Academic Papers

Sequential sentence classification (SSC) is an essential task for structuring scientific publications, and extending SSC research to languages other than English can improve accessibility to scientific knowledge in multilingual digital libraries. Cross-lingual transfer is a promising approach to address the scarcity of training data in non-English languages. Prior work on other natural language processing tasks has shown the benefits of capturing linguistic similarity between source and target languages. However, SSC inherently depends on patterns at the discourse level, such as label sequences and positional regularities, which appear consistently across languages regardless of linguistic differences. To examine the factors that determine transfer success in SSC, we constructed a multilingual SSC dataset covering 13 non-English languages collected from five academic databases. Our cross-lingual transfer experiments, using both encoder-based and generative models, show that linguistic proximity has no consistent predictive power for transfer performance, whereas structural similarity in rhetorical organization shows a weak but consistent positive correlation across models. After controlling for source-language performance, the similarity of label distributions is the most consistent predictor. Building on this finding, we propose a set of three methods that explicitly leverage structural information using generative models. In the in-domain evaluation, the best combination reaches parity with the strongest encoder baselines, and in transfer to languages unseen during training, it outperforms the strongest encoder baseline.

AI-assisted claims can appear authoritative when evidence, analysis, human authorization, presentation, and correction history refer to different states. Provenance, attestation, and transparency expose history but alone do not specify the publication transition examined here. We develop Publication Authority as an exact-state, non-transferable, single-use publication capability and instantiate it in PAC-2026 (Publication-Accountability Calculus), a machine-readable AIJIM Protocol candidate. We evaluate its fourth bounded semantic freeze (SF-4), a fixed-profile specification designed for replaceable bindings. Six obligations govern evidence, runs and artifacts, measurement disclosure, authorization, surface correspondence, and lifecycle continuity. Each yields a target-bound witness, localized counterexample, or localized unverifiability; none can compensate for another. Only a fresh, complete all-pass record derives the permit consumed by one atomic publication transition. We use identity vectors, adversarial cases, finite models, and historical implementations. Ten models explored 110,764 safe reachable states; 76 unsafe configurations produced the expected violation or observer countermodel. A reader surface passing its correspondence check cannot authorize publication unless the accepted record admits that surface. SF-4 separates evidence horizon from verification time and rejects an authentic but causally invalid authorization. A historical predecessor path reproduced 17 frozen authorization-successor outcomes. A later in-house, instance-blind test of known case classes matched all 183 scored expectations; same-host package execution reproduced its 240 archived observations. Results support internal coherence, bounded safety, fault sensitivity, and limited constructibility, but not factual truth, general refinement, blind interoperability, field efficacy, or standards status.

Atomic layer deposition (ALD) and atomic layer etching (ALE) are reported heterogeneously across experimental and simulation literature in materials science, hindering comparison and machine-actionable reuse. We present four domain-expert-reviewed JSON Schemas for ALD and ALE experimental and simulation processes. Curated with schema-miner and grounded in QUDT using schema-miner pro, the schemas structure materials, process conditions, configurations , and measured or predicted results. We compare their scope, structure, and semantic grounding, and demonstrate their use for schema-guided literature extraction and publication of structured records through ORKG templates.

Generative and agentic AI are reshaping both the production and evaluation of scientific research. These developments are often studied separately, as questions of how AI can produce research and how AI can review it. We argue that this separation misses an increasingly important feature of scholarly publishing: changes on one side alter the incentives, constraints, and behavior of the other. We synthesize 230 scholarly publications and institutional records using a taxonomy of six connected dynamics: production scaling, evaluation automation, evaluation manipulation, defense mechanisms and policy responses, evasion and side effects, and long-horizon ecosystem feedback. The literature shows an emerging progression in which cheaper and faster research production increases pressure on evaluation, AI-mediated evaluation becomes more scalable and repeatable, participants can exploit evaluator regularities, and institutions respond with technical safeguards and policy controls. These responses can in turn induce evasion, redistribute errors and workload, and shape the scholarly records reused by future research and evaluation systems. Evidence is strongest for production and evaluation at scale, reproducible manipulation, and institutional response, while post-policy adaptation and artifact-level long-horizon feedback remain less directly observed. This systems view shifts attention from isolated AI capabilities toward how scholarly actors and AI systems adapt to one another over time.

Citation-based measures of scientific influence typically treat citations as uniform signals, ignoring the different roles that cited works play in a paper's contribution. We introduce contribution-based credit scoring for research articles: a structured citation analysis that decomposes a paper's credit between its own original contribution and the prior work it builds on. Motivated by a cooperative-game view of scientific credit, we propose the contribution tree, a hierarchical framework that conserves importance across the document structure and separates original from citation-derived contribution. To make this framework scalable, we use LLMs as noisy comparative estimators of local importance. We further extend the model to article collections by propagating contributions through weighted citation graphs, yielding corpus-level contributions and normalized influence scores. Our experiments suggest that our framework captures contribution signals beyond surface-level heuristics. Our code is available at https://github.com/sanaebrahimi/Importance_Scoring/

Excess vocabulary, a word's frequency above its pre-2023 trend, is how the change in scholarly English after 2022 has been measured. We adapt it to Korean with morphological units on 398,296 KCI abstracts (2018-August 2026), with 47,165 Vietnamese abstracts for comparison. Placebo floors are 0.1-2.2 points for the single-word statistic and at most 2.9 for the re-selected split-half set statistic. Korean abstracts show nothing in 2023, onset in late 2024, a rise through 2025 flattening in mid-2026: sisahada "suggest" appears in 21.4% of 2026 abstracts against 5.3% expected; plain verbs like araboda "look into" fall to a quarter of trend. Under stated assumptions the single-word conditional lower bound on LLM-processed abstracts is 3.5%, 10.5% and 16.1% for 2024-2026 and a split-half set bound 7.8%, 20.6% and 33.0%. Holzwarth et al.'s estimator under the same discipline gives 41.9% and 72.1% for 2025-2026. Subject-matter controls reduce but do not remove it: restricting the set to lemmas three language-model annotators all call style leaves 14.7 of the 33.0 points, and pairing each 2026 abstract with its journal's closest base-period abstract leaves 34.1. Tested translation routes do not explain it: the surface marks of translated Korean fall as the markers rise. In the same articles' English abstracts the excess appears a year earlier; where the English side carries none, the Korean shift persists at 30 to 66% of the rate where it does. Control abstracts from three providers reproduce the rising words, with marker turnover consistent with model generations; implied prevalences are scenario-dependent.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational search engines for academic literature, yet whether they judge papers on content or on authority signals has not been tested causally. We investigate authority bias: systematic preference for papers based on author prestige, venue, and citations rather than content. Holding title and abstract constant, we vary authority metadata across three counterfactual conditions (original, flipped, boosted) over eight LLMs (five open-weight and three frontier closed-weight) in an in-context, single-turn, top-1 recommendation setting. Our experiments show that authority bias is substantial and directional, varies markedly across models, and is only partially addressable through prompt-level debiasing. We further document a say-do gap: debiasing instructions suppress authority mentions far faster than authority-driven flips, so surface auditing systematically underestimates behavioral bias.

Privacy documents (e.g., privacy policies) are a central mechanism through which digital services disclose data practices and seek user consent. Over the past decades, research on privacy documents has expanded significantly, encompassing not only traditional privacy policies but also short notices (e.g., privacy labels) and interface-level transparency mechanisms. As this research area continues to grow, it has become increasingly difficult to obtain a coherent view of how privacy documents are created, analyzed, evaluated, and maintained across their lifecycle. This SoK provides a unified, lifecycle-oriented view of privacy documents from a software engineering perspective. We systematically review and analyze 290 papers published between 2010 and 2025, organizing them around five research questions that examine how privacy documents are (1) defined and scoped, (2) generated, (3) analyzed and extracted, (4) checked for inconsistencies and noncompliance, and (5) evaluated and improved for usability. Building on our findings, we identify 15 key research trends and 21 open opportunities. We further chart four broader research directions that highlight (i) emerging challenges in AI-centric platforms, (ii) the need for diverse and up-to-date data foundations, (iii) LLM-based unified policy-code analysis, and (iv) dual usability for end-users and developers. We hope this SoK provides a shared foundation for future research on privacy policies and privacy documents.

