Unverified50% confidenceEventExact time
The author Guangyi Zhao ran a seven-day experiment in which every article had to pass review by a different model before publishing; the reviewer had to find factual errors, logical leaps and overstatements, and every comment had to be resolved one by one.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/20/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe paper's experimental methodology involves selecting papers that have been accepted by NeurIPS but not yet officially published, and requiring AI agents to complete the same research work as the original papers.59% similarUnverifiedPublished papers undergo a rigorous selection process from idea inception through experimental validation, peer review, and multiple rounds of revision, with only a small fraction of ideas making it to public publication.59% similarUnverifiedA commentary article published on arXiv (arXiv:2609.15996) challenges Chen, Zhao, and Cohan's distributional evaluation of research ideas generated by large language models.58% similarUnverifiedThe results of the paper's experiments were scored and evaluated by the original paper's authors themselves.57% similarUnverifiedA newly published research paper proposes an evidence-driven workflow for systematically feeding back knowledge generated during simulation and operation phases into design-phase models.56% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1074225API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1074225MCP
get_claim(id=1074225)