Mark Kreitz | arXiv Science

arXiv2026

RefVerifier: Semi-Automated Reference Claim Verification for Scientific Manuscripts

As software engineering research submission counts surge, peer reviewers face severe time constraints, making systematic verification of citation-supported claims prohibitively expensive. Consequently, unsubstantiated claims and semantic drift can propagate undetected across scientific literature. Existing approaches such as fact-checking and retrieval-augmented generation tools operate on open-domain web data or evaluate claims in isolation without processing complete manuscripts. To address this gap, we present RefVerifier, a semi-automated, citation-bounded reference verification prototype designed to support in academic peer review. RefVerifier extracts citation-bearing sentences from manuscripts, checks bibliography metadata against scholarly databases, resolves references to full-text open-access PDFs, localizes relevant evidence passages, and generates verdicts with natural language explanations. Evaluating RefVerifier on public benchmarks shows claim detection at an F1 score of 0.990, open-access resolution of 57.6% of references, and evidence localization with a hit rate of 98% on abstracts and 68% on complete cited papers. In an end-to-end test with eight manuscripts, RefVerifier achieves a verdict accuracy of 71%. By automating document retrieval and evidence localization while preserving reviewer oversight, RefVerifier provides first indicators for the feasibility of semi-automated integrity checks in scholarly publishing.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Reflections on the Reproducibility of Commercial LLM Performance in Empirical Software Engineering Studies

Large Language Models have gained remarkable interest in industry and academia. The increasing interest in LLMs in academia is also reflected in the number of publications on this topic over the last years. For instance, alone 78 of the around 425 publications at ICSE 2024 performed experiments with LLMs. Conducting empirical studies with LLMs remains challenging and raises questions on how to achieve reproducible results, for both researchers and practitioners. One important step towards excelling in empirical research on LLM and their application is to first understand to what extent current research results are eventually reproducible and what factors may impede reproducibility. This investigation is within the scope of our work. We contribute an analysis of the reproducibility of LLM-centric studies, provide insights into the factors impeding reproducibility, and discuss suggestions on how to improve the current state. In particular, we studied the 85 articles describing LLM-centric studies, published at ICSE 2024 and ASE 2024. Of the 85 articles, 18 provided research artefacts and used OpenAI models. We attempted to replicate those 18 studies. Of the 18 studies, only five were sufficiently complete and executable. For none of the five studies, we were able to fully reproduce the results. Two studies seemed to be partially reproducible, and three studies did not seem to be reproducible. Our results highlight not only the need for stricter research artefact evaluations but also for more robust study designs to ensure the reproducible value of future publications.

cs.SE↗