DoGMaTiQ: Automated Generation of Question-and-Answer Nuggets for Report Evaluation

Evaluation of long-form, citation-backed reports has lately received significant attention due to the wide-scale adoption of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Core to many evaluation frameworks is the use of atomic facts, or nuggets, to assess a report's coverage of query-relevant information attested in the underlying collection. While nuggets have traditionally been represented as short statements, recent work has used question-answer (QA) representations, enabling fine-grained evaluations that decouple the information need (i.e. the question) from the potentially diverse content that satisfies it (i.e. its answers). A persistent challenge for nugget-based evaluation is the need to manually curate sets of nuggets for each topic in a test collection -- a laborious process that scales poorly to novel information needs. This challenge is acute in cross-lingual settings, where information is found in multilingual source documents. Accordingly, we introduce DoGMaTiQ, a pipeline for generating high-quality QA-based nugget sets in three stages: (1) document-grounded nugget generation, (2) paraphrase clustering, and (3) nugget subselection based on principled quality criteria. We integrate DoGMaTiQ nuggets with AutoArgue -- a recent nugget-based evaluation framework -- to enable fully automatic evaluation of generated reports. We conduct extensive experiments on two cross-lingual TREC shared tasks, NeuCLIR and RAGTIME, showing strong rank correlations with both human-in-the-loop and fully manual judgments. Finally, detailed analysis of our pipeline reveals that a strong LLM nugget generator is key, and that the system rankings induced by DoGMaTiQ are robust to outlier systems. We facilitate future research in report evaluation by publicly releasing our code and artifacts at https://github.com/manestay/dogmatiq.

When Verification Fails: How Compositionally Infeasible Claims Escape Rejection

Scientific claim verification, the task of determining whether claims are entailed by scientific evidence, is fundamental to establishing discoveries in evidence while preventing misinformation. This process involves evaluating each asserted constraint against validated evidence. Under the Closed-World Assumption (CWA), a claim is accepted if and only if all asserted constraints are positively supported. We show that existing verification benchmarks cannot distinguish models enforcing this standard from models applying a simpler shortcut called salient-constraint checking, which applies CWA's rejection criterion only to the most salient constraint and accepts when that constraint is supported. Because existing benchmarks construct infeasible claims by perturbing a single salient element they are insufficient at distinguishing between rigorous claim verification and simple salient-constraint reliance. To separate the two, we construct compositionally infeasible claims where the salient constraint is supported but a non-salient constraint is contradicted. Across model families and modalities, models that otherwise saturate existing benchmarks consistently over-accept these claims, confirming the prevalence of such shortcut reasoning. Via model context interventions, we show that different models and prompting strategies occupy distinct positions on a shared ROC curve, indicating that the gap between model families reflects differences in verification threshold rather than underlying reasoning ability, and that the compositional inference bottleneck is a structural property of current verification behavior that strategy guidance alone cannot overcome.

Detecting and Correcting Reference Hallucinations in Commercial LLMs and Deep Research Agents

Large language models and deep research agents supply citation URLs to support their claims, yet the reliability of these citations has not been systematically measured. We address six research questions about citation URL validity using 10 models and agents on DRBench (53,090 URLs) and 3 models on ExpertQA (168,021 URLs across 32 academic fields). We find that 3--13\% of citation URLs are hallucinated -- they have no record in the Wayback Machine and likely never existed -- while 5--18\% are non-resolving overall. Deep research agents generate substantially more citations per query than search-augmented LLMs but hallucinate URLs at higher rates. Domain effects are pronounced: non-resolving rates range from 5.4\% (Business) to 11.4\% (Theology), with per-model effects even larger. Decomposing failures reveals that some models fabricate every non-resolving URL, while others show substantial link-rot fractions indicating genuine retrieval. As a solution, we release urlhealth, an open-source tool for URL liveness checking and stale-vs-hallucinated classification using the Wayback Machine. In agentic self-correction experiments, models equipped with urlhealth reduce non-resolving citation URLs by $6\textrm{--}79\times$ to under 1\%, though effectiveness depends on the model's tool-use competence. The tool and all data are publicly available. Our characterization findings, failure taxonomy, and open-source tooling establish that citation URL validity is both measurable at scale and correctable in practice.

