ProductsMulti-sourceSelected73°

ATIBA research paper integrity tool

ATIBA: Grounded Integrity and Quality Checking for Research Papers

Why we picked it

ATIBA automates tedious research paper verification, saving academics time while ensuring compliance with venue-specific standards.

ATIBA performs five grounded integrity checks on research manuscripts. It verifies reference integrity against bibliographic sources and flags retracted references. The tool evaluates venue compliance by deriving criteria from call-for-papers pages. It checks empirical standards against ACM SIGSOFT guidelines with hallucination defense. ATIBA uses GPT-5.4 through Azure OpenAI for multi-mode AI review.

Original · arXiv: OpenAI

ATIBA: Grounded Integrity and Quality Checking for Research Papers

Checking a manuscript's reference integrity, its compliance with a target venue's specific submission rules, and its adherence to community reporting standards is manual, repetitive, and different for every venue so in practice it is done inconsistently or skipped. We present ATIBA, a tool that runs five grounded integrity and quality checks on a manuscript: a reference-integrity check that verifies each citation against bibliographic sources and flags retracted or unfindable references; a venue/track compliance check that derives submission criteria directly from a venue's own call-for-papers page and evaluates the manuscript against them, each verdict anchored to a verbatim quote from that page; an empirical-standards compliance check against the ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards, with a hallucination defence that discards any evidence quote it cannot locate verbatim in the manuscript; a multi-mode AI review (venue-specific, formal, and page-anchored annotation) powered by GPT-5.4 through Azure OpenAI; and a citation-suggestion feature that proposes candidate references for a manuscript and verifies each against bibliographic sources before it is shown to the user. All five checks are designed around the same principle: an LLM is only trusted to judge, never to invent the evidence it judges against. We evaluated ATIBA through a moderated user study with 13 non-author participants. Agreement across the six survey items ranged from 69% to 92%, with a mean of 85%, providing initial evidence of positive perceived usefulness across the evaluated workflows. These findings establish perceived usefulness; objective accuracy remains to be measured.

  • Simon Willison’s Weblog09-01 19:03原文
  • IT之家09-02 11:44原文
  • Decoder09-02 14:40原文
  • marktechpost09-02 18:05原文
  • AWS Machine Learning Blog09-02 21:22原文
  • AI Will09-03 07:52原文
  • @OpenAIDevs09-03 17:10原文
  • Cloudflare Blog09-03 21:03原文
  • Latent Space (swyx)09-03 21:09原文
  • e2709-04 03:45原文