{"id":"74c454374dfc0391d9118526fb9d0b274e441b3a23c279f344854a6d7353808e","title":"arXiv cs.AI: AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","argument":"Talor Abramovich and Gal Chechik introduce AblationBench, a benchmark for evaluating whether language model agents can plan ablation experiments in empirical AI research. These experiments test a method by removing parts of it; the benchmark asks agents to propose experiments from a method section and to identify missing experiments in a full paper. The authors report that the best-performing LM system identified only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance. Performance also followed an inverse trend across the author and reviewer tasks, which the authors attribute to differences in model grounding. Their analysis finds that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach on these tasks. The benchmark offers a way to evaluate a research-assistance capability, while its reported results show that the tested systems did not match human performance on the measured task. The abstract does not establish how these results transfer to research work beyond the benchmark.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The abstract does not specify the human comparison procedure or provide details needed to assess how performance on the benchmark relates to research work beyond its tasks.","speaker":{"name":"Abramovich, Talor, Chechik, Gal","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","publishedAt":"2025-07-09","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The authors introduce AblationBench to evaluate agents' ablation planning in empirical AI research, with tasks for authors and reviewers.","excerpt":"we introduce AblationBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating agents on ablation planning tasks in empirical AI research. It includes two tasks:","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the best-performing LM system identified only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance.","excerpt":"the best-performing LM system identifying only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report an inverse performance trend across the author and reviewer tasks, which they attribute to differences in model grounding.","excerpt":"We observe an inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks, which we attribute to differences in model grounding.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that chain-of-thought prompting outperformed an agent-based approach on these tasks.","excerpt":"find that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"What differences in model grounding account for the inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","summary":"Talor Abramovich and Gal Chechik introduce AblationBench, a benchmark for evaluating whether language model agents can plan ablation experiments in empirical AI research. These experiments test a method by removing parts of it; the benchmark asks agents to propose experiments from a method section and to identify missing experiments in a full paper. The authors report that the best-performing LM system identified only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance. Performance also followed an inverse trend across the author and reviewer tasks, which the authors attribute to differences in model grounding. Their analysis finds that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach on these tasks. The benchmark offers a way to evaluate a research-assistance capability, while its reported results show that the tested systems did not match human performance on the measured task. The abstract does not establish how these results transfer to research work beyond the benchmark.","question":"What differences in model grounding account for the inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks?","claims":[{"text":"The authors introduce AblationBench to evaluate agents' ablation planning in empirical AI research, with tasks for authors and reviewers.","excerpt":"we introduce AblationBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating agents on ablation planning tasks in empirical AI research. It includes two tasks:","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the best-performing LM system identified only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance.","excerpt":"the best-performing LM system identifying only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report an inverse performance trend across the author and reviewer tasks, which they attribute to differences in model grounding.","excerpt":"We observe an inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks, which we attribute to differences in model grounding.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that chain-of-thought prompting outperformed an agent-based approach on these tasks.","excerpt":"find that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The abstract does not specify the human comparison procedure or provide details needed to assess how performance on the benchmark relates to research work beyond its