Effective research ideation requires moving beyond a static understanding of prior work to trace how research problems and solutions evolve across the literature. Existing methods either treat papers as unstructured context or model scholarly evolution as isolated citation chains, overlooking interactions among research trajectories. We propose Tree-of-Ideas (ToI), a two-stage framework. EvoTrace reconstructs branching scholarly trajectories from citations, tracking evolving methods, resolved problems, and gaps. EvoAgent then reasons across trajectories to identify convergent problems and complementary solutions, generating grounded research ideas. Across six AI research topics, ToI achieves the highest score among automatic methods (6.27 vs. 5.36 for the strongest baseline on a 10-point scale), with strong Novelty (6.36) and Groundedness (7.00). Also, its score approaches that of human-paper references (6.29), demonstrating the value of cross-path evolutionary reasoning.

Graphical Abstracts (GAs) visually summarize the key findings of academic papers, playing a crucial role in facilitating the understanding of research content. Recently, advancements in vision-language models and image generation models have enabled the automatic generation of scientific figures based on paper content. However, most conventional methods output the generated results as raster graphics, making post-editing (e.g., text modification and layout changes) highly difficult. This poses a significant challenge, as they are unsuitable for the iterative figure revision process inherent in paper writing and peer review. To tackle these challenges, we define the novel task of generating editable GAs from paper content and propose GenGA, a new GA generation framework that directly produces figures in vector format. By generating figures as a collection of vector elements with a hierarchical structure, GenGA produces outputs that can be seamlessly imported into existing drawing tools for intuitive, element-level editing. Furthermore, we introduce the Structural Independence Coefficient (SIC), a metric that quantifies the editing simplicity of a figure based on the degree to which local modifications propagate to other elements. Experimental results show that GenGA achieves superior editing simplicity compared to conventional methods, and even surpasses human-authored GAs in conciseness and semantic alignment. We also validate SIC as an effective metric correlated with manual editing costs. This study fundamentally redefines GA generation as an editable vector graphic generation problem grounded in the practical workflows of researchers, significantly promoting effective scientific communication.

The rise of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) in academic writing and publishing (AWP) raises questions about linguistic inclusivity and the legitimacy of diverse Englishes in global scholarly communication. This article responds to these questions through a structured scholarly dialogue involving five sociolinguists from World Englishes and adjacent fields. Organised around five guiding questions, the dialogue interrogates how GenAI tools influence writing practices, reinforce or disrupt dominant language norms, and raise ethical challenges. Contributors reflect on the potential of GenAI to democratise writing processes while also raising concerns about GenAI's tendency to marginalise minoritised varieties and flatten nuance in scholarly writing. Across the dialogue, themes of linguistic (in)justice, researcher agency, and institutional responsibility emerge, with contributors calling for equity-informed policies, critical AI literacy, and inclusive co-design in GenAI development. The article shows the value of dialogic reflection in understanding GenAI's role in AWP. It concludes that while GenAI may reinforce existing hierarchies, it can also serve as a site of resistance, depending on how it is designed, governed and used within scholarly communities committed to linguistic diversity.

Publishing private face recognition~(FR) training datasets is privacy-sensitive because faces expose identity information. Private FR training dataset publication mitigates this risk by releasing protected proxies as substitutes for private training faces. However, training FR models with such data introduces an identity paradox: \emph{the identity cues that make released faces useful for recognition supervision are also the cues that make them linkable to real individuals.} A protected face should be decoupled from the original identity, yet still behave as a reliable identity sample for training. Removing these cues too aggressively may destroy the class structure needed for recognition learning, whereas preserving them too faithfully may increase source-identity linkability. We argue that this paradox stems from conflating source-aligned identity semantics with recognition-useful proxy identity geometry. The former should be suppressed to reduce linkage to private individuals, while the latter should be preserved for FR learning. Based on this insight, we propose \textbf{Private Face Distillation}, an identity-decoupling and geometry-preserving framework. It uses Orthogonal Geometry Preservation to construct decoupled proxy identities from private identity representations while maintaining hyperspherical geometry, and Relational Topology Alignment to preserve identity relations for recognition learning. Experiments across multiple domain-shifted FR scenarios show that Private Face Distillation achieves stronger utility than the evaluated publication baselines. On IJB-C surveillance, it improves $\mathrm{TAR}@\mathrm{FAR}{=}1\text{e-}{3}$ by 3.94% over the baseline while reducing source-identity linkability. These results suggest that private FR training dataset publication should decouple source-identity correspondence while preserving proxy identity geometry.

Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.

Generative-AI evaluations can become historical before publication, yet calendar age does not affect every conclusion equally. This paper has two linked purposes. First, it audits a maximum-variation purposive corpus of 40 empirical records appearing between 18 July 2025 and 17 July 2026. The audit coded publication route, execution timing, model identity, age of the newest named generation or immutable snapshot, same-family supersession and refresh behaviour. At appearance, the newest named model was a median 281 days old (middle 50%: 75-478; range: 11-939). Median age was 395 days for 25 journal articles, 56 days for 14 preprints and 49 days for one laboratory report. Thirty-five records included a superseded family, seven supplied a precise dated identifier, three clearly refreshed model evidence, and one added a late sensitivity test. All 40 included an OpenAI system, a feature of this corpus rather than a prevalence estimate. The paper distinguishes model age from claim currency and proposes six reporting practices. Second, it treats its own two-day production process as a reflexive case of frontier-model-assisted research creation. GPT-5.6 Sol Pro in ChatGPT supported candidate discovery, source reconciliation, calculations, drafting and critique; the author checked sources, made all substantive decisions and accepts responsibility. This is a proof-of-practice, not a controlled estimate of productivity or quality. By applying its own Model Facts and model-currency statement, the paper shows how rapid AI-assisted research can be made inspectable without treating model output as independent validation. The title uses half-lives metaphorically; no universal decay rate is estimated.

The Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS) is the main national venue for Artificial Intelligence research in Brazil, hosted by the Brazilian Computer Society since 2012 and publishing work from institutions across the country. Across eleven years, from 2015 to 2025, we build a per-paper record of all 1,066 accepted papers from DBLP metadata, 6,765 Google Scholar citations, and the paper full texts, and use it to ask what BRACIS publishes, who publishes it, and which work gets cited. Large Language Model research grows from zero before 2020 to 19% of papers in 2024, on top of a base of Machine Learning, Computer Vision, and Optimization work. The community is hourglass-shaped: 80.5% of 2,623 authors appear in a single edition, while institutions return at nearly three times the author rate. Citations are heavily concentrated, with the top 1% of papers carrying 27% of the total. Openness practices have grown, with artifact release rising from 8.9% of papers in 2015 to 57.3% in 2023, and we find a notable correlation between having an arXiv preprint and higher citation counts. Since proceedings sit behind IEEE and Springer paywalls and only 7.4% of papers have a preprint, most BRACIS work is hard to reach for readers without institutional access.

