Persistence Paradox in Dynamic Science: Evidence from the Deep Learning Revolution

Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building. We link PubMed Central full text with OpenAlex publication and collaboration histories for 775,323 scientists and analyze CRediT contribution statements from 137,120 multi-author papers. After 2022, scientists increasingly published across more intellectually distant fields and entered fields in which they had not previously worked. These increases in interdisciplinarity and exploration were especially pronounced among established scientists and scientists from non-English-speaking low- and middle-income countries. Authors with stronger AI-writing signals were already more interdisciplinary and exploratory before the widespread adoption of LLMs, and the gap widened further after 2022 compared with authors with weaker AI-writing signals. Scientists' collaboration networks also became more interdisciplinary after 2022. Yet, among authors with stronger AI-writing signals, research interdisciplinarity was less closely tied to the disciplinary diversity of their collaborators. The division of labor within research teams also became more differentiated. Contributors on papers published after 2022 reported narrower role sets on average, coauthors shared fewer roles in common, and their role profiles became less rigid and more fluid. Software and validation roles increased, while conceptual and management roles decreased. These patterns suggest that team members are taking on more distinct responsibilities and may rely less on one another to perform research tasks. Overall, this study indicates that the LLM era coincides with a broader reorganization of scientific exploration, collaboration, and the division of labor.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to brainstorm and evaluate research ideas, yet assessing such judgments is fundamentally difficult because the true impact of a new idea may take years to emerge. We address this challenge by using the impact forecasting of human-authored manuscripts as a verifiable proxy task. In a prospective forecasting study, we find that frontier LLMs fail to reliably distinguish high-impact papers from ordinary publications, suggesting that static text-based judging is insufficient for scientific evaluation. To address this limitation, we propose $\textbf{FAME}$ ($\underline{\text{F}}$orecasting $\underline{\text{A}}$cademic Impact via Continuous-Time $\underline{\text{M}}$anifold $\underline{\text{E}}$volution), a spatiotemporal framework for modeling the dynamic trajectories of scientific topics. FAME projects papers into a dynamic latent space informed by textual features and a verified knowledge-flow graph, learning geometric constraints that align impactful manuscripts with the forward momentum of their fields. Experiments on 3,200 arXiv papers across three fast-evolving subfields show that FAME consistently and substantially outperforms state-of-the-art LLM evaluators in prospective multidimensional impact forecasting. Furthermore, integrating FAME's dynamic geometric signals into LLMs significantly improves their forecasting performance. These results support manuscript impact forecasting as a useful, measurable proxy benchmark and position FAME as a strong, trajectory-aware foundation for automated scientific evaluation.

Deep continual learning requires models to adapt to new tasks without retraining from scratch. However, neural networks can lose their ability to adapt to new tasks after training on previous ones, a phenomenon known as loss of plasticity. There have been several explanations and diagnostics proposed for plasticity loss. Motivated by the philosophy that "all models are wrong, but some are useful", we ask: can existing diagnostics predict a neural network's plasticity? In this work, we take a practical view to interpret plasticity as trainability, i.e., a neural network's future optimization gain on a target task. We first take a theoretical approach, showing, by constructing a few counterexamples, that some widely adopted diagnostics of plasticity, including representation rank and neural tangent kernel rank, can fail to predict the loss of trainability in both regression and classification settings. We instead propose a novel metric, called optimization readiness, which combines gradient strength and gradient reliability. We prove that optimization readiness lower bounds one-step optimization gain under standard smoothness assumptions, providing a theoretical guarantee for its predictive power. Empirically, we show that across commonly used deep continual learning settings, such as Slowly-Changing Regression and Permuted MNIST, optimization readiness more reliably ranks checkpoints by trainability than prior diagnostics, even with substantially fewer samples.