Pith

Which arXiv papers support a scientific statement, which contradict it, and which study it without deciding, each with the paper's own main claim quoted and the classifier's probability. Call this before asserting a scientific result, when a user asks whether something is established or disputed, or when two sources disagree. Candidates are papers whose title and abstract match the statement's words, plus papers Pith's connected record links to them as stating the same or a conflicting result; a paper that states the result in other words can be missed, so an empty answer is not evidence of absence. Reported supporters and contradictions agreed with two blind model families 110 times in 112 (https://pith.science/connected-record).

One hop from a paper: every reference entry with its resolved work identity, the papers that cite it, and, where a record exists, the citing sentences with their labeled intent. An edge means the paper names the other work, not that the work supports the citing claim.

The papers Pith reviewed most recently, newest first. Call this when the user asks what is new, notable, or recently reviewed in a field or overall. days caps how far back to look (max 90).

For the papers claimed on the account behind your key: how many papers cite each, whether they cite it as support, extension or disagreement, and the citing sentence quoted. Call when the user asks who is building on or disputing their work. Needs a personal key.

Pith's machine review verdict and the count of published signed human reviews for each paper claimed on the account behind your key. Needs a personal key.

Whether either paper cites the other, the resolved works both cite (on or off arXiv), and the papers that cite both.

What other arXiv papers do with this paper, and what it does with the arXiv papers it cites: builds on, uses the method or tool, uses the data, compares with, cites as support or background, or contests. Each group counts distinct papers and quotes the citing authors' own sentences. Labels come from each citing paper's LaTeX source typed by Pith's classifier and are shown only at intent probability 0.8 or more (support at 0.95, contests at 0.7); the rest are counted as unlabelled. Measured agreement of every label with independent model families: https://pith.science/connected-record. Use this for how a result has been taken up, challenged or built on across arXiv.

One paper's compiled record, small enough to hold beside others: the main claim and contribution in the authors' words, each abstract sentence with its role and probability, paper-level labels, and, for full-text records, conditions, measurements, results and limitations, with totals so a capped list is not mistaken for the whole paper.

Sources read and levels run for one paper's record, or the number of stored records by tier. Call before treating an empty result as a finding: an empty list means nothing in the examined scope matched.

Whether the cited paper's own sentences support what a sentence attributes to it: supports, partly supports (a condition is missing), contradicts, or not addressed, with the single best sentence from the paper quoted. Call this before citing a paper for a specific claim, or to check a citation in a draft or an answer. It reads the paper's abstract, and its full text where Pith holds it; the examined field says which. On real citations its verdict agreed with two blind model families 139 times in 160, most differences being partly supported versus not addressed (https://pith.science/connected-record).

The structured argument of one specific paper: what it actually asserts, the premises it assumes, the machinery connecting those premises to the claim, and the falsifier, as short labeled statements in argument order (premise, machinery, claim, falsifier). Use this for requests about a paper's claims, premises, assumptions, reasoning, logical dependencies, logical structure, argument structure, or conclusion. Each entry includes its text, role, type, and status.

Read the papers closest to a question and return, for each, whether its own abstract sentences answer yes, no or not addressed, with the deciding sentence quoted. Call when a user asks whether something holds across the literature. Candidates are chosen by meaning, so a paper that answers in different words can be missed. Needs a personal key; counts against a daily allowance.

Resolve each reference in a draft, flag retracted works, and for arXiv papers show how later papers cite them: as support, and whether any contest them, with the contesting sentence quoted. Call before a submission or when a user wants their reference list checked. Needs a personal key; counts against a daily allowance.

Author sentences the classifier labeled with one role, across every stored record, each with its probability and paper. Abstract-tier records cover limitation, result and main_claim; full-text records add condition, citation and measurement.

Alias of analyze_paper_claims: the same ledger of what the paper asserts, its premises, machinery, and falsifier, in argument order.

Alias of get_paper_falsifier: the same falsifier and watcher count.

The falsifier for one specific paper's core claim: the concrete observation, experiment, or computation that would settle or disprove it, plus how many people are watching for that result. Use this when the user asks what would falsify the paper, prove it wrong, test its central claim, settle the claim, or show that the conclusion fails.

The compiled record of one paper: the authors' own sentences, arranged with typed labels. It carries the main claim in the authors' words, each abstract sentence's role, results with the qualifications the authors state beside them, the conditions of the study, measurements with where they appear, the arXiv listing abstract compared with the manuscript's abstract, resources including what is not stated, the authors' own limitations, how the paper uses its references, and what was and was not examined. No sentence in it was written by a model; every label carries its probability. Use this for what a paper states and under what conditions, including papers Pith has not reviewed, where get_review reports no review. Accepts an arXiv id or URL, DOI, or Pith Number.

Pith's review of one specific paper, in one call: the verdict, confidence, novelty and correctness scores, one-line summary, weakest assumption, and the paper's argument as short labeled statements (premise, machinery, core claim, falsifier) already extracted, so the paper's premises and logical structure can be stated without reading the PDF. Use this for any question about a specific paper: what it asserts, what it assumes, how the argument runs, how sound it is, or what Pith concluded. Accepts an arXiv id or URL, DOI, or Pith Number.

A reviewer's published signed reviews and, when present, their calibration record (Brier score, open predictions, positivity skew). Call this when the user asks about a named Pith reviewer or how trustworthy a reviewer's track record is.

Published human signed reviews of one paper: reviewer identity, axis deltas against the machine review, claim verdicts, defects, predictions, and who paid. Call this when the user asks what human experts said about a paper, on top of the machine review.

Turn a pasted arXiv id, arXiv URL, DOI, or Pith Number into the arXiv id the other tools key on. ``resolved`` is false when the input did not become an arXiv id.

Full-text search over every scientific claim Pith has extracted, across all reviewed papers. Call this when the user asks who claims something, whether a claim appears in the recent literature, or what evidence bears on a statement. Returns each matching claim with its paper, verdict, and review link.

Search Pith-reviewed papers by title and abstract. Call this when the user names a research topic, phenomenon, method, or paper title without an identifier, or asks whether Pith has reviewed anything on a subject. Each result carries the paper's verdict, summary, and review link.