Correction
Open
Scientific reasoning does not reliably translate into scientific forecasting in frontier AI
ref [67] · 2605.22681 · notice #6045 · dispute
Raw extraction · bibliography line
alignment(0–10): Does the LLM RESPONSE describe the specific approach used in the paper? Use web search to find the actual paper method. 0–2:completely wrong direction or no meaningful content 3–4:roughly right area but missing key specifics of the actual method 5–6:captures the main idea but lacks important details or misstates them 7–8:matches the core technique with most key details correct 9–10:precise match including specific design choices and implementation 2.specificity(0–10): Is the LLM RESPONSE technically concrete? 0–2:pure buzzwords or single-sentence vague claims 3–4:names a technique but no explanation of how it is applied 5–6:explains the method at a conceptual level 7–8:provides implementation-level details (architecture, loss, data) 9–10:full technical recipe that could be directly implemented 58 3.novelty(0–10): Does the LLM RESPONSE show non-obvious insight? 0–2:restates the most obvious baseline for this problem area 3–4:proposes minor, obvious variations on standard baselines 5–6:goes beyond obvious but the insight is well-known in the field 7–8:proposes something non-trivial and technically justified 9–10:highly original and technically justified breakthrough