Pith. sign in

Paper Citation Record · LEDGER

Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

As of 17 August 2026, this Paper Citation Record lists 0 of 0 outbound references and 8 inbound Pith citation observations for arXiv:2305.13160.

A citation records a reference. It does not transfer a finding from one paper to another.

pith.paper-citation-record.v1
2305.13160 v2

Coverage vector

measured 0 of 0 reference resolution

Typed states for the displayed outbound observations.

Source: paper_references, paper_reference_links

measured 8 of 8 standing notices

One-hop event checks from named stored sources.

Source: scholarly_work_events, retraction_status_cache, observed 2026-08-17T06:30:58.91139+00:00

measured 8 of 8 inbound itemization

Pith citing papers itemized under the disclosed page cap.

Source: paper_references, paper_reference_links, observed 2026-08-15T19:04:00.303690Z

measured 0 of 1 external citation measurements

A source-named dated measurement, never combined with another source.

Source: arxiv_reference, observed 2026-05-22T04:34:35.305867Z

Reference resolution

0 of 0 outbound references displayed

  • verified exact0
  • verified fuzzy0
  • unresolved0
  • parse uncertain0
  • malformed identifier0
  • metadata mismatch0

External citation measurements

No source-named external measurement is stored.

Outbound references

No outbound reference observations are available for this paper version.

Pith citing papers

Observation d5592b88-58c9-4709-b4a9-e589b0fe4615 · inbound

Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models cites this paper.

Simple synthetic data reduces sycophancy in large language models Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

Reference 46

Resolution
verified exact
arxiv_id, observed 2026-05-16T14:48:08.713557Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-17T06:30:58.91139+00:00.

source=arxiv_source observed=2026-05-16T14:48:08.508109Z digest=sha256:9a268929911ecbbf361871ee11937564b1d78af1763350d6378ff285439c8d75

Observation 7dc50bd8-cb66-4f96-b657-1422c089c494 · inbound

MAmmoTH: Building Math Generalist Models through Hybrid Instruction Tuning cites this paper.

MAmmoTH: Building Math Generalist Models through Hybrid Instruction Tuning Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

Reference 48

Resolution
verified exact
arxiv_id, observed 2026-05-17T23:46:39.486599Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-17T06:30:58.91139+00:00.

source=arxiv_source observed=2026-05-17T23:46:39.330438Z digest=sha256:5aeda174684ab0d74ebd2b374fc541ae361eaf390ecdd28335b486efbffa1fd3

Observation 534f266c-4ee8-4a77-978c-d7f64cef5eae · inbound

A Survey on Human-Centric LLMs cites this paper.

A Survey on Human-Centric LLMs Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

Reference 48

Resolution
unresolved
no resolver link, observed 2026-08-12T16:42:07.836552Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

source=pdf_text observed=2026-08-12T16:42:07.836552Z digest=sha256:055fe29e9e05505d41d6355cc268ba374160fd6d23fa80373c0bf751016a86a4

Observation faaaa970-02ec-44d4-be60-9ddfed7302c0 · inbound

Tailored Truths: Optimizing LLM Persuasion with Personalization and Fabricated Statistics cites this paper.

Tailored Truths: Optimizing LLM Persuasion with Personalization and Fabricated Statistics Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

Reference 46

Resolution
unresolved
no resolver link, observed 2026-08-10T04:45:43.191396Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

source=pdf_text observed=2026-08-10T04:45:43.191396Z digest=sha256:ba6b82fef910244c0c8310f7f09cf7cd16b9614f7a82773d60fbf0067471d0c5

Observation 04a39957-aa6e-4a67-9390-10b6b13318e9 · inbound

LLMs for Customized Marketing Content Generation and Evaluation at Scale cites this paper.

LLMs for Customized Marketing Content Generation and Evaluation at Scale Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

Reference 35

Resolution
unresolved
no resolver link, observed 2026-08-15T19:04:00.303690Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

source=pdf_text observed=2026-08-15T19:04:00.303690Z digest=sha256:8d7abb9c2757f694241c0276de812f4ea5c6241f887735c780e10a44a3768e4f

Observation 60e87c6e-acdc-4666-9514-a8be478ff5d8 · inbound

CORE-KG: An LLM-Driven Knowledge Graph Construction Framework for Human Smuggling Networks cites this paper.

CORE-KG: An LLM-Driven Knowledge Graph Construction Framework for Human Smuggling Networks Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

Reference 33

Resolution
unresolved
no resolver link, observed 2026-08-06T23:40:57.359166Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

source=pdf_text observed=2026-08-06T23:40:57.359166Z digest=sha256:9c10a77e26d932f42db8b0a079c1f312866d11c6688d9c1f79219038fcfa8505

Observation 235258ff-99f6-432f-81a2-93df029e39c2 · inbound

Inverse IFEval: Can LLMs Unlearn Stubborn Training Conventions to Follow Real Instructions? cites this paper.

Inverse IFEval: Can LLMs Unlearn Stubborn Training Conventions to Follow Real Instructions? Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

Reference 26

Resolution
unresolved
no resolver link, observed 2026-08-05T10:16:51.264870Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

Unavailable: canonical work link unavailable.

source=pdf_text observed=2026-08-05T10:16:51.264870Z digest=sha256:9f7edf25ae8a61c31960fb408aae22bdcb8201514c4e0218e964d49b442748b0

Observation a5b41146-aca3-4a49-9d22-b267c1e72740 · inbound

Reinforced Preference Optimization for Reasoning-Augmented Recommendations cites this paper.

Reinforced Preference Optimization for Reasoning-Augmented Recommendations Can ChatGPT Defend its Belief in Truth? Evaluating LLM Reasoning via Debate

Reference 32

Resolution
verified exact
arxiv_id, observed 2026-05-22T04:34:35.313310Z

Source-reported events for the cited work

No event found in the named queried sources as of 2026-08-17T06:30:58.91139+00:00.

source=pdf_text observed=2026-05-22T04:34:28.214871Z digest=sha256:94cdb88b5ff6f5ab240d306bde71744f95fe6de4d34d96718dc70d58eb37498f