BibTeX Citation Hallucinations in Scientific Publishing Agents: Evaluation and Mitigation

Large language models with web search are increasingly used in scientific publishing agents, yet they still produce BibTeX entries with pervasive field-level errors. Prior evaluations tested base models without search, which does not reflect current practice. We construct a benchmark of 931 papers across four scientific domains and three citation tiers -- popular, low-citation, and recent post-cutoff -- designed to disentangle parametric memory from search dependence, with version-aware ground truth accounting for multiple citable versions of the same paper. Three search-enabled frontier models (GPT-5, Claude Sonnet-4.6, Gemini-3 Flash) generate BibTeX entries scored on nine fields and a six-way error taxonomy, producing ~23,000 field-level observations. Overall accuracy is 83.6%, but only 50.9% of entries are fully correct; accuracy drops 27.7pp from popular to recent papers, revealing heavy reliance on parametric memory even when search is available. Field-error co-occurrence analysis identifies two failure modes: wholesale entry substitution (identity fields fail together) and isolated field error. We evaluate clibib, an open-source tool for deterministic BibTeX retrieval from the Zotero Translation Server with CrossRef fallback, as a mitigation mechanism. In a two-stage integration where baseline entries are revised against authoritative records, accuracy rises +8.0pp to 91.5%, fully correct entries rise from 50.9% to 78.3%, and regression rate is only 0.8%. An ablation comparing single-stage and two-stage integration shows that separating search from revision yields larger gains and lower regression (0.8% vs. 4.8%), demonstrating that integration architecture matters independently of model capability. We release the benchmark, error taxonomy, and clibib tool to support evaluation and mitigation of citation hallucinations in LLM-based scientific writing.

What Do Claim Verification Datasets Actually Test? A Reasoning Trace Analysis

Despite rapid progress in claim verification, we lack a systematic understanding of what reasoning these benchmarks actually exercise. We generate structured reasoning traces for 24K claim-verification examples across 9 datasets using GPT-4o-mini and find that direct evidence extraction dominates, while multi-sentence synthesis and numerical reasoning are severely under-represented. A dataset-level breakdown reveals stark biases: some datasets almost exclusively test lexical matching, while others require information synthesis in roughly half of cases. Using a compact 1B-parameter reasoning verifier, we further characterize five error types and show that error profiles vary dramatically by domain -- general-domain verification is dominated by lexical overlap bias, scientific verification by overcautiousness, and mathematical verification by arithmetic reasoning failures. Our findings suggest that high benchmark scores primarily reflect retrieval-plus-entailment ability. We outline recommendations for building more challenging evaluation suites that better test the reasoning capabilities verification systems need.

ThinknCheck: Grounded Claim Verification with Compact, Reasoning-Driven, and Interpretable Models

We present ThinknCheck, a 1B-parameter verifier for grounded claim verification that first produces a short, structured rationale and then a binary verdict. We construct LLMAggreFact-Think, a 24.1k reasoning-augmented training set derived from LLMAggreFact, and fine-tune a 4-bit Gemma3 model to follow this format. On LLMAggreFact, ThinknCheck attains 78.1 balanced accuracy (BAcc), surpassing MiniCheck-7B (77.4) with 7x fewer parameters; removing the reasoning step reduces BAcc to 57.5. On SciFact, ThinknCheck reaches 64.7 BAcc, a +14.7 absolute gain over MiniCheck-7B. By contrast, zero-shot chain-of-thought on the base Gemma3-1B harms accuracy relative to direct answers, and preference optimization with a simple format+accuracy reward underperforms supervised reasoning. To probe the latter, we introduce GSMClaims and a domain-specialized variant, ThinknCheck-Science, which improves across benchmarks, including 61.0\% accuracy on GSMClaims. Overall, explicit, supervised reasoning enables compact verifiers that are competitive while remaining resource-efficient and interpretable.

Reliable and Responsible Foundation Models: A Comprehensive Survey

Foundation models, including Large Language Models (LLMs), Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), Image Generative Models (i.e, Text-to-Image Models and Image-Editing Models), and Video Generative Models, have become essential tools with broad applications across various domains such as law, medicine, education, finance, science, and beyond. As these models see increasing real-world deployment, ensuring their reliability and responsibility has become critical for academia, industry, and government. This survey addresses the reliable and responsible development of foundation models. We explore critical issues, including bias and fairness, security and privacy, uncertainty, explainability, and distribution shift. Our research also covers model limitations, such as hallucinations, as well as methods like alignment and Artificial Intelligence-Generated Content (AIGC) detection. For each area, we review the current state of the field and outline concrete future research directions. Additionally, we discuss the intersections between these areas, highlighting their connections and shared challenges. We hope our survey fosters the development of foundation models that are not only powerful but also ethical, trustworthy, reliable, and socially responsible.

