REVIEW 4 cited by
CiteME: Can Language Models Accurately Cite Scientific Claims?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
CiteME: Can Language Models Accurately Cite Scientific Claims?
read the original 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.
Forward citations
Cited by 4 Pith papers
-
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
The paper delivers a stage-by-stage roadmap for AI in research, showing reliable assistance in retrieval and tool tasks but fragility in novelty and judgment, advocating human-governed collaboration.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.