Academic Papers

With the rising popularity of interdisciplinary work and increasing institutional incentives in this direction, there is a growing need to understand how resulting publications incorporate ideas from multiple disciplines. Existing computational approaches, such as affiliation diversity, keywords, and citation patterns, do not account for how individual citations are used to advance the citing work. Although, in line with addressing this gap, prior studies have proposed taxonomies to classify citation purpose, these frameworks are not well-suited to interdisciplinary research and do not provide quantitative measures of citation engagement quality. To address these limitations, we propose a framework for the evaluation of citation engagement in interdisciplinary Natural Language Processing (NLP) publications. Our approach introduces a citation purpose taxonomy tailored to interdisciplinary work, supported by an annotation study. We demonstrate the utility of this framework through a thorough analysis of publications at the intersection of NLP and Computational Social Science.

Academic paper search is a fundamental task in scientific research, yet most existing approaches organize retrieval around predefined workflows or structured interaction protocols that struggle with complex, conditional queries. To address this limitation, we propose PaperScout, an autonomous agent that reformulates paper search as a sequential decision-making process. Unlike static workflows, PaperScout dynamically decides whether, when, and how to invoke search and expand tools based on accumulated retrieval context. However, training such agents presents a fundamental challenge: standard reinforcement learning methods, typically designed for single-turn tasks, suffer from a granularity mismatch when applied to multi-turn agentic tasks, where token-level optimization diverges from the granularity of sequence-level interactions, leading to noisy credit assignment and unstable training dynamics. We introduce Proximal Sequence Policy Optimization (PSPO), a process-aware, sequence-level policy optimization method that aligns optimization with agent--environment interaction. Comprehensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks demonstrate that PaperScout significantly outperforms strong structured retrieval and RL baselines in both recall and relevance, validating the effectiveness of our adaptive agentic framework and optimization strategy.

Existing AI disclosure mandates in scholarship require that AI assistance be reported but leave transparency philosophically unspecified: they fix the duty without explaining what the duty serves. We argue that ethical inquiry is essentially contested at two independent levels -- about what it is, and about what it demands of the inquirer -- defeating output-only evaluation and welfare-economic dismissal of the transparency question, and, by extension, reproducibility framings imported from the empirical sciences. The transparency duty is grounded instead in agent-integrity: the legibility, before a community of inquiry, of the identity-constituting commitments that the author's mode of philosophising expresses. Because the standards for evaluating such work are not communally settled, the achievable goal for transparency is not evaluation against agreed criteria but tracking -- accumulating the evidentiary record that lets each tradition assess the work on its own terms and makes future normative judgments possible. We develop a documentation-adequacy framework that operationalises Meaningful Human Control through five transparency elements -- declaration, navigation, documentation account, process documentation, and development records -- demonstrated by the paper itself, whose full documentation record is archived at a persistent identifier. The framework is a first iteration subject to revision, not a settled standard.

The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age. A particularly important regulation in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain is the 2024 enacted EU AI Act. The AI Act specifies -- due to a risk-based approach -- various obligations for providers of AI systems. These obligations, for example, include a cascade of documentation and compliance measures, which represent a potential obstacle to science. But do these obligations also apply to AI researchers? This position paper argues that, indeed, the AI Act's obligations could apply in many more cases than the AI community is aware of. Moreover, we argue that the AI Act is drafted in a manner that may unwillingly disrupt the scientific publication practices of the AI research community, with a focus on model and system release. We contribute the following: 1. We offer a high-level roadmap for AI researchers to evaluate whether they need to comply with the AI Act 2. We explain with everyday research examples why the AI Act applies to AI research. 3. We analyse the exceptions of the AI Act's applicability AI research and offer visual tool for researchers to navigate the AI Act's complex system or research exceptions 4. We establish a position the AI Act's research exceptions fail to account for current AI research conventions, as publishing AI research may void the research exceptions of the Act. 5. We propose changes to the AI Act to provide more legal certainty for AI researchers and give two recommendations for AI researchers to reduce the risk of not complying with the AI Act. We see our paper as a starting point for a discussion between policymakers, legal scholars, and AI researchers to avoid unintended side effects of the AI Act.