Probably not, at least for meta-analyses in economics. In a pre-registered, identity-masked, within-paper experiment, the authors of 44 meta-analyses ranked three AI reports on their own paper by usefulness for improving it: a single pass by a frontier model against two multi-agent debate tools we built and expected to win. All reports were held to a common length and template. The authors preferred the single pass, by 0.66 rank points over mad-research (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00) and 0.57 over paper-workshop (0.16 to 0.95), though paper-workshop spent roughly thirty times the tokens. Authors who recalled their journal referee report usually placed it first and never last; in a separate exercise, three AI judges almost always placed the real journal referee report last. Among the three AI reports, Gemini (the judge whose model family wrote none of the reports) would have ranked paper-workshop first in the authors' place, reversing the single-pass preference. The reversal warns against substituting an AI judge for the author. We measure perceived usefulness for finished papers; whether AI should referee papers is a separate question.

Thematic indexing -- the practice of assigning structured conceptual labels to sections of text -- is essential to scholarly access in large-scale literary and historical editions, yet it remains a largely manual, labour-intensive process. This paper explores the application of machine learning to automatic thematic indexing, using two substantial sub-corpora of the Complete Works of Voltaire as a test case: the Essai sur les mœurs et l'esprit des nations and the Questions sur l'Encyclopédie. The task is framed as a multi-label classification problem, in which a model must assign the set of index entries that a professional indexer would apply to a given page of text. We compare a range of approaches -- from encoder-based models with classification heads to generative large language models (LLMs) fine-tuned via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) -- spanning model sizes from approximately 3 to 120 billion parameters. Our best-performing model, from the Mistral family in a 4-bit quantised configuration, achieves F1 scores of up to 0.67; we argue that these figures represent lower bounds, given the inherent subjectivity of professional indexing and the frequency with which model predictions prove semantically valid despite diverging from the print index. We further evaluate cross-corpus generalisation and conduct a detailed qualitative analysis of model behaviour on literary and rhetorical features of the source texts that prove particularly resistant to automated treatment. Our findings have implications for the broader challenge of providing structured thematic access to large-scale literary and historical corpora.

Dual submissions, in which identical or substantially similar papers are simultaneously submitted to one or more archival venues, without cross-citation or disclosure, are a growing problem for the AAAI Conference and other scientific publication venues. These submissions increase the burden on the peer-review system and pollute the scientific record. As part of the AAAI-26 review process, we (conference organizers) compared AAAI main-track submissions to nine other archival venues with overlapping review periods. We also searched for dual submissions within the AAAI-26 main track. We employed title+abstract similarity assessment to prioritize highly similar paper pairs for subsequent triage by an LLM-based overlap assessment tool, followed by manual review of the highest severity pairs. Manual review of such pairs led to the desk-rejection of 141 AAAI-26 main-track submissions. We seek to alert future organizers, and the broader artificial intelligence research community, to the enormous growth in dual submissions. The incidence of exact duplicate submissions, which are easy to detect, has been eclipsed by the number of papers that use different words to describe the same contribution, which are extremely time-consuming to detect. The growth in this phenomenon is likely facilitated by increasing access to generative AI tools. We include several recommendations for addressing this challenge, including (1) updating the AAAI Multiple Submission Policy and educating the community about acceptable practice, (2) having dual-submission checking tools in place before submissions close, (3) working across venues to converge on consistent policies and penalties to aid in reducing the incidence of dual submission, and (4) creating a community-driven adversarial challenge to accelerate the development of robust detection tools.

Artificial intelligence increasingly mediates consequential decisions in healthcare, law, and public services, and the field has responded with an extensive methodology for measuring and mitigating bias. Yet the fairness definitions, benchmarks, and debiasing frameworks on which this methodology rests are treated as universal while being produced by a research community whose composition has never been characterized. We show that the AI bias research are structurally concentrated, and that this concentration is greatest, geographically, in precisely the domain the rest of the field inherits from. Analyzing 692 publications spanning five thematic domains, combining bibliometric analysis with semantic clustering, we find that research activity is dominated by a small set of countries, institutions, and authors, with the United States leading publication output and collaboration networks across every domain and most strongly in general fairness and bias mitigation, the largest, most-cited domain with meaningful representation across all four semantic clusters. Low- and middle-income countries remain largely absent from the community and its collaboration networks, and citation influence is highly skewed (median = 9; mean =93.5 ), indicating that a small fraction of publications disproportionately shapes the field. Because the general-fairness domain supplies the definitions and benchmarks that application areas apply, concentration of research effort in this foundational domain propagates across AI bias research as a whole - raising the concern that mitigation methods developed and validated within a narrow set of contexts may not generalize to all populations and settings where AI is deployed. We provide an interactive atlas for continuous monitoring of the field's structure.

Research dissemination, turning a paper into a poster, a talk video, and a blog post, is still a manual last mile. Prior automation treats each artifact in isolation that each re-extract the paper from scratch, usually ship one-way renders the author cannot reopen in PowerPoint or Word, and gates quality on soft VLM-preference scores that plateau while load-bearing sections still read as empty. We argue this last mile is best built as a composition of skills: thin agent-readable contracts that share one upstream extractor and wrap deterministic primitives in a measured-fill loop whose exits are hard pass/fail render gates. We instantiate this as ResearchStudio-Reel, five Claude Code and Codex skills organized into one shared extractor (Paper2Assets), three editable generators (Paper2Poster, Paper2Video, Paper2Blog), and one interactive convergence layer (Paper2Reel). Paper2Assets extracts each paper once into a shared bundle that can be reused by every downstream skill; The three generators produce a print-ready poster, a synchronized talk video, and a bilingual blog that stay factually consistent and round-trip through PowerPoint or Word; Paper2Reel then binds all three into a self-contained HTML viewer whose section-level clicks jump the video, slides, captions, and blog to matching content. On the Paper2Poster benchmark, our posters lead every aesthetic and information sub-criterion against both prior automated systems and single-shot frontier LLMs, surpassing the authors' own on aesthetics under two held-out VLM judges and winning overall on 84% to 93% of papers; capability audits further show that, by uniquely pairing narration-aligned on-slide highlights with a bilingual blog gated by layout-aware DOCX repair, ResearchStudio-Reel is the only pipeline to ship all three editable artifacts. Project is available at https://aka.ms/ResearchStudio

Natural Language Processing (NLP) has traditionally been published in its core disciplinary venues like ACL. However, advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) has led to a blurring of the disciplinary lines between NLP and general Machine Learning (ML), with authors regularly publishing in venues from both fields. Here, we ask whether the disciplinary center of gravity is shifting. Using NLP research published from 2010 to 2026 and studies of both established and new authors, we find that a migration is taking place. First, comparing the pre- and post-LLM eras, established authors lost 19.2pp of share at flagship *ACL main-conference tracks while gaining 14.8pp in the newer Findings tracks, and general ML venues rose 8.6pp, even when adjusting for parallel growth in the fields. Second, among newer authors who debut with at least three first-author NLP-topic papers, the share whose work appears mostly at *ACL venues fell from 84% (2019) to 74% (2024), while the share appearing mostly at general ML venues rose from 5% to 21%. Using causal inference techniques, we estimate that these general ML venues confer a significant citation premium, which influences venue selection. Together, these results point to a significant shift in where NLP research is published.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) systems use the question-answering capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) to access information outside their parameters. We evaluate if cluster-based semantic chunking improves retrieval and answer quality compared to fixed-size and recursive chunking evaluating on long, structured academic theses using the Retrieval Augmented Generation Assessment (RAGAs) framework. RAGAs based faithfulness shows limited reliability in this setup. Performance on fixed versus document specific questions varied substantially, likely related to the formatting of documents and preprocessing. Under the tested configuration, cluster-based chunking did not outperform simpler strategies.

