Loading
Life sciences · Preprint
arXiv · October 21, 2026
No summary has been generated for this record yet. What follows is drawn from its source metadata only.
Preprint.
No findings were extractable from the material analysed.
Safety was not reported in the material analysed. Check the source before drawing any conclusion about harm.
The source did not state who this applies to in practice.
Graded across the dimensions that decide whether you should act, each from what the source actually supports. There is no single score, and where a dimension was not assessed it says so.
This record has not been graded across any dimension yet. Treat the label above as provisional and read the source.
What is missing. This record has no bottom line, key findings, reported figures, evidence dimensions. That is a gap in the analysis, not a judgement about the study.
Literature-searching language agents are becoming a standard component of scientific assistants for the life sciences, yet there is little controlled evidence on which parts of their harness matter. We run a controlled ablation on biomedical claim verification (SciFact) with the live PubMed API as the only tool. Holding the backbone and output format fixed, we compare four harnesses: closed-book answering, single-shot retrieval using the claim as the query, a ReAct-style agent that writes its own PubMed queries, and an oracle given the gold abstracts, each with two efficient frontier backbones. Naive single-shot retrieval finds the gold paper for only 6% of claims and turns overconfident errors into abstentions without improving accuracy. Letting the model formulate its own queries triples gold recall and yields the best verdicts (62% accuracy vs. 49-59% for the other realistic harnesses), although these differences are not significant at our sample size and agents use fewer than half of their search budget. With gold abstracts, the same models reach 79-86% accuracy, a significant 17-24 point gap showing that retrieval, not reasoning, is the main bottleneck. Finally, a citation audit shows that closed-book models cite PubMed IDs that almost always exist (327/335) but are almost never relevant: a cross-family LLM judge rates only 3 of 327 existing citations as relevant to the claim, versus 67% for citations produced by the search agent. Existence checks are therefore insufficient safeguards for scientific agents. We release code, prompts, and all cached tool calls at https://github.com/saqlain2204/real-pmids-wrong-papers.