Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
ATIBA is a novel tool that automates five critical integrity and quality checks for research manuscripts, including reference integrity verification, venue compliance assessment, and adherence to empirical standards. By leveraging a multi-mode AI review system powered by GPT-5.4, ATIBA ensures that all judgments are based on verifiable evidence rather than generated content. Initial evaluations with users indicate a high perceived usefulness, with agreement rates between 69% and 92% across various workflows, highlighting the tool's potential to enhance manuscript quality assurance.
ATIBA could revolutionize manuscript submission by automating integrity checks that are often inconsistently applied or overlooked.
Checking a manuscript's reference integrity, its compliance with a target venue's specific submission rules, and its adherence to community reporting standards is manual, repetitive, and different for every venue so in practice it is done inconsistently or skipped. We present ATIBA, a tool that runs five grounded integrity and quality checks on a manuscript: a reference-integrity check that verifies each citation against bibliographic sources and flags retracted or unfindable references; a venue/track compliance check that derives submission criteria directly from a venue's own call-for-papers page and evaluates the manuscript against them, each verdict anchored to a verbatim quote from that page; an empirical-standards compliance check against the ACM SIGSOFT Empirical Standards, with a hallucination defence that discards any evidence quote it cannot locate verbatim in the manuscript; a multi-mode AI review (venue-specific, formal, and page-anchored annotation) powered by GPT-5.4 through Azure OpenAI; and a citation-suggestion feature that proposes candidate references for a manuscript and verifies each against bibliographic sources before it is shown to the user. All five checks are designed around the same principle: an LLM is only trusted to judge, never to invent the evidence it judges against. We evaluated ATIBA through a moderated user study with 13 non-author participants. Agreement across the six survey items ranged from 69% to 92%, with a mean of 85%, providing initial evidence of positive perceived usefulness across the evaluated workflows. These findings establish perceived usefulness; objective accuracy remains to be measured.