The global development of Library and Information Science (LIS) is influenced by various factors such as the economy, society, culture, discipline, tradition, and more. Consequently, the research methods of LIS vary greatly among countries. To better understand these differences, we conducted a study of 5,281 research papers from 81 countries published in internationally representative journals over the past thirty years. We manually annotated the research methods used in some articles through content analysis, and subsequently developed and trained a deep learning model for automatic classification of research methods. Using this method, we conducted a comparative analysis of the usage of research methods in different countries. Our findings reveal that there are differences in the research methods used across countries, with each country having its unique research profile and distribution of research methods. Even when investigating the same topic, research methods can differ between countries. Our study also uncovers that there are differences between the national and international distribution of research methods, these differences have decreased over the past 30 years. By highlighting the characteristics of discipline development in various countries from the perspective of research methods, our study can help guide discipline development at the national level. This study provides insights into the usage trends of research methods across different countries and highlights the unique characteristics of discipline development in each country. This information can be valuable in promoting collaboration and understanding between countries and in guiding discipline development at the national level.

Research in the social sciences has shown that there are gender differences in the selection of research methods, with women often opting for qualitative methods while men prefer quantitative methods. However, it is important to consider that research methods are generally chosen based on the research topic. To figure out the influence of gender on research method selection, a study was conducted in the field of Library and Information Science, using a more fine-grained method classification system and an automatic classification model called CogFT, which is based on full-text cognition. The findings showed that women tend to use Interview while men prefer Theoretical approach, across a range of topics. The study offers insights into the specific research design processes that contribute to gender differences in method selection and suggests ways to promoting gender inclusivity and equality in academia by considering research method use and guidance.

Up to this point, keyword extraction task typically relies solely on textual data. Neglecting visual details and audio features from image and audio modalities leads to deficiencies in information richness and overlooks potential correlations, thereby constraining the model's ability to learn representations of the data and the accuracy of model predictions. Furthermore, the currently available multimodal datasets for keyword extraction task are particularly scarce, further hindering the progress of research on multimodal keyword extraction task. Therefore, this study constructs a multimodal dataset of academic paper consisting of 1000 samples, with each sample containing paper text, images, audios and keywords. Based on unsupervised and supervised methods of keyword extraction, experiments are conducted using textual data from papers, as well as text extracted from images and audio. The aim is to investigate the differences in performance in keyword extraction task with respect to different modal information and the fusion of multimodal information. The experimental results indicate that text from different modalities exhibits distinct characteristics in the model. The concatenation of paper text, image text and audio text can effectively enhance the keyword extraction performance of academic papers.

The composition of author teams is an important factor influencing the novelty of academic papers. However, existing studies have paid limited attention to the role of institutional composition, and most novelty measures remain at a general level, making it difficult to explain the specific sources and types of novelty in papers. Taking the field of natural language processing as an example, this study investigates the relationship between team institutional composition and the fine-grained novelty of academic papers. Author teams are classified into three types: academic institutions, industrial institutions, and mixed academic and industrial institutions. Four types of fine-grained knowledge entities are extracted from full-text papers, including methods, datasets, tools, and metrics. The novelty of papers is then measured based on entity combinations, and pairwise combinations of different entity types are further analyzed to examine their contributions to novel papers. The results show that, in the field of natural language processing, collaboration between industrial and academic institutions is more likely to produce novel papers than purely industrial collaboration. From the perspective of fine-grained knowledge entities, mixed academic and industrial teams pay more attention to the novelty of method-metric combinations, whereas industrial teams pay more attention to the novelty of method-tool combinations. This study reveals the relationship between institutional team composition and paper novelty through fine-grained novelty measurement, providing useful evidence for improving paper quality and promoting industry-academia-research collaboration.

This study examines how alternative systems of scholarly representation identify and characterize broad public administration (PA) and artificial intelligence related public administration (AI-in-PA) scholarship. Using Web of Science and OpenAlex, it compares five approaches based on author-defined, citation-driven, and AI-assisted representations. The results highlight substantial differences in corpus size, publication types, publishing outlets, temporal development, and thematic clustering and structure. The alternative approaches often identify different knowledge domains instead of varied subsets of the same scholarship and therefore produce distinct representations, as evidenced by no overlap in publications and publishing outlets across representations. The findings suggest that algorithmic knowledge organization increasingly influences how interdisciplinary scholarship is classified, structured, and understood and, epistemologically, how its visibility, intellectual structure, and boundaries are represented. AI-enabled scholarly classifications and representations are not neutral but interpretative, likely self-reinforcing, and potentially constrain the evolution and adaptation of disciplinary boundaries. Human disciplinary judgment is essential and is complemented rather than replaced.

With the rapid growth of the number of academic papers, systematically evaluating the difficulty of research and its relationship to academic impact offers important significance for research topic selection and resource allocation. However, current studies lack quantitative assessments of research difficulty and its correlation with academic impact. This paper proposes a comprehensive evaluation system for research difficulty, incorporating factors such as academic collaboration, content, and references. Taking the field of Natural Language Processing (NLP) as a case study, we extract both internal and external features from academic papers, compute multiple research difficulty indicators. We assign their weights using the entropy weight method and perform a weighted sum to obtain the research difficulty score of academic papers. This paper uses the citation frequency of academic papers to measure academic impact. To validate our approach, NLP experts assessed the difficulty of a sample of papers, and correlation analyses confirmed the reliability of our measurement. Empirical results reveal that in NLP, factors such as the number of pages, reference count, and participation of high-level institutions are significantly associated with academic impact. Moreover, we identify an inverted U-shaped relationship between research difficulty and academic impact. It suggests that moderately difficult research tends to achieve greater academic impact.

Highlights provide a concise summary of the main contributions of an academic paper and help readers quickly understand its focus. However, many journals do not provide highlights, which limits their use in literature retrieval, text mining, and bibliometric analysis. Existing studies have explored supervised learning methods for automatic highlight extraction, but these methods usually require large amounts of labeled training data. This study investigates prompt-based learning for automatic highlight generation. We design task-specific prompt templates and combine them with paper abstracts as model inputs. Several language models are evaluated, including locally deployed pre-trained models such as GPT-2 and T5, as well as ChatGPT accessed through an API. Experiments on three datasets show that ChatGPT with prompt templates achieves performance comparable to previous supervised methods without using task-specific training samples. When a small number of examples are added to the prompts, the model significantly outperforms state-of-the-art methods on two datasets. We further analyze how prompt design affects generation quality and find that, although ChatGPT has strong language modeling ability, its performance on this task is highly sensitive to the information provided in the prompt. Case studies also show that the generated highlights are generally coherent, informative, and close to author-written highlights. This study is among the first to apply prompt-based learning to academic highlight generation. The proposed method does not rely on domain-specific training corpora and can generate highlights for papers that lack such information, thereby supporting downstream text mining and bibliometric research.

Algorithms have become central to scientific research in the era of artificial intelligence (AI). Although algorithm mentions in papers are often used to indicate popularity and influence, existing studies usually evaluate individual algorithms in isolation and pay limited attention to the collective influence formed through their interconnections. This study constructs large-scale algorithm co-occurrence networks in natural language processing (NLP) based on the full text of academic papers and investigates algorithm influence from a network perspective. Using deep learning models, we extract algorithm entities and build overall, cumulative, and annual co-occurrence networks. We analyze their structural characteristics and apply multiple centrality measures to assess the group influence of algorithms across the whole field and over time. The results show that algorithm networks display typical features of complex networks, with increasingly dense connections developing over approximately two decades. Classic, high-performing algorithms and those located at the intersections of different research periods tend to have high popularity, control, centrality, and balanced influence. When the influence of an algorithm declines, it usually loses its core network position first, followed by weaker associations with other algorithms. This study is the first large-scale analysis of algorithm co-occurrence networks. Covering more than four decades of academic publications, it provides a temporal and structural view of algorithm influence and offers a foundation for future research on networks linking algorithms, scholars, and tasks.

