PreprintCited by 23Topic ModelingInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorMultimodal Machine Learning Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 50 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Reasoning RAG via System 1 or System 2: A Survey on Reasoning Agentic Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Industry Challenges

Open access
Liang, Jintao, Su, Gang, Lin, Huifeng, Wu, You, Zhao, Rui, Li, Ziyue·2025·arXiv

Abstract

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a powerful framework to overcome the knowledge limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs) by integrating external retrieval with language generation. While early RAG systems based on static pipelines have shown effectiveness in well-structured tasks, they struggle in real-world scenarios requiring complex reasoning, dynamic retrieval, and multi-modal integration. To address these challenges, the field has shifted toward Reasoning Agentic RAG, a paradigm that embeds decision-making and adaptive tool use directly into the retrieval process. In this paper, we present a comprehensive review of Reasoning Agentic RAG methods, categorizing them into two primary systems: predefined reasoning, which follows fixed modular pipelines to boost reasoning, and agentic reasoning, where the model autonomously orchestrates tool interaction during inference. We analyze representative techniques under both paradigms, covering architectural design, reasoning strategies, and tool coordination. Finally, we discuss key research challenges and propose future directions to advance the flexibility, robustness, and applicability of reasoning agentic RAG systems. Our collection of the relevant research has been organized into a https://github.com/ByebyeMonica/Reasoning-Agentic-RAG.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This survey reviews Reasoning Agentic RAG, categorizing methods into predefined reasoning (System 1-like fixed pipelines) and agentic reasoning (System 2-like autonomous tool use). It analyzes representative techniques and outlines future directions for flexibility, robustness, and applicability.

Key findings

  • Proposes a taxonomy of Reasoning Agentic RAG into two paradigms: predefined reasoning, with route-based, loop-based, tree-based, and hybrid-modular workflows; and agentic reasoning, with prompt-based and training-based approaches.
  • Aligns predefined reasoning with System 1 thinking (fast, structured, efficient) and agentic reasoning with System 2 thinking (slow, deliberative, adaptive).
  • Reviews representative methods including RAGate, Self-RAG, CRAG, RAPTOR, MCTS-RAG, Adaptive-RAG, and Modular-RAG for predefined reasoning; ReAct, Self-Ask, function calling, and Search-o1 for prompt-based agentic reasoning; and DeepRetrieval, Search-R1, R1-Searcher, ReZero, and DeepResearcher for training-based agentic reasoning.
  • Identifies future research directions: advanced tool configuration, finer-grained process-oriented reward functions, improving retrieval efficiency, and enhancing generalization and robustness in dynamic environments. No quantitative performance numbers are reported.

Methods

  • Design: a survey/review of Reasoning Agentic RAG methods, organizing the field into predefined reasoning and agentic reasoning paradigms.
  • Data: prior research literature on RAG, Agentic RAG, and reasoning agentic RAG, with representative techniques listed and summarized in tables.
  • Analysis: qualitative categorization of architectural designs, reasoning strategies, and tool coordination, plus discussion of research challenges and future directions.

Limitations

  • The paper does not state explicit limitations of the survey itself.
  • Evident from the text: it is a qualitative review with no empirical experiments, datasets, or quantitative comparisons reported.
  • Evident from the text: no systematic search or inclusion protocol is described, and coverage is organized around selected representative techniques and tables.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2506.10408

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 50 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Premisecitation

    Prompt-based methods leverage in-context reasoning and instruction-following capabilities of pretrained LLMs.

    “The first is prompt-based methods, which leverages the in-context reasoning and instructionfollowing capabilities of pretrained LLMs [Yao et al., 2023;Press et al., 2023;Li et al., 2025a].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Yao et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Press et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Li et al., 2025a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    DeepRetrieval focuses on improving the quality of search queries generated by the LLM agent.

    “DeepRe-trieval [Jiang et al., 2025] focuses specifically on improving the quality of the search queries generated by the LLM agent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jiang et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    Large Reasoning Models (LRMs) are designed to excel at complex, multi-step reasoning tasks.

    “These models, sometimes developed through techniques like large-scale reinforcement learning (e.g., models analogous to OpenAI's o1 [Ope-nAI et al., 2024], DeepSeek-R1 [DeepSeek-AI et al., 2025]), are designed to excel at complex, multi-step reasoning tasks.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites OpenAI et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites DeepSeek-AI et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Premisecitation

    Early RAG systems based on static pipelines struggle in real-world scenarios requiring complex reasoning, dynamic retrieval, and multi-modal integration.

