Paper Trellis Citation Verifier
Check whether a citation supports the sentence citing it
Implementation and evidence →JEV GUIDE
Jev citation verification: evidence extraction and claim support
An accessible citation does not necessarily support its surrounding claim. Jev can assess a claim against a passage, while retrieval, reference matching and the final research judgment require their own checks.
Citation review involves three distinct questions
Editorial recommendation: separate reference identity, the existence of an evidence passage in the retrieved text, and whether that passage supports the specific claim. Failure of either earlier check should prevent a “supported” result.
For example, improvement in one group under a particular condition does not automatically support effectiveness for everyone. Preserve population, conditions and comparison scope rather than equating shared subject matter with agreement. This is a synthetic example.
How do existing cases combine models and code?
Paper Trellis Citation Verifier pairs citing sentences with retrieved papers. Claude can propose evidence, code checks quotation existence and numbers, Jev assesses support, contradiction or silence, and the user records the final verdict. Its model thresholds have not been validated on a labeled set.
Keep abstracts, full text and extraction failures distinct
These are suggested editorial result states, designed to make the inspected evidence explicit.
| Available material | Appropriate result |
|---|---|
| Abstract only, claim not mentioned | Full text needed; current evidence insufficient |
| Full text with a matching passage | Show passage, location and relation for human review |
| Reference matching or extraction failed | Unable to verify; preserve the failure reason |
What would a meaningful evaluation look like?
Jev Reviewer offers another route: selecting and checking evidence in numbered text. Browser-side file parsing does not mean the text used for inference stays out of model requests.
Source: Jev Reviewer · pinned source ↗
Preserve a reviewable evidence record
Editorial recommendation: retain the paper revision, inspected scope, passage location, model configuration and human verdict for each claim. Label examples of correct citations, overstated scope, contradictions and unavailable full text, then assess false support and false rejection separately.
Another model agreeing is not a sufficient ground-truth label. Researchers still need to inspect the original evidence. We have not measured these projects’ citation-review accuracy.
Explore these projects next
Jev Reviewer
Locate checkable source passages in research reports
Implementation and evidence →Continue reading
03 / JEV GUIDE
Jev prompt examples: Choice, Score and Noul
Write focused Jev questions with original feedback-routing examples, explicit criteria and a practical edge-case checklist.
Read guide →07 / JEV GUIDE
Jev RAG reranking: semantic search and relevance filtering
Place Jev after retrieval: define relevance, preserve provenance, distinguish snippets from full text and evaluate rankings with labeled queries.
Read guide →14 / JEV GUIDE
Jev vs generative LLMs: decisions, generation and code
Compare Jev and generative LLM task boundaries through rewriting and script-review cases. Typed output does not establish correctness or performance.
Read guide →