Academic age critically shapes career development, influencing research behavior, output volume, and methodological choices. Analyzing method variation across academic ages offers a new theoretical lens on scholarly evolution and provides early-career researchers with practical guidance for method selection. A corpus of 26,677 articles published 1990-2023 in 14 authoritative Library and Information Science journals was compiled. The CogFT model automatically classified the research methods embedded in these articles, and Top2Vec generated the topic model. This process resulted in a comprehensive dataset linking research methods with topics. Author-name disambiguation enabled calculation of each scholar's academic age. Popularity and Shannon diversity indices for methods, together with topic diversity, were compared across academic age groups. Results reveal dynamic methodological trends: the share of theoretical approaches declined gradually, whereas experimental and bibliometric methods gained ground. Method popularity differs significantly among cohorts. Mid-career scholars exhibit the highest method diversity; late-career scholars the lowest.

Academic paper search is a core step in scientific research, and LLM-based search agents are emerging as a promising paradigm for iterative, intent-driven literature exploration. However, existing benchmarks are insufficient for systematically evaluating agentic academic search under realistic open literature environments. We propose ScholarQuest, a large-scale, taxonomy-guided benchmark for agentic academic paper search. ScholarQuest is constructed from over 1,000 computer science topics and four representative research intents, including method-oriented, setting-anchored, comparison-based, and scope-controlled queries. It further provides scalable answer construction and a shared retrieval backend ScholarBase for reproducible evaluation. Benchmarking results show that agentic methods outperform single-shot retrieval baselines, yet the best-performing agent only achieves 0.314 Recall@100 and 0.355 Recall@All, indicating substantial room for improvement. In addition, analyses of search efficiency, intent-level robustness, and failure cases further highlight the benchmark's ability to provide multi-dimensional evaluation signals for academic paper search agents.

Research methods are essential carriers of knowledge contribution in academic papers. Automatic multi-label classification of research methods can support knowledge services such as method retrieval, review generation, and research intelligence analysis. While existing studies primarily rely on titles and abstracts, abstracts often provide only limited methodological information, whereas utilizing full-text content faces challenges related to excessive length and information redundancy. Therefore, this paper proposes a segment combination strategy by partitioning the full-text content according to its physical postion. Using an annotated corpus of 1,954 full-text articles from three representative journals in Library and Information Science (JASIST, LISR, and JDoc), we evaluate the classification performance of various segments and their combinations across multiple models. Experimental results indicate that methodological information is distributed unevenly within the full-text content, with the middle-to-late and final segments exhibiting greater discriminative power. Furthermore, integrating bibliographic metadata with cross-segment combination strategies effectively enhances classification performance.

The reproducibility crisis has directed the AI research community toward improving documentation practices. Several studies have identified methodological issues, and in response, the most impactful venues in the field have introduced reproducibility checklists. We seek to understand whether documentation practices have changed over time by assessing all published papers at five leading AI conferences over the past decade. Seven reproducibility variables were identified, quality-assured and used to analyse 56 800 publications. Our analysis reveals that in the period 2014 to 2024, documentation practices have improved; papers sharing both code and data increased nearly sixfold, from 11% to 64% Building on empirical reproducibility rates from a prior study, we estimate - inferred from documentation practices, not direct testing - that reproducibility increased from 28% in 2014 to 64% in 2024. Improvements in documentation practices predate the introduction of reproducibility checklists, suggesting these changes reflect a broader movement toward open science rather than a direct response to formal requirements.

Particle physics collider experiments provide Rivet routines as part of the analysis preservation strategy for model-independent measurements. Rivet is a C++ toolkit that allow new theoretical models to be compared to the measurements, thus aiding the development and tuning of Monte Carlo event generators as well as searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. However, analysis coverage is known to be incomplete, with only 39% of measurements having documented and publicly available Rivet routines. In this article, we design and implement an automated workflow based on Large Language Models with the goal of providing the missing routines. This multi-step workflow, referred to as AgentRivet, extracts the physics analysis information from published papers and writes the missing Rivet routines, with intermediate code- and physics- reviews as part of an autonomous quality control. We report the results obtained using commercial Large Language Models, provided by OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, for two recent measurements from the ATLAS and CMS experiments. We find that AgentRivet produces competent Rivet routines with few syntax errors. The physics fidelity of the routines is reasonable and follows the explanations given in the relevant publications. Nevertheless, physics-implementation issues do arise and are investigated using the artefacts produced by AgentRivet. The majority of physics implementation issues arise from subtle-but-ambiguous definitions in the given publication, although some models struggle to implement complex observables even when clear definitions are given.

Finance reporting is a natural proving ground for large language models, and the very-long-context capabilities of recent models across all sizes make rigorous evaluation in this domain an increasingly pressing need. Yet most public financial resources reduce the task to plain-text SEC 10-K filings paired with a handful of question-answer items. We release LEDGER (Long-context Evaluation of Documents for Grounded Extraction and Retrieval), a corpus of 4,999 digitized corporate annual reports - full documents with figures, tables, and narrative, not just regulatory filings. Each report is labeled with 31 consolidated financial KPIs to be extracted and linked to the market's reaction at the earnings date. From this data we derive three evaluation benchmarks spanning the difficulty spectrum: a pure page-level KPI retrieval task with TREC-style relevance judgments over 118,048 questions in natural language, a conversational "needle-in-a-haystack" single-value lookup, and a full KPI extraction task, both from long, numerically dense reports. We additionally provide human OCR-quality annotations with inter-annotator agreement and the complete extraction, validation, and scoring toolchain. We further demonstrate the dataset's research utility with a case study linking CEO-letter rhetoric to post-publication market impact.

Biomedical text mining, scientometrics, and the construction of training corpora for biomedical large language models (LLMs) all assume that the abstract text returned by a bibliographic API faithfully reproduces the published abstract. This pre-registered audit (OSF osf.io/269b5) tests that assumption for four widely used public APIs (PubMed E-utilities, Crossref, OpenAlex, Semantic Scholar) against PubMed Central (PMC) JATS XML as a common ground truth. From a complete enumeration of the PMC Open Access subset for 2024 (about 700,000 records), a simple random sample of 4,000 English-language research articles was drawn; for each, we recorded whether Unicode characters from four pre-specified classes present in the JATS abstract (typographic punctuation, mathematical/scientific symbols, Greek letters, special whitespace) were preserved by each API. Two systematic, deterministic losses met the pre-registered criterion (upper 95% CI bound below 5%): the PubMed AbstractText field preserved typographic punctuation in only 0.6% of eligible abstracts (95% CI 0.3-1.0%), and OpenAlex preserved special whitespace in 0% (0.0-0.4%). A blinded mechanism audit attributed the first loss to character substitution and the second to inverted-index serialization. Mathematical symbols and Greek letters were preserved faithfully (over 95%) by all four APIs. Separately, Crossref returned no abstract for 24.6% of papers (coverage 75.4%, 95% CI 74.1-76.7%), concentrated in specific publishers (Elsevier and ACS: 0%). Character-level fidelity is therefore API-dependent and undocumented: the same publisher-deposited JATS text carries different surface signatures depending on the serving API, with direct consequences for tokenization-sensitive bibliometrics, corpus construction, and character-level indicators of LLM-assisted writing.

The title of a research paper conveys its primary idea and, occasionally, its conclusions in a clear and concise manner. Choosing an appropriate title is often challenging, and automated title generation can assist authors in this task. In this work, we propose a technique to generate paper titles from abstracts using open-weight pre-trained and large language models. We use the CSPubSum and LREC-COLING-2024 datasets and introduce a new dataset, SpringerSSAT, curated from four Springer journals in the social sciences. Additionally, we use GPT-3.5-turbo in a zero-shot setting to generate titles. Model performance is evaluated with ROUGE, METEOR, MoverScore, BERTScore, and SciBERTScore metrics. Our experiments show that fine-tuned PEGASUS-large outperforms other models, including fine-tuned LLaMA-3-8B and zero-shot GPT-3.5-turbo, across most metrics. We further demonstrate that ChatGPT can generate creative paper titles. Overall, AI-generated titles are generally appropriate and reliable.

