess the feasibility of scientific claims. SFBench includes 197 claims in materials science, each annotated with a ground-truth feasibility score on a five-point scale along with an explanation of that assessment. The collection differs from previous collections in several important ways: 1) it defines a complex task that requires reasoning over claims of varying scientific feasibility; 2) its claims are not extracted from existing scientific publications but are created de novo, greatly reducing the chances that LLMs have trained on them; 3) claims and ground truth are established by subject matter experts, not by artificial intelligence; and 4) unlike many benchmarks that ask about question/answer pairs, provide multiple choice answers, or ask questions requiring short, fixed answers, SFBench explanations are completely open-ended. We describe the benchmark design, data creation process, and evaluation metrics, and we report baseline results using recent GPT models.

Cash Costello, James Mayfield, Elsbeth Turcan +7

Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory

LLM Evaluation Benchmark Design Synthetic Benchmark Generation Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 22, 2026cs.LG

Position: Correct Answer, Wrong Mechanism -- When AI Scientists Defend General Claims Their Own Data Contradicts

AI scientist systems are described as tools, coauthors, or founders, but we evaluate them as if only the final answer matters. This position paper argues that outcome-only evaluation is insufficient, and that task outcome, mechanism fidelity, and epistemic honesty must be measured separately. Our evidence comes from 28 episodes of a coding agent attempting to rediscover a known particle identification observable in a Geant4 simulation, including an 8-episode probe across two additional frontier models. In 4/20 primary-model and 3/8 cross-model episodes, agents reach right-looking results through incorrect reasoning that breaks when conditions change, which we call Correct Answer, Wrong Mechanism (CAWM). Honesty and mechanism fidelity dissociate within a single agent trajectory. When given a partially misleading prior, all five agents reject the false component on evidence, yet one defends its chosen observable with physics inconsistent with its own data. In the simulation-based discovery setting studied here, coding agents prove reliable tools but unreliable scientific co-authors for open-ended claim-making, where co-author trust requires mechanism-fidelity verification they do not reliably self-apply. The failure is detectable, and we propose a lightweight test. A one-step regime-shift check needs only the agent's claim and flags the over-generalized cases. A companion recomputation flags the remaining cases when the correct observable is known. Together, these checks flag every CAWM case in this study.

Steven Young Eulig

Department of Physics and Laboratory for Particle Physics and Cosmology (LPPC), Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.

AI Agent Reliability Reasoning Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation Autonomous Scientific Discovery LLM Agent Reliability Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 19, 2026cs.CL

Finetuning with Scientific Data Increases Hallucinations: A Multi-domain Factuality Evaluation of LLMs

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high stakes use-case. Prior hallucination evaluation work remains largely restricted to the biomedical domain, treats hallucination as a binary task, and has not examined the growing family of scientifically fine-tuned LLMs. We address these gaps with SciFactCheck, a benchmark of 2,500 prompts across five scientific domains, paired with a modular evaluation framework targeting three factuality hallucination types: unverifiability, overclaim, and attribution. Using a controlled minimal-pairing design, we evaluate 18 LLMs by comparing each scientifically fine-tuned model against its general-purpose base. Our results indicate that 1. Scientifically fine-tuned models exhibit degraded factual reliability across all hallucination types and scientific domains, and 2. Fine-tuned models are internally less confident yet linguistically more assertive. A human pilot study further reveals that current fact-checking tools show only modest agreement with expert judgments on scientific content, and that defining scientifically check-worthy claims remains contested even among human annotators. Our findings fundamentally challenge current methods of domain-specific fine-tuning for factuality and call for developing improved verification infrastructure for scientific content.

Raia Abu Ahmad, Nikolas Rauscher, Ekaterina Borisova +3

Deutsches Forschungszentrum für Künstliche Intelligenz GmbH (DFKI) · Technische Universität Berlin · Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

LLM Evaluation LLM Fine-Tuning Hallucination in Language Models Factual Knowledge in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 18, 2026cs.CL

SciLens: Multi-modal Scientific Claim Verification with Agentic Entailment and Grounding

Scientific discovery increasingly relies on automated systems that generate hypotheses, inspect multimodal evidence, and validate claims at scale. Yet scientific claim verification is not well served by asking a vision-language model for a direct binary judgment: claims often combine numerical results, comparisons, scope qualifiers, and explanatory context, while evidence is encoded in tables and figures with distinct grounding structures. We present SciLens, an evidence-conditioned atomic entailment framework for multimodal scientific claim verification. SciLens decomposes each claim into central empirical atoms and background atoms, grounds the central atoms to modality-specific evidence witnesses, and predicts the final label with an atom-level entailment rule. For tables, atoms are grounded to rows, columns, cells, arithmetic relations, and table scope; for figures, they are grounded through panels, axes, legends, visual encodings, categories, trends, ranks, and qualifier checks. This yields a unified validation procedure in which a claim is supported only if every central empirical atom is entailed by the current evidence. On the SciClaimEval development set, SciLens achieves 79.2% macro-F1 and 63.1% pair accuracy, showing that structured agentic validation improves both evidence sensitivity and interpretability.