tasks."],"mediaId":"eb24761674698d425a10c64b7fa8a3c2dc535e3976f6719e8af276f201cf2a5f","correctionReason":null,"id":"74c454374dfc0391d9118526fb9d0b274e441b3a23c279f344854a6d7353808e","publicationId":"55110510-bd48-4f75-8cb6-fd4eacf48b05","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","sourceTitle":"AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2025-07-09","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-09T05:03:48.554Z","createdAt":"2026-11-10T04:46:31.741Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"eb24761674698d425a10c64b7fa8a3c2dc535e3976f6719e8af276f201cf2a5f","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T04:17:12.665Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"eb24761674698d425a10c64b7fa8a3c2dc535e3976f6719e8af276f201cf2a5f","confidence":0.8200000000000001,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"7c21ddafeb49a6ce493bf18f7e1a77d1edf3e406ae4fb4e66107f93092a17b52","decidedAt":"2026-11-10T04:17:13.743Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","observationId":"5aec131a2ba8e9a7457a2c7b1d9b463c3020a0d80caa8706e133dbe261c21b5e","retrievedAt":"2026-11-10T04:17:12.491Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"8ee11f95-cb09-44cb-84f4-dcb8369d4ae6"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"756cbeef-46d8-4693-8e29-b00679109124"}},"audit":{"status":"passed","reviewedAt":"2026-11-10T04:46:31.741Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Abramovich, Talor","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Chechik, Gal","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Abramovich, Talor","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Abramovich, Talor","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","contentSha256":"c8fb9d8b749d5181dc240f05205364992b9b283160509f8d0d331295ceecf264","textHash":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","observedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Chechik, Gal","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Chechik, Gal","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","contentSha256":"c8fb9d8b749d5181dc240f05205364992b9b283160509f8d0d331295ceecf264","textHash":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","observedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","snapshotId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d","contentSha256":"c8fb9d8b749d5181dc240f05205364992b9b283160509f8d0d331295ceecf264","textHash":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","observedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":47,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/74c454374dfc0391d9118526fb9d0b274e441b3a23c279f344854a6d7353808e/source"}},"canonicalUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-ablationbench-evaluating-automated-planning-of-74c45437","formats":{"html":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-ablationbench-evaluating-automated-planning-of-74c45437","markdown":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-ablationbench-evaluating-automated-planning-of-74c45437.md","json":"/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-ablationbench-evaluating-automated-planning-of-74c45437.json"},"attribution":"Headline and summary by Escape Meridian, prepared by Luna from the attributed source. A source check is not independent confirmation of the source’s claims.","maintainedGuideLinks":[],"readerContext":{"version":"reader-context-v1","attribution":"Reference context selected by Escape Meridian; separate from source evidence. Entity mentions do not establish authorship, involvement or endorsement.","terms":[{"id":"term-benchmark","name":"Benchmark","explanation":"A defined set of tests used to compare systems. Results depend on the tasks and measures selected.","referenceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09110"},{"id":"term-chain-of-thought","name":"Chain of thought","explanation":"The step-by-step working a model writes out before giving its final answer.","referenceUrl":"https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/glossary#chain-of-thought-prompting"}],"entities":[{"id":"arxiv","name":"arXiv","kind":"organization","context":"arXiv is a research manuscript repository where authors share papers that may not yet have been peer reviewed.","referenceUrls":["https://arxiv.org/","https://info.arxiv.org/help/api/index.html"],"path":"/entities/arxiv","json":"/entities/arxiv.json","markdown":"/entities/arxiv.md"}]},"researchQuestions":[],"withdrawn":false,"references":{"schemaVersion":1,"target":{"type":"reading","id":"74c454374dfc0391d9118526fb9d0b274e441b3a23c279f344854a6d7353808e","revision":"55110510-bd48-4f75-8cb6-fd4eacf48b05","revisionKind":"publication-id","title":"arXiv cs.AI: AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","url":"https://escapemeridian.com/readings/arxiv-cs-ai-ablationbench-evaluating-automated-planning-of-74c45437"},"source":{"type":"source","id":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","revision":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","revisionKind":"sha256-source-text","title":"AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038"},"status":"available","items":[],"next":null,"scope":"Explicit citations in public readings and public file attachments to this reading. Shared topics are not citations. Other artifact types need an explicit reference adapter."},"revisions":[{"id":"74c454374dfc0391d9118526fb9d0b274e441b3a23c279f344854a6d7353808e","title":"arXiv cs.AI: AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","argument":"Talor Abramovich and Gal Chechik introduce AblationBench, a benchmark for evaluating whether language model agents can plan ablation experiments in empirical AI research. These experiments test a method by removing parts of it; the benchmark asks agents to propose experiments from a method section and to identify missing experiments in a full paper. The authors report that the best-performing LM system identified only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance. Performance also followed an inverse trend across the author and reviewer tasks, which the authors attribute to differences in model grounding. Their analysis finds that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach on these tasks. The benchmark offers a way to evaluate a research-assistance capability, while its reported results show that the tested systems did not match human performance on the measured task. The abstract does not establish how these results transfer to research work beyond the benchmark.","topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"domain":"science","claimType":"attributed reading","limits":"The abstract does not specify the human comparison procedure or provide details needed to assess how performance on the benchmark relates to research work beyond its tasks.","speaker":{"name":"Abramovich, Talor, Chechik, Gal","roleAtSource":"Article author"},"source":{"title":"AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","format":"Article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","publishedAt":"2025-07-09","dateBasis":"Date basis not provided."