Does scientific publishing reward the quality of ideas or the advantage of connections? The question is universal to prestige-driven science, yet it has resisted decades of study because a paper's quality could not be gauged ahead of its publication fate without using that fate as the yardstick. We break this constraint by measuring a paper's idea quality directly from its text, before publication, using a discipline-trained LLM evaluator that scores the idea without seeing author names or outcomes. Using economics as a case study, we combine this text-legible idea-quality score with an execution-quality rubric, a connection index, an author-ability index, and an off-the-shelf language-model text score to estimate a five-input production function for journal placement across 6,208 economics working papers. The inputs are not rivals but a sequence along the ladder of prestige. Execution sets a meritocratic floor and is the largest input overall. Text-legible idea quality grades the rungs in between. Connections set a favoritism ceiling that bites mainly near the apex, the most selective journals. Connections work through two additive channels: connected authors write papers that score higher, and at equal scores their papers are still more likely to place better. Yet this advantage is bounded. Connections raise the odds of every rung without making the apex the typical outcome for ordinary ideas, and even the highest-scoring papers face real friction reaching the visible journal ladder. The result nests, rather than chooses between, the meritocracy and network accounts of how science is published.

These names do not exist. Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived. We show that large language models do not merely default to high-probability individual names when generating fictional experts: they produce correlated character ensembles, pairs and trios whose co-occurrence rates far exceed chance and are consistent across independent generations. These priors are model-family-specific (Claude: Elena Vasquez + Marcus Chen + Amara Okafor; Gemini: Aris Thorne + Lena Petrova; GPT: Elara Voss with no fixed partner), version-specific, and actively suppressed at model release boundaries, leaving dateable behavioral fingerprints in the content they produced. We document a downstream consequence at scale. On Zenodo, a CERN-operated repository that mints real DataCite DOIs, we identify 1,655 ghost-authored records claiming nonexistent journals with fabricated publication dates: server-side DataCite timestamps prove deliberate backdating, and 991 records were registered in a single month; these carry real DOIs registered in DataCite, making them harvestable by any scholarly aggregator that ingests DOI metadata. Ghost names additionally appear on ResearchGate forming synthetic research groups with collaborators drawn from multiple model families; publication dates on these records provide a reliable temporal proxy for model deployment windows.

Large language models have shown strong fluency in scientific writing, yet the evaluation of related work generation (RWG) remains limited. Existing RWG evaluations largely inherit summarization-oriented metrics, using lexical or semantic similarity to reference sections as proxies for quality. However, related work writing is fundamentally a citation-level scholarly positioning task: it requires selecting, organizing, and framing prior work to clarify how a target paper relates to, differs from, and contributes beyond existing research.As a result, models may generate coherent and semantically-relevant text while exhibiting academically critical failures, such as inappropriate citation selection or misplaced references, that conventional metrics do not capture.To this end, we introduce \textbf{RWGBench}, a benchmark that evaluates RWG from the perspective of citation decision-making rather than text similarity. RWGBench is constructed from a large-scale collection of 40,108 computer science papers and a retrieval corpus of 1.09 million documents, with a carefully curated test set comprising 100 papers and their corresponding published related work sections.We propose a multi-dimensional evaluation framework that assesses citation selection, contextual appropriateness, organization, and discourse structure.Experiments reveal systematic limitations in current systems that are obscured by standard evaluations, while Oracle studies further disentangle retrieval-level and generation-level bottlenecks. Human evaluation further shows that our citation-centric metrics align substantially better with expert judgment than surface-level text metrics. RWGBench offers a citation-centric testbed for developing and evaluating related work generation systems that are better aligned with scholarly writing practices.

While platforms like Google Scholar and Semantic Scholar track citations for academic papers, no comparable infrastructure exists for monitoring dataset usage in research literature, leaving the landscape of data use largely opaque. Addressing this gap is critical for transparency, reproducibility, and monitoring of impact, yet progress is hindered by inconsistent citation practices, scarce labeled data, and ambiguous references to datasets in the wild. Traditional NLP approaches struggle with these challenges, motivating the shift toward more adaptive, semantically rich models. Building on prior work using LLMs for data mention detection and synthetic data for bootstrapping training, this paper presents an updated methodology for scalable dataset monitoring. We introduce a multitask GLiNER-based framework that jointly performs dataset mention extraction, relation identification, and usage-context classification. To address label scarcity, the pipeline leverages synthetic data generation to produce training examples and LLM-based revalidation to filter incorrect mentions and enforce labeling consistency, together improving reliability, coverage, and output consistency across the training pipeline. This work advances the development of open-source tools for monitoring data use in research literature, contributing to the broader goal of generalizable, unconstrained dataset citation tracking.

AI-assisted research compresses ideation, implementation, evaluation, and manuscript writing into a single interactive loop. This compression is useful, but it also creates a publication risk: paper claims can become easier to state than to audit. We present ResearchLoop, an evidence-gated control plane for AI-assisted computational research. ResearchLoop treats research questions, task contracts, evidence objects, claim ledgers, closeouts, and paper bindings as durable project state, realized here as a repository-backed runtime. This technical report provides the complete protocol specification, state model, transition rules, claim-admission algorithm, and insight-compounding mechanism. It also reports the full experimental record spanning nine versions (V0--V9), including a self-hosting case study, a controlled task-suite study with component ablations, a mathematical olympiad evaluation, and a supplementary SciCode boundary experiment evaluated with the official generated-code harness. All artifacts, manifests, and verification reports are preserved in the project repository.

We present E3, an automated review assistant that augments reviewers and engineering teams by identifying decision-relevant technical concerns in research papers. For each concern, E3 reports its nature, its location, its bearing on the contribution, and the analysis or evidence that would resolve it, covering unsupported claims, missing ablations, weak baselines, hidden assumptions, threats to validity, and leakage risks. To evaluate E3 without contamination confounds we adopt an issue-level backtesting protocol: the corpus is restricted to papers postdating the training cutoff of every automated source, and for each paper a meta-judge that observes only anonymised reviews labels every issue-source pair as Caught, Partial, or Missed. Applied to 100 ICLR 2026 papers and 4598 judged issue rows, comparing E3 against the ICLR human reviews and two prompt-matched LLM baselines built on gpt-5.4 from OpenAI and claude-opus-4-6 from Anthropic, with meta-judge gpt-5.5, E3 attains the highest recall on every aggregate metric. Partial-inclusive recall reaches 90.2 percent, which is 15.5 points over GPT, 17.1 points over Claude, and 29.2 points over the human reviews, and strict recall preserves the ordering at 65.8 percent. On concerns raised by the human reviewers, E3 recovers 89.6 percent; on concerns the human reviewers missed it surfaces 1635 additional rows admitted into the judged union, 406 above the next-best source. Corpus, baseline prompts, judge prompt template, and evaluation code are released.

Context. Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to code-generating tasks (CGTs) in software engineering. While reported results are promising, the broader effects of such application and their integration into real-world development remain insufficiently understood with existing tertiary studies provide little in this area. Objective. This tertiary study consolidates secondary evidence on LLM-based CGTs, synthesizing the publication landscape, effects, scenarios, integration challenges, and future research directions. Method. Following systematic review guidelines, we searched in related digital libraries, complemented by backward-and-forward snowballing and screening step. Study quality was assessed and extraction reliability was audited with inter-rater agreement statistics. Evidence was synthesized using SWEBOK knowledge areas and the HELM framework. Results. We identify 30 secondary studies published between 2017-2025, with rapid growth since 2023. Accuracy seems strong on benchmarks but weakly supported for real-world generalization; robustness is fragile across tasks and configurations; efficiency constraints are pervasive; toxicity and bias are under-reported. Dominant challenges concern economic feasibility, evaluation validity, and socio-technical integration. Future directions suggest domain-aware model improvement and the need for holistic, standardized evaluation. Conclusion. LLM-based CGTs represent a fast-maturing yet unevenly evaluated research area, highlighting the need for domain-aware model improvements and holistic, standardized evaluation, addressing efficiency and associated costs.

