@inproceedings{javaji-etal-2025-ai,
title = "Can {AI} Validate Science? Benchmarking {LLM}s on Claim {\textrightarrow}{E}vidence Reasoning in {AI} Papers",
author = "Javaji, Shashidhar Reddy and
Cao, Yupeng and
Li, Haohang and
Yu, Yangyang and
Muralidhar, Nikhil and
Zhu, Zining",
editor = "Inui, Kentaro and
Sakti, Sakriani and
Wang, Haofen and
Wong, Derek F. and
Bhattacharyya, Pushpak and
Banerjee, Biplab and
Ekbal, Asif and
Chakraborty, Tanmoy and
Singh, Dhirendra Pratap",
booktitle = "Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics",
month = dec,
year = "2025",
address = "Mumbai, India",
publisher = "The Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing and The Association for Computational Linguistics",
url = "https://aclanthology.org/2025.ijcnlp-long.127/",
pages = "2355--2379",
ISBN = "979-8-89176-298-5",
abstract = "Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for complex research tasks such as literature review, idea generation, and scientific paper analysis, yet their ability to truly understand and process the intricate relationships within complex research papers, such as the logical links between claims and supporting evidence remains largely unexplored. In this study, we present CLAIM-BENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs' capabilities in scientific claim-evidence extraction and validation, a task that reflects deeper comprehension of scientific argumentation. We systematically compare three approaches which are inspired by divide and conquer approaches, across six diverse LLMs, highlighting model-specific strengths and weaknesses in scientific comprehension. Through evaluation involving over 300 claim-evidence pairs across multiple research domains, we reveal significant limitations in LLMs' ability to process complex scientific content. Our results demonstrate that closed-source models like GPT-4 and Claude consistently outperform open-source counterparts in precision and recall across claim-evidence identification tasks. Furthermore, strategically designed three-pass and one-by-one prompting approaches significantly improve LLMs' abilities to accurately link dispersed evidence with claims, although this comes at increased computational cost. CLAIM-BENCH sets a new standard for evaluating scientific comprehension in LLMs, offering both a diagnostic tool and a path forward for building systems capable of deeper, more reliable reasoning across full-length papers."
}<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<modsCollection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3">
<mods ID="javaji-etal-2025-ai">
<titleInfo>
<title>Can AI Validate Science? Benchmarking LLMs on Claim →Evidence Reasoning in AI Papers</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Shashidhar</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Reddy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Javaji</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yupeng</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Cao</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Haohang</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Li</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Yangyang</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Yu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Nikhil</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Muralidhar</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Zining</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Zhu</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">author</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<dateIssued>2025-12</dateIssued>
</originInfo>
<typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
<relatedItem type="host">
<titleInfo>
<title>Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics</title>
</titleInfo>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Kentaro</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Inui</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Sakriani</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Sakti</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Haofen</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wang</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Derek</namePart>
<namePart type="given">F</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Wong</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Pushpak</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Bhattacharyya</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Biplab</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Banerjee</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Asif</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Ekbal</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Tanmoy</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Chakraborty</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<name type="personal">
<namePart type="given">Dhirendra</namePart>
<namePart type="given">Pratap</namePart>
<namePart type="family">Singh</namePart>
<role>
<roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">editor</roleTerm>
</role>
</name>
<originInfo>