FineInstructions: Scaling Synthetic Instructions to Pre-Training Scale

Due to limited supervised training data, large language models (LLMs) are typically pre-trained via a self-supervised "predict the next word" objective on a vast amount of unstructured text data. To make the resulting model useful to users, it is further trained on a far smaller amount of "instruction-tuning" data comprised of supervised training examples of instructions and responses. To overcome the limited amount of supervised data, we propose a procedure that can transform the knowledge in internet-scale pre-training documents into billions of synthetic instruction and answer training pairs. The resulting dataset, called FineInstructions, uses ~18M instruction templates created from real user-written queries and prompts. These instruction templates are matched to and instantiated with human-written source documents from unstructured pre-training corpora. With "supervised" synthetic training data generated at this scale, an LLM can be pre-trained from scratch solely with the instruction-tuning objective, which is far more in-distribution with the expected downstream usage of LLMs (responding to user prompts). We conduct controlled token-for-token training experiments and find pre-training on FineInstructions outperforms standard pre-training and other proposed synthetic pre-training techniques on standard benchmarks measuring free-form response quality. Our resources can be found at https://huggingface.co/fineinstructions .

DenseAnnotate: Enabling Scalable Dense Caption Collection for Images and 3D Scenes via Spoken Descriptions

With the rapid adoption of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) across diverse applications, there is a pressing need for task-centered, high-quality training data. A key limitation of current training datasets is their reliance on sparse annotations mined from the Internet or entered via manual typing that capture only a fraction of an image's visual content. Dense annotations are more valuable but remain scarce. Traditional text-based annotation pipelines are poorly suited for creating dense annotations: typing limits expressiveness, slows annotation speed, and underrepresents nuanced visual features, especially in specialized areas such as multicultural imagery and 3D asset annotation. In this paper, we present DenseAnnotate, an audio-driven online annotation platform that enables efficient creation of dense, fine-grained annotations for images and 3D assets. Annotators narrate observations aloud while synchronously linking spoken phrases to image regions or 3D scene parts. Our platform incorporates speech-to-text transcription and region-of-attention marking. To demonstrate the effectiveness of DenseAnnotate, we conducted case studies involving over 1,000 annotators across two domains: culturally diverse images and 3D scenes. We curate a human-annotated multi-modal dataset of 3,531 images, 898 3D scenes, and 7,460 3D objects, with audio-aligned dense annotations in 20 languages, including 8,746 image captions, 2,000 scene captions, and 19,000 object captions. Models trained on this dataset exhibit improvements of 5% in multilingual, 47% in cultural alignment, and 54% in 3D spatial capabilities. Our results show that our platform offers a feasible approach for future vision-language research and can be applied to various tasks and diverse types of data.

Learning Human-Perceived Fakeness in AI-Generated Videos via Multimodal LLMs

Can humans identify AI-generated (fake) videos and provide grounded reasons? While video generation models have advanced rapidly, a critical dimension -- whether humans can detect deepfake traces within a generated video, i.e., spatiotemporal grounded visual artifacts that reveal a video as machine generated -- has been largely overlooked. We introduce DeeptraceReward, the first fine-grained, spatially- and temporally- aware benchmark that annotates human-perceived fake traces for video generation reward. The dataset comprises 4.3K detailed annotations across 3.3K high-quality generated videos. Each annotation provides a natural-language explanation, pinpoints a bounding-box region containing the perceived trace, and marks precise onset and offset timestamps. We consolidate these annotations into 9 major categories of deepfake traces that lead humans to identify a video as AI-generated, and train multimodal language models (LMs) as reward models to mimic human judgments and localizations. On DeeptraceReward, our 7B reward model outperforms GPT-5 by 34.7% on average across fake clue identification, grounding, and explanation. Interestingly, we observe a consistent difficulty gradient: binary fake v.s. real classification is substantially easier than fine-grained deepfake trace detection; within the latter, performance degrades from natural language explanations (easiest), to spatial grounding, to temporal labeling (hardest). By foregrounding human-perceived deepfake traces, DeeptraceReward provides a rigorous testbed and training signal for socially aware and trustworthy video generation.