Yueming Wang, Tianshi Zheng, Jiaxin Bai +3

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology Hong Kong SAR, China · NVIDIA AI Technology Center Santa Clara, USA

Multimodal Grounding AI for Science Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Scientific Reasoning Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 17, 2026cs.AI

Making AI Scientists Auditable from Evidence to Claim

AI research systems can report improved results without establishing that the tested implementation matches the method described in their conclusions. We introduce Xcientist, a research harness that connects literature review, component-based idea generation, experiment validation and reporting. An evidence graph retains source passages, methods, baselines and evaluation conditions; component records track design revisions; and validation contracts specify the implementation, comparisons and artifacts required at each stage. We define claim drift as an unresolved mismatch between an accepted claim and its attributed sources, code or experiments. A retrospective audit across agent memory, traffic forecasting and physics-informed learning found audit claim drift rates of 3.6--16.7% for Xcientist, lower than those of each of three comparison systems in all nine task-by-relation comparisons. This measure includes both confirmed mismatches and unverifiable claims; most of the difference arose from fewer unverifiable records. The case studies also document performance gains, unsuccessful revisions and limits on component attribution. This technical report describes the system, its implementation and the records needed to check how a proposed idea became a tested method and a final claim.

Zijian Wang, Hanqi Li, Ziyue Yang +17

X-LANCE Lab, School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China · Suzhou Laboratory, Suzhou, China · Shanghai Innovation Institution, Shanghai, China +1

Data Provenance Scientific Reproducibility Scientific Workflow Automation Autonomous Research Agents Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 11, 2026cs.CL

Small LLMs for Biomedical Claim Verification: Cost-Effective Fine-Tuning, Structural Dataset Shortcuts, and Cross-Domain Generalization

Large Language Models such as GPT-4o and GPT-5 achieve strong zero-shot performance on biomedical claim verification, but cost and opacity limit scalable use. We fine-tune three small LLMs: Phi-3-mini (3.8B), Qwen2.5-3B, and Mistral-7B, via QLoRA on SciFact and HealthVer, providing the first study of QLoRA models against GPT-4o and fine-tuned BioLinkBERT encoders. Mistral-7B QLoRA surpasses both GPT-4o and GPT-5 (up to 12% F1 gain) at a fractional cost using just 1,008 training examples. We conduct extensive in-domain and cross-domain evaluation: models trained on SciFact tested on HealthVer and vice versa, at matched sizes to isolate dataset structure from data quantity. We identify a previously unreported structural artifact in SciFact that inflates in-domain scores, and show through bidirectional out-of-domain evaluation that training on structurally sound data enables robust cross-domain transfer. We plan to release all code and adapter checkpoints.

Gaurav Kumar

Moveworks AI · University of California San Diego

Claim Verification LLM Fine-Tuning Cross-Domain Generalization Quantization-Aware LoRA Shortcut Learning Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 10, 2026cs.AI

StatefulDiscovery: Evidence-Calibrated Claim Formation in Open-Ended Scientific Discovery

Open-ended scientific discovery asks agents to move beyond executing analyses for predefined questions. Across multiple rounds of exploration, a discovery agent must decide which phenomena warrant investigation while avoiding overinterpretation, where emerging claims exceed the evidential scope of the analyses. This creates an evidence-calibration problem: the exploration trajectory must be coupled with claim status so that evidence can guide both what to investigate next and what can be claimed. We introduce \textsc{StatefulDiscovery}, a discovery framework that externalizes investigation state and uses it to coordinate frontier selection, evidence acquisition, and claim adjudication. We evaluate \textsc{StatefulDiscovery} across 40 real-data discovery tasks. Compared with several baselines, \textsc{StatefulDiscovery} produces more claims overall judged to be both well-supported and high-value. Ablations indicate distinct roles for structured hypotheses, local adjudication, frontier control and persistent states. Together, these results suggest that explicit discovery state can couple exploration with evidence-calibrated claim formation. Our code is released at https://github.com/SUSTech-GenAI/StatefulDiscovery.git.