    “While early RAG systems based on static pipelines have shown effectiveness in well-structured tasks, they struggle in real-world scenarios requiring complex reasoning, dynamic retrieval, and multi-modal integration.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
      “Despite the effectiveness of basic RAG methods, they often struggle when applied to real-world, industrial-scale applications involving complex and heterogeneous data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al., 2025 source

      Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.

    • cites Wang et al., 2024b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Ma et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • Rests on an assumption: Traditional RAG methods have demonstrated strong performance when queries are well-formed and the necessary information is readily available in the retrieved context.
  • Premisecitation

    Search-o1 integrates an Agentic RAG Mechanism where the LRM dynamically triggers search queries based on self-assessed knowledge gaps.

    “It integrates two core components: an Agentic RAG Mechanism where the LRM dynamically triggers search queries based on self-assessed knowledge gaps, and a Reason-in-Documents Module that processes retrieved content to dist ill relevant information into a refined format, thereby minimizing noise and maintaining the LRM's reasoning integrity.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Li et al., 2025a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 5
  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationnone given

    Reasoning Agentic RAG methods can be categorized into two primary systems: predefined reasoning, which follow fixed modular pipelines to boost reasoning, and agentic reasoning, where the model autonomously orchestrates tool interaction during inference.

    “In this paper, we present a comprehensive review of Reasoning Agentic RAG methods, categorizing them into two primary systems: predefined reasoning, which follow fixed modular pipelines to boost reasoning, and agentic reasoning, where the model autonomously orchestrates tool interaction during inference.”
    • Also stated in: § 1 Introduction · plain
      “Within this paradigm, as shown in Figure 1, two major types of reasoning agentic systems have emerged based on how control and decision-making are handled: predefined reasoning, which follow structured, rule-based plans with fixed pipelines to boost reasoning for retrieval and generation; and agentic reasoning, where the model actively monitors its reasoning process and determines when and how to”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The categorization into predefined and agentic reasoning is exhaustive and mutually exclusive.
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisereasoning

    Predefined reasoning follows fixed modular pipelines to boost reasoning.

    “Predefined reasoning adopts structured and modular RAG pipelines where the retrieval and reasoning steps are explicitly designed, following fixed control pipeline.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Predefined reasoning resembles System 1 thinking: fast, structured, and efficient.

    “Predefined reasoning resembles System 1 thinking: fast, structured, and efficient, relying on predefined heuristics and modular workflows that mirror habitual or rule-based cognition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The dual-system theory from cognitive science is a valid framework for analyzing RAG paradigms.
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisenone given

    Basic RAG workflows are limited by static control logic and lack the ability to reflect, adapt, or assess the sufficiency of retrieved information.

    “Despite their effectiveness, basic RAG workflows are limited by static control logic and lack the ability to reflect, adapt, or assess the sufficiency of retrieved information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Traditional RAG methods have demonstrated strong performance when queries are well-formed and the necessary information is readily available in the retrieved context.
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Hybrid-modular frameworks compose specialized modules into a flexible but still rule-driven workflow.

    “hybrid-modular frameworks compose specialized modules into a flexible but still rule-driven workflow [Jeong et al., 2024;Gao et al., 2024]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Jeong et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Gao et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Loop-based methods enable limited iteration through retrieval-feedback cycles, supporting multiple rounds of refinement.

    “loop-based methods enable limited iteration through retrieval-feedback cycles, supporting multiple rounds of refinement [Asai et al., 2023;Yang et al., 2024b]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Asai et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Yang et al., 2024b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Effective information seeking by an agent involves a confluence of factors: query quality, strategic timing, resilience to failure, and adeptness in navigating realistic information environments.

    “It reflects a growing appreciation that effective information seeking by an agent involves a confluence of factors: query quality, strategic timing, resilience to failure, and adeptness in navigating realistic information environments and so on.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Agentic reasoning involves the model autonomously orchestrating tool interaction during inference.

    “Agentic reasoning repositions the LLM as an active decision maker, that autonomously orchestrates retrieval and tool use throughout the reasoning process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Tree-based methods organize information hierarchically to support structured exploration.