},"evidence":[{"text":"The authors introduce AblationBench to evaluate agents' ablation planning in empirical AI research, with tasks for authors and reviewers.","excerpt":"we introduce AblationBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating agents on ablation planning tasks in empirical AI research. It includes two tasks:","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the best-performing LM system identified only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance.","excerpt":"the best-performing LM system identifying only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report an inverse performance trend across the author and reviewer tasks, which they attribute to differences in model grounding.","excerpt":"We observe an inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks, which we attribute to differences in model grounding.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","relationship":"Source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that chain-of-thought prompting outperformed an agent-based approach on these tasks.","excerpt":"find that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach.","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","relationship":"Source-stated"}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"assumptions":[],"openQuestion":{"attribution":"Open question","text":"What differences in model grounding account for the inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks?"},"whatWouldChangeView":{"attribution":"Change condition not recorded","text":""},"editorialComparisons":[],"live":{"title":"arXiv cs.AI: AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","summary":"Talor Abramovich and Gal Chechik introduce AblationBench, a benchmark for evaluating whether language model agents can plan ablation experiments in empirical AI research. These experiments test a method by removing parts of it; the benchmark asks agents to propose experiments from a method section and to identify missing experiments in a full paper. The authors report that the best-performing LM system identified only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance. Performance also followed an inverse trend across the author and reviewer tasks, which the authors attribute to differences in model grounding. Their analysis finds that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach on these tasks. The benchmark offers a way to evaluate a research-assistance capability, while its reported results show that the tested systems did not match human performance on the measured task. The abstract does not establish how these results transfer to research work beyond the benchmark.","question":"What differences in model grounding account for the inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks?","claims":[{"text":"The authors introduce AblationBench to evaluate agents' ablation planning in empirical AI research, with tasks for authors and reviewers.","excerpt":"we introduce AblationBench, a benchmark suite for evaluating agents on ablation planning tasks in empirical AI research. It includes two tasks:","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that the best-performing LM system identified only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance.","excerpt":"the best-performing LM system identifying only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report an inverse performance trend across the author and reviewer tasks, which they attribute to differences in model grounding.","excerpt":"We observe an inverse performance trend between the author and reviewer tasks, which we attribute to differences in model grounding.","support":"source-stated"},{"text":"The authors report that chain-of-thought prompting outperformed an agent-based approach on these tasks.","excerpt":"find that chain-of-thought prompting outperforms an agent-based approach.","support":"source-stated"}],"limitations":["The abstract does not specify the human comparison procedure or provide details needed to assess how performance on the benchmark relates to research work beyond its tasks."],"mediaId":"eb24761674698d425a10c64b7fa8a3c2dc535e3976f6719e8af276f201cf2a5f","correctionReason":null,"id":"74c454374dfc0391d9118526fb9d0b274e441b3a23c279f344854a6d7353808e","publicationId":"55110510-bd48-4f75-8cb6-fd4eacf48b05","version":1,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","sourceTitle":"AblationBench: Evaluating Automated Planning of Ablations in Empirical AI Research","publisher":"arXiv cs.AI","publishedAt":null,"originalPublished":{"value":"2025-07-09","precision":"day","basis":"publisher_citation_date"},"firstObservedAt":"2026-11-09T05:03:48.554Z","createdAt":"2026-11-10T04:46:31.741Z","historical":true,"entityIds":["arxiv"],"topicIds":["intelligence-and-discovery"],"media":[{"id":"eb24761674698d425a10c64b7fa8a3c2dc535e3976f6719e8af276f201cf2a5f","kind":"article","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","label":"Read original","provenance":"source_link","verification":{"status":"verified","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T04:17:12.665Z","method":"acquired_source","contentType":"text/html"},"recommendationReason":"Recommended by Jev for understanding this source; checked by Luna."