Jiayao Chen, Shi Liu, Linyi Yang

Southern University of Science and Technology

AI Agents for Scientific Discovery Evidence-Grounded Reasoning State Tracking Scientific Claim Verification

Jun 6, 2026cs.AI

Traxia: A Framework for Verifiable, Agent-Native Scientific Publishing

Verifiability, attribution, and reproducibility are foundational requirements of scientific knowledge, yet current publishing infrastructure does not enforce them at scale. We introduce Traxia, an agent-native scientific publishing framework in which AI research agents publish verifiable papers, build reputational identities, peer-review one another, and collaborate with humans in a shared provenance model. Traxia treats agents as first-class epistemic participants: every paper carries a reasoning trace, every claim a confidence interval, every agent a cryptographically signed identity, and every collaboration an immutable contribution log. We formalise five components: Agent Identity and Registry, Verifiable Publishing Layer, four-tier Peer Review Protocol, Reputation and Staking Engine, and a Knowledge Graph with contradiction detection. The framework targets reproducibility failure, provenance opacity, and exclusion of Global South research capacity. This paper presents architectural foundations and formal specifications only; it does not report empirical results. Evaluation and deeper component studies will follow in subsequent papers. A prototype partially implements core formalisms; the full system remains under active development.

Wisdom Dogah

Faculty of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, University of Mines and Technology (UMaT), Tarkwa, Ghana. · BlackMatrix AI Research, Accra, Ghana.

Data Provenance Scholarly Peer Review Scientific Communication AI Agent Governance Scientific Reproducibility Autonomous Research Agents+1

Jun 1, 2026cs.CL

Encoded but Not Routed: Explaining the Table-Chart Gap in Scientific Claim Verification

Multimodal LLMs are increasingly used to assist scientific peer review, where a core requirement is verifying whether claims in a paper are supported by its evidence. Prior work has shown that models perform substantially better at this task when the evidence is a table than when it is a chart of the same underlying data. This raises the question of whether models fail to extract information from charts, or do they extract it but fail to use it when forming their prediction? We study this question through layer-wise linear probing and attention analysis on three open-weight VLMs over table and chart evidence, representing the same underlying data. We find consistent evidence for the latter. Chart information is encoded in the models' intermediate representations but does not reach the prediction position, a gap that is absent for tables and holds across all conditions tested. Attention analysis further reveals that this disconnect takes two architecturally distinct forms across model families. These findings reframe the table-chart gap as a failure of how encoded visual information is routed at prediction time, rather than a failure of encoding itself.

Sunisth Kumar, Xanh Ho, Tim Schopf +3

The University of Tokyo · NII LLMC · National Institute of Informatics +2

VLM Interpretability Chart Understanding Multimodal Model Evaluation Scientific Claim Verification

May 27, 2026cs.AI

ResearchLoop: An Evidence-Gated Control Plane for AI-Assisted Research

AI-assisted research compresses ideation, implementation, evaluation, and manuscript writing into a single interactive loop. This compression is useful, but it also creates a publication risk: paper claims can become easier to state than to audit. We present ResearchLoop, an evidence-gated control plane for AI-assisted computational research. ResearchLoop treats research questions, task contracts, evidence objects, claim ledgers, closeouts, and paper bindings as durable project state, realized here as a repository-backed runtime. This technical report provides the complete protocol specification, state model, transition rules, claim-admission algorithm, and insight-compounding mechanism. It also reports the full experimental record spanning nine versions (V0--V9), including a self-hosting case study, a controlled task-suite study with component ablations, a mathematical olympiad evaluation, and a supplementary SciCode boundary experiment evaluated with the official generated-code harness. All artifacts, manifests, and verification reports are preserved in the project repository.

Yihan Xia, Taotao Wang

Shenzhen University, China

AI-Assisted Scientific Research Scientific Reproducibility Scientific Claim Verification

May 26, 2026cs.AI

DeepSciVerify: Verifying Scientific Claim--Citation Alignment via LLM-Driven Evidence Escalation

Misalignment between claims and their cited evidence is a common failure mode in reports generated by large language models, limiting their reliability in scientific and other high-stakes settings. We present DeepSciVerify, a two-stage pipeline for scientific claim-citation verification that combines abstract-level reasoning with selective escalation to passage-level evidence. The system first verifies claims using the abstract and defers uncertain cases, retrieving and analyzing full-text passages only when necessary. This design leverages complementary behaviors across LLMs, as some models are more conservative while others are more decisive under uncertainty. On the SCitance benchmark, DeepSciVerify achieves 86.7 Micro-F1, outperforming strong abstract-only baselines by +4.5 points while resolving 67% of instances without full-text retrieval. These results suggest that selective evidence escalation improves both accuracy and efficiency in claim-citation verification.

Shaghayegh Sadeghi, Khashayar Khajavi, Rise Adhikari +1

FirstPrinciples · School of Computing Science, Simon Fraser University

Selective Prediction Citation Verification Evidence Retrieval Scientific Claim Verification

May 25, 2026cs.AI

ScientistOne: Towards Human-Level Autonomous Research via Chain-of-Evidence

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

Rui Meng, Bhavana Dalvi Mishra, Jiefeng Chen +10

Google Cloud AI Research

Data Provenance Citation Verification Evidence-Grounded Generation Scientific Reproducibility Autonomous Research Agents Scientific Claim Verification