    “tree-based methods organize information hierarchically to support structured exploration [Sarthi et al., 2024;Hu et al., 2025]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Sarthi et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hu et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    The Search-R1 framework utilizes a simple outcome-based reward function based on the correctness of the final answer compared to a ground truth.

    “The framework utilizes a simple outcome-based reward function, typically based on the correctness of the final answer generated by the LLM (within <answer> tags) compared to a ground truth, avoiding the complexity of designing intermediate process rewards.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jin et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    ReZero positions itself as complementary to DeepRetrieval, with DeepRetrieval focusing on optimizing a single refined query and ReZero emphasizing multiple retrieval attempts when needed.

    “ReZero positions itself as complementary to frameworks like DeepRetrieval; while DeepRetrieval focuses on optimizing a single refined query, ReZero emphasizes the value of making multiple retrieval attempts when needed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Dao and Le, 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Jiang et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

    Premisenone given

    Agentic reasoning empowers the LLM to act as an autonomous agent, dynamically deciding how to interact with external tools based on its current reasoning state.

    “Agentic reasoning empowers the LLM to act as an autonomous agent, dynamically deciding how to interact with external tools based on its current reasoning state.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Predefined reasoning spans four architectural variants: route-based, loop-based, tree-based, and hybrid-modular.

    “In general, predefined reasoning spans several architectural variants: route-based methods selectively trigger retrieval based on context or model uncertainty, such as low confidence scores or ambiguous intermediate outputs [Wang et al., 2024a]; loop-based methods enable limited iteration through retrieval-feedback cycles, supporting multiple rounds of refinement [Asai et al., 2023;Yang et al., 2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al., 2024a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Asai et al., 2023

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Sarthi et al., 2024

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Agentic RAG embeds reasoning and decision-making into the retrieval process.

    “Thus, Agentic RAG has proposed to embed reasoning and decision-making into the retrieval process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Agentic reasoning aligns with System 2 thinking: slow, deliberative, and adaptive.

    “In contrast, agentic reasoning aligns more closely with System 2 thinking: slow, deliberative, and adaptive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The dual-system theory from cognitive science is a valid framework for analyzing RAG paradigms.
  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisenone given

    Predefined reasoning depends on structured, rule-based pipelines where the retrieval and reasoning stages are modularized and fixed in advance.

    “Predefined reasoning depends on structured, rule-based pipelines where the retrieval and reasoning stages are modularized and fixed in advance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    DeepResearcher employs RL (specifically GRPO with an F1 score-based reward for answer accuracy) to train agents that interact with live web search APIs and browse actual webpages.

    “The framework employs RL (specifically GRPO with an F1 score-based reward for answer accuracy ) to train agents that interact with live web search APIs and browse actual webpages.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Zheng et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    In the Search-R1 framework, the search engine is modeled as part of the RL environment.

    “In the Search-R1 framework, the search engine is modeled as part of the RL environment.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Jin et al., 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

18 of 18
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Traditional RAG methods have demonstrated strong performance when queries are well-formed and the necessary information is readily available in the retrieved context.

    “Traditional RAG methods have demonstrated strong performance when queries are well-formed and the necessary information is readily available in the retrieved context.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Agentic reasoning has shown strong performance in open-domain QA, scientific reasoning, and multi-stage decision-making scenarios.

    “Owing to its autonomy and adaptability, agentic reasoning has shown strong performance in open-domain QA, scientific reasoning, and multi-stage decision-making scenarios.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The dual-system theory from cognitive science is a valid framework for analyzing RAG paradigms.

    “By framing these paradigms through the lens of cognitive systems, we highlight the trade-off between efficiency and adaptability, and the growing capacity of agentic RAG to emulate more sophisticated, human-like problem solving.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The categorization into predefined and agentic reasoning is exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

    “Within this paradigm, as shown in Figure 1, two major types of reasoning agentic systems have emerged based on how control and decision-making are handled: predefined reasoning, which follow structured, rule-based plans with fixed pipelines to boost reasoning for retrieval and generation; and agentic reasoning, where the model actively monitors its reasoning process and determines when and how to”
  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    An LLM with superior intrinsic reasoning abilities will be better equipped to manage the complexities of an Agentic RAG workflow.

    “The underlying premise is that an LLM with superior intrinsic reasoning abilities will be better equipped to manage the complexities of an Agentic RAG workflow, including decomposing challenging queries, planning information-gathering steps, assessing the relevance and utility of retrieved information, and synthesizing knowledge effectively.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Retrieved documents often contain verbose, noisy or contradictory content that can disrupt the coherence of the LLM's reasoning process.

