Cheaper LLM judges match frontier models on citation-quality F1 but differ substantially in false positive and false negative rates, meaning reward signal calibration matters more than model cost.
Citeme: Can language models accurately cite scientific claims?
4 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
4
Pith papers citing it
abstract
Thousands of new scientific papers are published each month. Such information overload complicates researcher efforts to stay current with the state-of-the-art as well as to verify and correctly attribute claims. We pose the following research question: Given a text excerpt referencing a paper, could an LM act as a research assistant to correctly identify the referenced paper? We advance efforts to answer this question by building a benchmark that evaluates the abilities of LMs in citation attribution. Our benchmark, CiteME, consists of text excerpts from recent machine learning papers, each referencing a single other paper. CiteME use reveals a large gap between frontier LMs and human performance, with LMs achieving only 4.2-18.5% accuracy and humans 69.7%. We close this gap by introducing CiteAgent, an autonomous system built on the GPT-4o LM that can also search and read papers, which achieves an accuracy of 35.3\% on CiteME. Overall, CiteME serves as a challenging testbed for open-ended claim attribution, driving the research community towards a future where any claim made by an LM can be automatically verified and discarded if found to be incorrect.
citation-role summary
background 1
citation-polarity summary
roles
background 1polarities
background 1representative citing papers
LABBench2 is a more challenging benchmark than LAB-Bench for assessing AI performance on biology research tasks, with frontier models showing accuracy drops of 26-46% across subtasks.
XtraGPT is a suite of 1.5B-14B parameter open-source LLMs fine-tuned on 140,000 revision pairs from 7,000 top-tier papers to support controllable, context-aware academic paper editing.
AI can generate research artifacts faster than it can verify them, so across all eight lifecycle stages the credible deployment mode is human-governed collaboration rather than full autonomy.
citing papers explorer
-
Do You Need a Frontier Model as a Citation Verifier? Benchmarking Rubric LLMs for Deep-Research Source Attribution
Cheaper LLM judges match frontier models on citation-quality F1 but differ substantially in false positive and false negative rates, meaning reward signal calibration matters more than model cost.
-
LABBench2: An Improved Benchmark for AI Systems Performing Biology Research
LABBench2 is a more challenging benchmark than LAB-Bench for assessing AI performance on biology research tasks, with frontier models showing accuracy drops of 26-46% across subtasks.
-
XtraGPT: Context-Aware and Controllable Academic Paper Revision via Human-AI Collaboration
XtraGPT is a suite of 1.5B-14B parameter open-source LLMs fine-tuned on 140,000 revision pairs from 7,000 top-tier papers to support controllable, context-aware academic paper editing.
-
AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide
AI can generate research artifacts faster than it can verify them, so across all eight lifecycle stages the credible deployment mode is human-governed collaboration rather than full autonomy.