check_claim
shallowscience.pith/pith · Verify this server
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).
1 trials · measured 2 days ago
check_claim scores 100.0/100 on Vouch's measured behaviour index, from 1 real invocation trials against science.pith/pith, measured 6 Oct 2026 under methodology v0.2.0. Every measured component scored 100.
Component breakdown
| Component | Weight | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Reliability | 35% | not applicable |
| Schema integrity | 25% | 100.0 |
| Failure behaviour | 15% | not applicable |
| Latency | 15% | not applicable |
| Concurrency | 10% | not applicable |
Tool details
- Transport
- remote
- Credential class
- self-provisionable
- Input schema
- not declared
- Output schema
- not declared
- Side-effect classification
- unclassified
Score history
| Day | Score | Tier | Methodology |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-06 | 100.0 | shallow | v0.2.0 |
Probe evidence
| Probe | Outcomes |
|---|---|
| schema_integrity | pass: 1 |
Raw request/response logs are not archived yet — the outcome counts above are drawn directly from every recorded trial.
Embed this score
Available for every tool, scored or not — not a verification perk. Always links back to this page.
[](https://vouch.tools/tools/7bc22378-5674-4e56-9aae-60308e4fffd1)