Scientific language is a central infrastructure of knowledge production, but it remains unclear whether large language models (LLMs) are altering not only how scientists write, but also how scientific knowledge is communicated and accessed. Here we analyze 21.36 million scientific abstracts published between 2020 and 2024, together with historical records from major journals, to trace recent changes in the language of science. We identify a marked turning point in 2024, when scientific writing shows a sharp increase in lexical complexity alongside a decline in syntactic complexity. This shift is pervasive across disciplines and journal tiers, and is more pronounced in texts by scholars working in non-native English contexts, especially those from language backgrounds that differ more typologically from English. Controlled polishing experiments confirm that LLMs reproduce this pattern by favoring more lexically dense and syntactically compressed expression. We further show why this linguistic shift matters: it may widen the distance between scientific discourse and public-facing language, while also helping scholars in non-native English contexts navigate English-language publishing requirements. These findings suggest that LLMs may broaden participation in scientific authorship while narrowing the accessibility of scientific communication, making them a new force in the linguistic infrastructure of science.

AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research. To spur the development of useful agents, we need benchmarks that are challenging, but more crucially, directly correspond to real-world tasks of interest. This paper introduces such a benchmark, designed to measure the accuracy of AI agents in tackling a crucial yet surprisingly challenging aspect of scientific research: computational reproducibility. This task, fundamental to the scientific process, involves reproducing the results of a study using the provided code and data. We introduce CORE-Bench (Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark), a benchmark consisting of 270 tasks based on 90 scientific papers across three disciplines (computer science, social science, and medicine). Tasks in CORE-Bench consist of three difficulty levels and include both language-only and vision-language tasks. We provide an evaluation system to measure the accuracy of agents in a fast and parallelizable way, saving days of evaluation time for each run compared to a sequential implementation. We evaluated two baseline agents: the general-purpose AutoGPT and a task-specific agent called CORE-Agent. We tested both variants using two underlying language models: GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini. The best agent achieved an accuracy of 21% on the hardest task, showing the vast scope for improvement in automating routine scientific tasks. Having agents that can reproduce existing work is a necessary step towards building agents that can conduct novel research and could verify and improve the performance of other research agents. We hope that CORE-Bench can improve the state of reproducibility and spur the development of future research agents.

The rapid spread of false and misleading information on online platforms poses a growing societal challenge, overwhelming the capacity of manual fact-checking and increasing the demand for scalable, reliable automation. Recent advances in generative large language models (LLMs) have broadened the scope of automated fact-checking beyond accuracy-driven prediction. LLMs are now integral components of fact-checking pipelines, supporting tasks such as generating new data, performing and assisting with fact verification, and shaping how fact-checking systems are evaluated. This survey provides a comprehensive overview of the role of generative LLMs in automated fact-checking, based on a systematic review of 199 research papers. We introduce a unifying taxonomy that captures how generative LLMs are integrated into fact-checking workflows and analyze their use across core fact-checking tasks, dataset construction and augmentation strategies, task formulations, and evaluation practices. Additionally, we investigate the impact of generative LLMs in multilingual and low-resource settings in fact-checking, highlighting trends, limitations, and gaps in current research. By consolidating fragmented research efforts and identifying methodological patterns, limitations, and open challenges, this survey maps the current state of generative LLMs in automated fact-checking. It aims to support researchers in developing more reliable, interpretable, and inclusive fact-checking systems, while outlining promising directions for future research in this rapidly evolving field.

This paper documents Project Rachel, an action research study that created and tracked a complete AI academic identity named Rachel So. Through careful publication of AI-generated research papers, we investigate how the scholarly ecosystem responds to AI authorship. Rachel So published 10+ papers between March and October 2025, was cited, and received a peer review invitation. We discuss the implications of AI authorship on publishers, researchers, and the scientific system at large. This work contributes empirical action research data to the necessary debate about the future of scholarly communication with super human, hyper capable AI systems.

Data-driven approaches to philosophy have emerged as a valuable tool for studying the history of the discipline. However, most studies in this area have focused on a limited number of journals from specific regions and subfields. We expand the scope of this research by applying dynamic topic modelling techniques to explore the history of philosophy in Colombia and Latin America. Our study examines the Colombian philosophy journal Ideas y Valores, founded in 1951 and currently one of the most influential academic philosophy journals in the region. By analyzing the evolution of topics across the journal's history, we identify various trends and specific dynamics in philosophical discourse within the Colombian and Latin American context. Our findings reveal that the most prominent topics are value theory (including ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics), epistemology, and the philosophy of science. We also trace the evolution of articles focused on interpreting a specific philosopher's work rather than proposing new positions, and we note a salient emphasis on German philosophers such as Kant, Husserl, and Hegel across various topics throughout the journal's lifetime. Given the journal's founding aspiration towards more original, propositional philosophy, we investigate whether exegetical topics became comparatively less prominent over time. Our analysis suggests no significant decline in such topics. Finally, we propose ideas for extending this research to other Latin American journals and suggest improvements for natural language processing workflows in non-English languages.