analiza aiqbench
FactReview introduces a novel audit pipeline that enhances LLM-based manuscript reviews by grounding claims in literature and executing code artifacts to verify them directly. By reducing review time significantly while improving claim coverage, this system addresses the critical gap of verifying evidence-dependent assertions without replacing human decision-making authority. This advancement represents a meaningful step toward more reliable and efficient peer-review processes powered by machine learning execution capabilities.
FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Peer Review with Execution-Based Claim Verification
arXiv:2604.04074v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM)-based reviewing systems typically assess manuscripts in isolation, leaving literature- and code-dependent claims difficult to verify. We present FactReview, an audit pipeline that extracts review-relevant claims, grounds them in related work and reference checks, and, when code is available, executes released artifacts under a fixed repair budget. On 26 paper-disjoint test papers with 354 human-verified claims, FactReview achieves 84.3\% F1 for claim recovery. In a same-backend, evidence-matched comparison, FactReview scores 4.72/5 overall, outperforming a direct LLM reviewer by 0.74 points. Removing execution evidence changes 17.0\% of claim statuses, more than removing any other single evidence source. In a reviewer-assistance study, FactReview reduces mean review time by 58\% while increasing benchmark-claim coverage from 87\% to 99\%. FactReview supports evidence-based claim auditing, with acceptance decisions reserved for human reviewers. The code is public at https://github.com/DEFENSE-SEU/FactReview.
Abstract:Large language model (LLM)-based reviewing systems typically assess manuscripts in isolation, leaving literature- and code-dependent claims difficult to verify. We present FactReview, an audit pipeline that extracts review-relevant claims, grounds them in related work and reference checks, and, when code is available, executes released artifacts under a fixed repair budget. On 26 paper-disjoint test papers with 354 human-verified claims, FactReview achieves 84.3\% F1 for claim recovery. In a same-backend, evidence-matched comparison, FactReview scores 4.72/5 overall, outperforming a direct LLM reviewer by 0.74 points. Removing execution evidence changes 17.0\% of claim statuses, more than removing any other single evidence source. In a reviewer-assistance study, FactReview reduces mean review time by 58\% while increasing benchmark-claim coverage from 87\% to 99\%. FactReview supports evidence-based claim auditing, with acceptance decisions reserved for human reviewers. The code is public at this https URL.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2604.04074 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2604.04074v4 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2604.04074 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 233 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Brief independent investigation of agents’ behavior, reasoning and collaboration in the OpenAI / Hugging Face hacking incident
METR · 26 aug. 2026
Extending AI for Research to the Humanities: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evidence-Grounded Scholarship
arXiv · 4 iun. 2026
Extending AI for Research to the Humanities: A Multi-Agent Framework for Evidence-Grounded Scholarship
arXiv · 3 iun. 2026

Inference meta-monitoring for Amazon SageMaker AI endpoints with Amazon Quick
AWS · 30 iul. 2026