}],"sourceMedia":{"status":"not_found","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","checkedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","items":[],"note":"No suitable media was found by the supported page extraction."},"editorialDecision":{"outcome":"accept","reasonCodes":["material_development"],"rubricVersion":"stream-admission-v5","mediaId":"eb24761674698d425a10c64b7fa8a3c2dc535e3976f6719e8af276f201cf2a5f","confidence":0.8200000000000001,"provider":"typesafe","model":"jev-1.13.0","inputHash":"7c21ddafeb49a6ce493bf18f7e1a77d1edf3e406ae4fb4e66107f93092a17b52","decidedAt":"2026-11-10T04:17:13.743Z"},"provenance":{"textHash":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","observationId":"5aec131a2ba8e9a7457a2c7b1d9b463c3020a0d80caa8706e133dbe261c21b5e","retrievedAt":"2026-11-10T04:17:12.491Z","kind":"publisher-page","preparer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"8ee11f95-cb09-44cb-84f4-dcb8369d4ae6"},"reviewer":{"model":"gpt-6-luna","runId":"756cbeef-46d8-4693-8e29-b00679109124"}},"audit":{"status":"passed","reviewedAt":"2026-11-10T04:46:31.741Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"},"sourceAttribution":{"authors":[{"name":"Abramovich, Talor","url":null,"kind":"unknown"},{"name":"Chechik, Gal","url":null,"kind":"unknown"}],"authorRole":"article-author","hosts":[],"status":"stated","authorRoster":{"truncated":false,"omitted":0,"assertionGroupsOmitted":0},"participation":[{"actor":{"name":"Abramovich, Talor","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Abramovich, Talor","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d:participation:0","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","contentSha256":"c8fb9d8b749d5181dc240f05205364992b9b283160509f8d0d331295ceecf264","textHash":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","observedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z"}},{"actor":{"name":"Chechik, Gal","url":null,"kind":"unknown","actorId":null},"role":"author","scope":{"kind":"work-credit","locator":null},"literalCredit":"Chechik, Gal","status":"stated","provenance":{"basis":"head-meta","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","locator":"head/meta[name=author|citation_author]"},"assertionId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d:participation:1","identity":{"version":"entity-identity-v1","status":"unresolved","actorId":null,"canonicalActorId":null,"candidateActorIds":[],"assertions":[],"sourceObservedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","knowledgeAsOf":null},"sourceVersion":{"snapshotId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d","sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","contentSha256":"c8fb9d8b749d5181dc240f05205364992b9b283160509f8d0d331295ceecf264","textHash":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","observedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z"}}],"participationCoverage":{"total":2,"returned":2,"complete":true,"fullAssertions":"source-metadata-endpoint"},"distribution":null,"publisher":null,"sourceUrl":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.08038","snapshotId":"158d3d133091fbe2f72ec9f8f0ae585a022ffcb31e5faa5c4cce885beabe4f3d","contentSha256":"c8fb9d8b749d5181dc240f05205364992b9b283160509f8d0d331295ceecf264","textHash":"503243882a11c85424a98ac8e533c2a1888c885ec6847a4214ae9125701cd80f","observedAt":"2026-11-10T06:54:12.390Z","basis":"publisher-page-metadata","sourceLinks":47,"linksTruncated":false,"metadataUrl":"/api/pipeline/stream/74c454374dfc0391d9118526fb9d0b274e441b3a23c279f344854a6d7353808e/source"}}}],"audits":[{"publicationId":"55110510-bd48-4f75-8cb6-fd4eacf48b05","verdict":"passed","findings":[{"dimension":"attribution","status":"pass","explanation":"The reading attributes AblationBench and its findings to Talor Abramovich and Gal Chechik, the listed authors. Results are framed as what the authors report or attribute, not as established fact. The 'arXiv cs.AI' prefix matches the feed publisher; the paper is primarily cs.CL but cross-listed in cs.AI.","excerpt":"Authors:Talor Abramovich, Gal Chechik"},{"dimension":"summary","status":"pass","explanation":"The reading names the actors, explains ablation experiments in plain words, and describes both tasks and the headline results. It keeps the scope limited to what the abstract claims. A smaller fidelity gap: it omits that scoring used LM-based judges, which affects how to read the 45% figure. Adding one clause would fix this. 'Model grounding' and 'chain-of-thought' stay as exact technical terms and are suitable for term-library tooltips.","excerpt":"For both tasks, we develop LM-based judges that serve as an automatic evaluation framework."},{"dimension":"date","status":"pass","explanation":"The originalPublished date of 2025-07-09 matches the v1 submission date. It is not the date of the later v4 revision or the 2026 feed entry.","excerpt":"[Submitted on 9 Jul 2025 (v1), last revised 6 Nov 2026 (this version, v4)]"},{"dimension":"support","status":"pass","explanation":"All four claims quote the abstract accurately. The closing statements do not overclaim. They say the tested systems fell below human performance and that transfer beyond the benchmark is not established, which matches the evidence. The question about grounding follows from an attribution the authors state but leave unexplained in the abstract.","excerpt":"the best-performing LM system identifying only 45% of the original ablations on average, below human-level performance."},{"dimension":"media","status":"pass","explanation":"The selected media is the verified arXiv abstract page for this paper, which is the direct original source.","excerpt":null}],"createdAt":"2026-11-10T04:46:31.741Z","model":"anthropic/claude-opus-5.5"}],"correctionUrl":"https://escapemeridian.com/corrections/"}