Google AI Overviews (AIOs) are arguably the most widely encountered deployment of generative AI, reaching over 2 billion users who may not realize the answers they see are AI-generated. Where search engines have traditionally surfaced ranked sources and left users to evaluate them, AIOs synthesize and deliver a single answer - giving Google unprecedented editorial control over what users read and know. We present a large-scale longitudinal measurement study, issuing 55,393 trending queries across 19 topical categories over a 40-day window (March 13 - April 21, 2026). We report four main findings. First, overall AIO activation is 13.7%, rising to 64.7% for question-form queries, while politically sensitive topics see markedly lower rates. Second, AIO-cited domains are more credible than co-displayed first-page results, yet nearly 30% do not appear in those results at all, indicating a source selection mechanism distinct from Google's ranking algorithm. Third, decomposing responses into 98,020 atomic claims, 11.0% are unsupported by the cited pages - with omission the dominant failure mode - and source quality and claim fidelity are largely independent. Fourth, well over half of AIO-cited pages carry display advertising, meaning publishers lose revenue when AIOs suppress the click-through, even as Google's own sponsored ads continue to appear on the same page. Together, these findings document a rapid transformation of the online information ecosystem whose consequences for epistemic security remain poorly understood.

Accurately and consistently indexing biomedical literature by publication type and study design is essential for supporting evidence synthesis and knowledge discovery. Prior work on automated publication type and study design indexing has primarily focused on expanding label coverage, enriching feature representations, and improving in-domain accuracy, with evaluation typically conducted on data drawn from the same distribution as training. Although pretrained biomedical language models achieve strong performance under these settings, models optimized for in-domain accuracy may rely on superficial lexical or dataset-specific cues, resulting in reduced robustness under distributional shift. In this study, we introduce an evaluation framework based on controlled semantic perturbations to assess the robustness of a publication type classifier and investigate robustness-oriented training strategies that combine entity masking and domain-adversarial training to mitigate reliance on spurious topical correlations. Our results show that the commonly observed trade-off between robustness and in-domain accuracy can be mitigated when robustness objectives are designed to selectively suppress non-task-defining features while preserving salient methodological signals. We find that these improvements arise from two complementary mechanisms: (1) increased reliance on explicit methodological cues when such cues are present in the input, and (2) reduced reliance on spurious domain-specific topical features. These findings highlight the importance of feature-level robustness analysis for publication type and study design classification and suggest that refining masking and adversarial objectives to more selectively suppress topical information may further improve robustness. Data, code, and models are available at: https://github.com/ScienceNLP-Lab/MultiTagger-v2/tree/main/ICHI

A LaTeX manuscript that compiles without error is not necessarily publication-ready. The resulting PDFs frequently suffer from misplaced floats, overflowing equations, inconsistent table scaling, widow and orphan lines, and poor page balance, forcing authors into repetitive compile-inspect-edit cycles. Rule-based tools are blind to rendered visuals, operating only on source code and log files. Text-only LLMs perform open-loop text editing, unable to predict or verify the two-dimensional layout consequences of their changes. Reliable typesetting optimization therefore requires a visual closed loop with verification after every edit. We formalize this problem as Visual Typesetting Optimization (VTO), the task of transforming a compilable LaTeX paper into a visually polished, page-budget-compliant PDF through iterative visual verification and source-level revision, and introduce a five-category taxonomy of typesetting defects to guide diagnosis. We present PaperFit, a vision-in-the-loop agent that iteratively renders pages, diagnoses defects, and applies constrained repairs. To benchmark VTO, we construct PaperFit-Bench with 200 papers across 10 venue templates and 13 defect types at different difficulty. Extensive experiments show that PaperFit outperforms all baselines by a large margin, establishing that bridging the gap from compilable source to publication-ready PDF requires vision-in-the-loop optimization and that VTO constitutes a critical missing stage in the document automation pipeline.

The implicit policy of maintaining relatively stable acceptance rates at top AI conferences, despite exponentially growing submissions, introduces a critical structural vulnerability. This position paper characterizes a new systemic threat we term Agentic Denominator Gaming, in which a malicious actor deploys AI agents to generate and submit a large volume of superficially plausible but low-quality papers. Crucially, their objective is not the acceptance of low-quality papers, but rather to inflate the submission denominator and overwhelm reviewing capacity. Under a relatively stable acceptance rate, this dilution can systematically increase the publication probability of a small, targeted set of legitimate papers. We analyze the practical feasibility of this threat and its broader consequences, including intensified reviewer burnout, degraded review quality, and the emergence of industrialized automated agent mills. Finally, we propose and evaluate a range of mitigation strategies, and argue that durable protection will require system-level policy and incentive reforms, rather than relying primarily on technical detection alone.

True zero-copy Inter-Process Communication (IPC) in publish/subscribe (pub/sub) middleware such as Robot Operating System 2 (ROS 2) requires subscribers to reference message objects in publisher-owned shared memory. Objects must not be reclaimed while referenced, yet must eventually be reclaimed, with correct handling of crash recovery and Transient Local QoS retention requirements. We propose ipc_shared_ptr, a pub/sub-aware smart pointer for cross-process message lifetime management. ipc_shared_ptr exploits pub/sub structural properties to specialize Birrell's reference listing, limiting global metadata updates to per-subscriber 0<->1 transitions and achieving an order-of-magnitude reduction in global communication over general-purpose distributed reference counting. We analyze the key metadata management tradeoff: scalability versus implementation simplicity. Owner-driven reclaim offers greater scalability, but concurrent membership changes and reclamation decisions produce races that widen the correctness-verification state space. Single-writer achieves structural atomicity, eliminating this complexity at the cost of a centralized bottleneck. iceoryx2 (owner-driven reclaim) and Agnocast -- a true zero-copy ROS 2 IPC middleware sharing the publisher's heap with subscribers and adopting ipc_shared_ptr with single-writer -- embody each architecture. Comparative evaluation at the scale of Autoware -- the largest open-source ROS 2 application -- confirms that single-writer achieves sufficient scalability: at 200 topics, two subscribers per topic and 100 Hz, Agnocast's E2E p99.9 is 2.9x lower than iceoryx2's, justifying implementation simplicity over owner-driven reclaim.

Numerous metascience studies and other initiatives have begun to monitor the prevalence of open science practices when it is more important to understand the 'downstream' effects or impacts of open science. PLOS and DataSeer have developed a new LLM-based indicator to measure an important effect of open science: the reuse of research data. Our results show a data reuse rate of 43%, which is higher than established bibliometric techniques. We show that data reuse can be measured at scale using LLMs and generative artificial intelligence. The positive effects of research data sharing and reuse may currently be underestimated.

The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.

The era of Big Science has long been defined by increasingly large and specialized research teams pushing the frontiers of knowledge. However, recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are beginning to reshape academic writing and scientific research, potentially disrupting the longstanding trend toward ever-larger teams and transforming other dimensions of research team structure. Drawing on 147,074 full-text publications from the PLoS family and the Nature portfolio since 2020, we examined whether and how AI-assisted writing influences team structure and team outcomes in science. Using multiple methods, including ordinary least square, quantile regression, Poisson regression, logistic regression and propensity score matching, we found that research teams using AI-assisted writing tend to be younger and smaller. Importantly, this shift toward more compact, junior-leaning teams does not come at the expense of scientific impact. On the contrary, we observed a higher probability of research teams that employed AI-assisted writing producing highly impactful publications. These results highlight the significant role of AI-assisted writing in reshaping not only how research is produced, but also how research teams are formed and assembled. Our findings call for policy improvements in research evaluation, funding, and training to address this emerging trend.

