Step 6: tool results

read_arxiv_source

{
  "arxiv_id": "2506.13609"
}

{"ok":true,"arxiv_id":"2506.13609","files":15,"columns":"name, bytes, kind (tab-separated)","listing":"00README.json\t224\ttext\nappendix.tex\t46\ttext\nconclusion.tex\t4805\ttext\ndebate_games.tex\t11470\ttext\nintro3.tex\t11219\ttext\nmacros.tex\t13209\ttext\nprelims.tex\t6164\ttext\nproof.tex\t26452\ttext\nprotocol_diagram.tex\t3255\ttext\nprotocol.tex\t19842\ttext\nrecommendations.tex\t2289\ttext\nrecursivedebate.tex\t5129\ttext\nrelatedwork.tex\t2049\ttext\nstandard.bib\t23263\ttext\nzoo_diagram.tex\t1550\ttext","total_chars":374,"offset":0,"truncated":false,"next_offset":null}

read_arxiv_source

{
  "arxiv_id": "2610.02557"
}

{"ok":true,"arxiv_id":"2610.02557","files":13,"columns":"name, bytes, kind (tab-separated)","listing":"00README.json\t219\ttext\nconclusion.tex\t2010\ttext\ndiagram.tex\t6068\ttext\nintro.tex\t14812\ttext\nlower_bound_appendix.tex\t7921\ttext\nlower_bound.tex\t3545\ttext\nmacros.tex\t10169\ttext\nmain_arxiv.bbl\t9016\ttext\nmain_arxiv.tex\t4993\ttext\nprelims.tex\t9766\ttext\nprotocol_appendix.tex\t2567\ttext\nprotocol.tex\t4484\ttext\nrelatedwork.tex\t3857\ttext","total_chars":326,"offset":0,"truncated":false,"next_offset":null}

search_similar_claims

{
  "limit": 10,
  "query": "stability of argument decompositions in debate; obfuscated arguments; independent redundant evidence makes arguments robust"
}

{
  "query": "stability of argument decompositions in debate; obfuscated arguments; independent redundant evidence makes arguments robust",
  "results": [
    {
      "id": "a4225e85-09ed-4f2b-8cf2-23998858b16c",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "Under stability assumptions, prover-estimator debate provably lets an honest debater defeat obfuscated arguments with computational effort comparable to the dishonest debater's.",
      "claim_type": "mathematical",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.6385087309778531,
      "importance": 0.3,
      "assessment_status": "supported",
      "assessment_confidence": 0.8
    },
    {
      "id": "30b4f79d-4286-43ff-a6a9-be91d82c3692",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "Obfuscated arguments limit debate and iterated amplification to verifying arguments small relative to training computation.",
      "claim_type": "empirical_derived",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.5751334641665415,
      "importance": 0.4,
      "assessment_status": null,
      "assessment_confidence": null
    },
    {
      "id": "ae6522c7-b164-4787-99a9-9ab318f858af",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "Arguments on real-world AI oversight questions admit decompositions stable enough for recursive debate's efficiency guarantees to apply.",
      "claim_type": "empirical_derived",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.5595828549220054,
      "importance": 0.4,
      "assessment_status": null,
      "assessment_confidence": null
    },
    {
      "id": "4853cab3-461c-4277-aa49-dcb89d63cf40",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "Evidence assembled in a safety argument retains value even if the argument's reasoning is flawed",
      "claim_type": "empirical_derived",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.545949822637545,
      "importance": 0.3,
      "assessment_status": "supported",
      "assessment_confidence": 0.75
    },
    {
      "id": "b90de133-9df0-4843-8bb1-adfaae5a784d",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "Multiple independent safety arguments can jointly provide confidence exceeding any single argument's error bound",
      "claim_type": "empirical_derived",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.5453314597988252,
      "importance": 0.25,
      "assessment_status": null,
      "assessment_confidence": null
    },
    {
      "id": "c70f8d62-2836-4b76-999a-83bc895fc930",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "Defeater analyses of real-world assurance cases identify concrete weaknesses in their arguments and evidence",
      "claim_type": "empirical_derived",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.5268859767594165,
      "importance": 0.3,
      "assessment_status": "supported",
      "assessment_confidence": 0.8
    },
    {
      "id": "6aa6d158-30d3-479c-94fe-df78c9acb388",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "Operational and test data provide evidence about system risk independently of the arguments that cite them",
      "claim_type": "empirical_derived",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.5083032601555253,
      "importance": 0.3,
      "assessment_status": null,
      "assessment_confidence": null
    },
    {
      "id": "9412fc93-bd20-4003-a309-cfd1b0ca40e8",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "AI debate reliably improves a weaker judge's accuracy only where the judge can check debaters' specific claims more easily than answer the question itself.",
      "claim_type": "empirical_derived",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.5055143016723135,
      "importance": 0.4,
      "assessment_status": "inconclusive",
      "assessment_confidence": 0.6
    },
    {
      "id": "9a81d74b-2861-4f13-a74d-c9bce7022413",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "In adversarial settings, small flaws in a safety argument can be exploited into complete failure",
      "claim_type": "empirical_derived",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.5032538044840233,
      "importance": 0.4,
      "assessment_status": "supported",
      "assessment_confidence": 0.8
    },
    {
      "id": "c5fe8132-8632-4b11-9aa9-bbc4b10a0f20",
      "kind": "claim",
      "text": "A debate-trained AI R&D agent's safety case requires debate proficiency to imply honesty, honesty to persist, and deployment to tolerate errors.",
      "claim_type": "evaluative",
      "state": "active",
      "similarity_score": 0.5005382636140254,
      "importance": 0.5,
      "assessment_status": null,
      "assessment_confidence": null
    }
  ],
  "count": 10
}