<publisher>The Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing and The Association for Computational Linguistics</publisher>
<place>
<placeTerm type="text">Mumbai, India</placeTerm>
</place>
</originInfo>
<genre authority="marcgt">conference publication</genre>
<identifier type="isbn">979-8-89176-298-5</identifier>
</relatedItem>
<abstract>Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for complex research tasks such as literature review, idea generation, and scientific paper analysis, yet their ability to truly understand and process the intricate relationships within complex research papers, such as the logical links between claims and supporting evidence remains largely unexplored. In this study, we present CLAIM-BENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ capabilities in scientific claim-evidence extraction and validation, a task that reflects deeper comprehension of scientific argumentation. We systematically compare three approaches which are inspired by divide and conquer approaches, across six diverse LLMs, highlighting model-specific strengths and weaknesses in scientific comprehension. Through evaluation involving over 300 claim-evidence pairs across multiple research domains, we reveal significant limitations in LLMs’ ability to process complex scientific content. Our results demonstrate that closed-source models like GPT-4 and Claude consistently outperform open-source counterparts in precision and recall across claim-evidence identification tasks. Furthermore, strategically designed three-pass and one-by-one prompting approaches significantly improve LLMs’ abilities to accurately link dispersed evidence with claims, although this comes at increased computational cost. CLAIM-BENCH sets a new standard for evaluating scientific comprehension in LLMs, offering both a diagnostic tool and a path forward for building systems capable of deeper, more reliable reasoning across full-length papers.</abstract>
<identifier type="citekey">javaji-etal-2025-ai</identifier>
<location>
<url>https://aclanthology.org/2025.ijcnlp-long.127/</url>
</location>
<part>
<date>2025-12</date>
<extent unit="page">
<start>2355</start>
<end>2379</end>
</extent>
</part>
</mods>
</modsCollection>
%0 Conference Proceedings
%T Can AI Validate Science? Benchmarking LLMs on Claim →Evidence Reasoning in AI Papers
%A Javaji, Shashidhar Reddy
%A Cao, Yupeng
%A Li, Haohang
%A Yu, Yangyang
%A Muralidhar, Nikhil
%A Zhu, Zining
%Y Inui, Kentaro
%Y Sakti, Sakriani
%Y Wang, Haofen
%Y Wong, Derek F.
%Y Bhattacharyya, Pushpak
%Y Banerjee, Biplab
%Y Ekbal, Asif
%Y Chakraborty, Tanmoy
%Y Singh, Dhirendra Pratap
%S Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics
%D 2025
%8 December
%I The Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing and The Association for Computational Linguistics
%C Mumbai, India
%@ 979-8-89176-298-5
%F javaji-etal-2025-ai
%X Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for complex research tasks such as literature review, idea generation, and scientific paper analysis, yet their ability to truly understand and process the intricate relationships within complex research papers, such as the logical links between claims and supporting evidence remains largely unexplored. In this study, we present CLAIM-BENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ capabilities in scientific claim-evidence extraction and validation, a task that reflects deeper comprehension of scientific argumentation. We systematically compare three approaches which are inspired by divide and conquer approaches, across six diverse LLMs, highlighting model-specific strengths and weaknesses in scientific comprehension. Through evaluation involving over 300 claim-evidence pairs across multiple research domains, we reveal significant limitations in LLMs’ ability to process complex scientific content. Our results demonstrate that closed-source models like GPT-4 and Claude consistently outperform open-source counterparts in precision and recall across claim-evidence identification tasks. Furthermore, strategically designed three-pass and one-by-one prompting approaches significantly improve LLMs’ abilities to accurately link dispersed evidence with claims, although this comes at increased computational cost. CLAIM-BENCH sets a new standard for evaluating scientific comprehension in LLMs, offering both a diagnostic tool and a path forward for building systems capable of deeper, more reliable reasoning across full-length papers.
%U https://aclanthology.org/2025.ijcnlp-long.127/
%P 2355-2379
Markdown (Informal)
[Can AI Validate Science? Benchmarking LLMs on Claim →Evidence Reasoning in AI Papers](https://aclanthology.org/2025.ijcnlp-long.127/) (Javaji et al., IJCNLP-AACL 2025)
ACL
- Shashidhar Reddy Javaji, Yupeng Cao, Haohang Li, Yangyang Yu, Nikhil Muralidhar, and Zining Zhu. 2025. Can AI Validate Science? Benchmarking LLMs on Claim →Evidence Reasoning in AI Papers. In Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing and the 4th Conference of the Asia-Pacific Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2355–2379, Mumbai, India. The Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing and The Association for Computational Linguistics.