    “Furthermore, retrieved documents, whether in long-context models or standard RAG, often contain verbose, noisy or contradictory content that can disrupt the coherence of the LLM's reasoning process.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prompt-based methods' performance in complex tool-use scenarios can be inconsistent.

    “While prompt-based methods leverage the inherent capabilities of LLMs, their performance in complex tool-use scenarios can be inconsistent.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Training-based approaches, particularly those utilizing Reinforcement Learning (RL), enable the LLM agent to learn sophisticated strategies through trial and error, directly optimizing its actions towards specific goals such as maximizing retrieval effectiveness or overall task success.

    “Training-based approaches, particularly those utilizing Reinforcement Learning (RL), enable the LLM agent to learn sophisticated strategies through trial and error, directly optimizing its actions towards specific goals such as maximizing retrieval effectiveness or overall task success.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    RL enables agents to develop more robust and strategic interaction patterns than prompting alone.

    “RL enables agents to develop more robust and strategic interaction patterns than prompting alone.”
9 of 9

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Jiawei Chen, Hongyu Lin, et al. Bench- marking large language models in retrieval-augmented gen- eration. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 17754-17762, 2024.
  2. Lei Huang, Weijiang Yu, et al. A survey on hallucination in large language models: Principles, tax- onomy, challenges, and open questions. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 43(2):1-55, 2025.
  3. Kong et al., 2024] Yilun Kong, Jingqing Ruan, et al. Tptu- v2: Boosting task planning and tool usage of large language model-based agents in real-world industry systems. In Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: Industry Track, pages 371-385, 2024.
  4. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in neural information processing sys- tems, 33:9459-9474, 2020.
  5. Lin et al., 2023a] Weizhe Lin, Jinghong Chen, et al. Fine- grained late-interaction multi-modal retrieval for retrieval augmented visual question answering. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:22820-22840, 2023.
  6. Lin et al., 2023b] Xi Victoria Lin, Xilun Chen, et al. Ra- dit: Retrieval-augmented dual instruction tuning. In The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representa- tions, 2023.
  7. Ma et al., 2023] Xinbei Ma, Yeyun Gong, et al. Query rewrit- ing in retrieval-augmented large language models. In Pro- ceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 5303-5315, 2023.
  8. Press et al., 2023]
  9. Ofir Press, Muru Zhang, et al. Measuring and narrowing the compositionality gap in language models, 2023.
  10. Rawte et al., 2023] Vipula Rawte, Swagata Chakraborty, et al. The troubling emergence of hallucination in large lan- guage models-an extensive definition, quantification, and prescriptive remediations. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2023.
  11. Stephen Robertson, Hugo Zaragoza, et al. The probabilistic relevance framework: Bm25 and beyond. Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval, 3(4):333-389, 2009.
  12. Ruan et al., 2023] Jingqing Ruan, Yihong Chen, et al. Tptu: Task planning and tool usage of large language model- based ai agents. In NeurIPS 2023 Foundation Models for Decision Making Workshop, 2023.
  13. Aditi Singh. Exploring language models: A comprehensive survey and analysis. In 2023 International Conference on Research Methodologies in Knowledge Man- agement, Artificial Intelligence and Telecommunication En- gineering (RMKMATE), pages 1-4. IEEE, 2023.
  14. Wang et al., 2024b] Yu Wang, Nedim Lipka, et al. Knowl- edge graph prompting for multi-document question answer- ing. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 38, pages 19206-19214, 2024.
  15. Yang et al., 2024b] Xiao Yang, Kai Sun, et al. Crag- comprehensive rag benchmark. Advances in Neural In- formation Processing Systems, 37:10470-10490, 2024.
  16. Zhang et al., ] Bin Zhang, Hangyu Mao, et al. Controlling large language model-based agents for large-scale decision- making: An actor-critic approach. In ICLR 2024 Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Liang, J., Su, G., Lin, H., Wu, Y., Zhao, R., & Li, Z.
Affiliations
  • Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (CN)
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • South China University of Technology (CN)
  • Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
  • University of Cologne (DE)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4417351617
Cited by
23
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 9
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Information Retrieval and Search Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
Keywords
agentic reasoning, large language models, dynamic retrieval, multimodal retrieval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review