AI research pipelines can now generate academic work that may satisfy existing peer review standards for quality, novelty, and methodological rigor. However, the publication system was built around the assumption that research is produced by human authors. It therefore lacks a clear way to evaluate work when the knowledge claim may be valid but the producer is partly or fully automated. This paper proposes a two-layer certification framework for AI-generated research. The first layer evaluates whether the knowledge claim is sound. The second layer evaluates the level of human contribution. This separation allows journals and conferences to assess pipeline-generated work more consistently without creating new institutions. The framework uses normative analysis, conceptual design, and dry-run validation against representative submission cases. It classifies human contribution into three categories: Category A, where the work is reachable by an automated pipeline; Category B, where human direction is required at identifiable stages; and Category C, where the work goes beyond current pipeline capability, especially at the problem-formulation stage. The paper also proposes dedicated benchmark slots for fully disclosed automated research. These slots would provide a transparent publication path and help reviewers calibrate judgments over time. The key argument is that publication has historically certified two things at once: that the knowledge is valid and that a human produced it. AI research pipelines separate these two claims. By decoupling knowledge certification from authorship attribution, the proposed framework responds to a structural change already underway. It can be implemented within existing editorial systems, works even when attribution is uncertain, and recognizes human frontier contribution based on epistemic value rather than human origin alone.

Automatic keyword extraction from academic papers is a key area of interest in natural language processing and information retrieval. Although previous research has mainly focused on utilizing abstract and references for keyword extraction, this paper focuses on the highlights section - a summary describing the key findings and contributions, offering readers a quick overview of the research. Our observations indicate that highlights contain valuable keyword information that can effectively complement the abstract. To investigate the impact of incorporating highlights into unsupervised keyword extraction, we evaluate three input scenarios: using only the abstract, the highlights, and a combination of both. Experiments conducted with four unsupervised models on Computer Science (CS), Library and Information Science (LIS) datasets reveal that integrating the abstract with highlights significantly improves extraction performance. Furthermore, we examine the differences in keyword coverage and content between abstract and highlights, exploring how these variations influence extraction outcomes. The data and code are available at https://github.com/xiangyi-njust/Highlight-KPE.

We report new results on eight problems in mathematics and theoretical computer science, produced with the assistance of Bolzano, an open-source multi-agent LLM system. Bolzano orchestrates rounds of interaction between parallel prover agents and a verifier agent while maintaining a persistent knowledge base that is carried across rounds. Classified using the significance-autonomy taxonomy of Feng et al., six of the eight results reach the level of publishable research, and five of the eight were produced essentially autonomously by Bolzano. Our results provide evidence that LLMs can contribute meaningfully to mathematical research, complementing recent reports by Bubeck et al., Woodruff et al., and others.

We extracted the scholarly reasoning systems of two internationally prominent humanities and social science scholars from their published corpora alone, converted those systems into structured inference-time constraints for a large language model, and tested whether the resulting scholar-bots could perform core academic functions at expert-assessed quality. The distillation pipeline used an eight-layer extraction method and a nine-module skill architecture grounded in local, closed-corpus analysis. The scholar-bots were then deployed across doctoral supervision, peer review, lecturing and panel-style academic exchange. Expert assessment involved three senior academics producing reports and appointment-level syntheses. Across the preserved expert record, all review and supervision reports judged the outputs benchmark-attaining, appointment-level recommendations placed both bots at or above Senior Lecturer level in the Australian university system, and recovered panel scores placed Scholar A between 7.9 and 8.9/10 and Scholar B between 8.5 and 8.9/10 under multi-turn debate conditions. A research-degree-student survey showed high performance ratings across information reliability, theoretical depth and logical rigor, with pronounced ceiling effects on a 7-point scale, despite all participants already being frontier-model users. We term this the Relic condition: when publication systems make stable reasoning architectures legible, extractable and cheaply deployable, the public record of intellectual labor becomes raw material for its own functional replacement. Because the technical threshold for this transition is already crossed at modest engineering effort, we argue that the window for protective frameworks covering disclosure, consent, compensation and deployment restriction is the present, while deployment remains optional rather than infrastructural.

Large language models are increasingly used in scholarly work, yet it remains unclear whether their productivity gains are accompanied by changes in research novelty. We examine how relative abstract-level semantic novelty in Information Systems journals changed after ChatGPT became widely available and whether this change differed across institutional language contexts. We analyze 13,847 articles published from 2020 to 2025 in 44 A* and A Information Systems journals. Using SPECTER2 representations of titles and abstracts, we measure each article's semantic distance from its nearest recent predecessors and estimate a comparative pre/post model. Articles whose first authors were affiliated with institutions in non-English-dominant countries show a 0.176 standard deviation larger post-2022 decline in relative semantic novelty than articles from English-dominant affiliations, equivalent to about 7 percentile points. The pattern is similar across several alternative specifications, although the balanced-author estimate is less precise. We interpret this finding through a tension in generative AI-supported knowledge work. GenAI can widen access to prior knowledge and support new combinations, but it can also make established frames easier to reproduce. Because individual LLM use is not observed, the result identifies a heterogeneous post-2022 shift rather than an effect of LLM adoption. The study extends research on LLMs and scholarly productivity by shifting attention from publication counts to the semantic positioning of published articles and by showing that post-2022 change differs across institutional contexts.

Federal research funding shapes the direction, diversity, and impact of the US scientific enterprise. Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly diffusing into scientific practice, holding substantial promise while raising widespread concerns. Despite growing attention to AI use in scientific writing and evaluation, little is known about how the rise of LLMs is reshaping the public funding landscape. Here, we examine LLM involvement at key stages of the federal funding pipeline by combining two complementary data sources: confidential National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposal submissions from two large US R1 universities, including funded, unfunded, and pending proposals, and the full population of publicly released NSF and NIH awards. We find that LLM use rises sharply beginning in 2023 and exhibits a bimodal distribution, indicating a clear split between minimal and substantive use. Across both private submissions and public awards, higher LLM involvement is consistently associated with lower semantic distinctiveness, positioning projects closer to recently funded work within the same agency. The consequences of this shift are agency-dependent. LLM use is positively associated with proposal success and higher early-stage publication output at NIH, whereas no comparable associations are observed at NSF. Notably, the productivity gains at NIH are concentrated in non-hit papers rather than the most highly cited work. Together, these findings provide large-scale evidence that the rise of LLMs is reshaping how scientific ideas are positioned, selected, and translated into publicly funded research, with implications for portfolio governance, research diversity, and the long-run impact of science.

The integration of complementary medicine into oncology represents a paradigm shift that has seen to increasing adoption of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) as an adjuvant to radiotherapy. About twenty-five years since the formal institutionalization of integrated oncology, it is opportune to synthesize the trajectory of evidence for TCM as an adjuvant to radiotherapy. Here we conduct a large-scale analysis of 69,745 publications (2000 - 2025), emerging a cyclical evolution defined by coordinated expansion and contraction in publication output, international collaboration, and funding commitments that mirrors a define-ideate-test pattern. Using a theme modeling workflow designed to determine a stable thematic structure of the field, we identify five dominant thematic axes - cancer types, supportive care, clinical endpoints, mechanisms, and methodology - that signal a focus on patient well-being, scientific rigor and mechanistic exploration. Cross-theme integration of TCM is patient-centered and systems-oriented. Together with the emergent cycles of evolution, the thematic structure demonstrates progressive specialization and potential defragmentation of the field or saturation of existing research agenda. The analysis points to a field that has matured its current research agenda and is likely at the cusp of something new. Additionally, the field exhibits positive reporting of findings that is homogeneous across publication types, thematic areas, and the cycles of evolution suggesting a system-wide positive reporting bias agnostic to structural drivers.