{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2026:QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z","short_pith_number":"pith:QOOSTOER","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"839d29b8911a08bfb53cb375c52103e67497c06f740bb4d2a6a86e9c1297646a","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2607.26066","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Do Methods Support the Claims? Intra-Paper Verification for Peer Review","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI","cs.DL"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Arash Mahyari, Ashok Srinivasan, Ranjitha Shivaprasad Ballakuraya","submitted_at":"2026-06-21T18:52:53Z","abstract_excerpt":"The growing volume of scientific submissions has motivated interest in using large language models (LLMs) to assist peer review. Existing automated novelty assessment approaches typically compare a paper's claimed contributions against prior literature, implicitly assuming that these contributions are accurately realized in the work itself. Human reviewers, however, frequently challenge novelty claims not because similar ideas already exist, but because the methodological evidence presented in the paper does not adequately support them. This internal mismatch between claimed contributions and "},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2607.26066","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.CL","submitted_at":"2026-06-21T18:52:53Z","cross_cats_sorted":["cs.AI","cs.DL"],"title_canon_sha256":"325999988a2d75534fdd1eec01126150785d1d8bb3767973e01d55fb6296ef9b","abstract_canon_sha256":"65cda607efa0be7a70e77f7eb79185df39ae90932fe5d0a9ad4d42b741e89fe4"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"839d29b8911a08bfb53cb375c52103e67497c06f740bb4d2a6a86e9c1297646a","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.145462Z","signature_status":"unsigned_v0","first_computed_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.145462Z"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Do Methods Support the Claims? Intra-Paper Verification for Peer Review","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":["cs.AI","cs.DL"],"primary_cat":"cs.CL","authors_text":"Arash Mahyari, Ashok Srinivasan, Ranjitha Shivaprasad Ballakuraya","submitted_at":"2026-06-21T18:52:53Z","abstract_excerpt":"The growing volume of scientific submissions has motivated interest in using large language models (LLMs) to assist peer review. Existing automated novelty assessment approaches typically compare a paper's claimed contributions against prior literature, implicitly assuming that these contributions are accurately realized in the work itself. Human reviewers, however, frequently challenge novelty claims not because similar ideas already exist, but because the methodological evidence presented in the paper does not adequately support them. This internal mismatch between claimed contributions and "},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2607.26066","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2607.26066/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2607.26066","created_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.149271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2607.26066v1","created_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.149271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2607.26066","created_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.149271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"QOOSTOERDIEL","created_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.149271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4","created_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.149271+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"QOOSTOER","created_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.149271+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":0,"internal_anchor_count":0,"sample":[]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z","json":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/QOOSTOER"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/QOOSTOER","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2607.26066&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/QOOSTOERDIEL7NJ4WN24KIID4Z/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.149271+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-30T00:08:17.149271+00:00"}