Papers

Conferences, journals, funders, schools, and universities are struggling with a surge of potentially AI-generated submissions from ostensibly human authors, who may not have exercised sufficient human oversight for their manuscripts. In turn, institutions evaluating submissions can no longer reliably credit expertise based solely on authors' names on submitted work. To address this problem, we propose greCAPTCHA, a proctored assessment approach that measures authors' understanding of research manuscripts via the construct of capacity to verify, which we define as the knowledge and reasoning required to critically assess the contents underlying one's contributions to a manuscript. greCAPTCHA generates questions assessing multiple levels of understanding and provides an evaluative report based on authors' responses. Using a prototype implementation, we conduct a user study and semi-structured interviews with $31$ researchers to evaluate greCAPTCHA. Its automated scores predict which papers were or were not authored by study participants with an AUC of $0.90$. Participants reported positive overall experiences with the system and remarked on the appropriate construct validity for author understanding, while also suggesting important changes to be made before deployment. Our results provide initial evidence that greCAPTCHA can assess manuscript-specific understanding under proctored conditions.

Artificial neural networks (ANNs), as core components of modern deep learning (DL) systems, lack the adaptive flexibility and long-term stability exhibited by biological systems. This limitation largely stems from the fact that conventional ANNs rely on uniform, local, and gradient-based parameter updates, while neglecting internal learning principles that are biological mechanisms such as neurotransmitters signalling or neuroplasticity. Consequently, many existing approaches focus on architectural expansion or mathematical fine-tuning techniques such as regularisation or parameter isolation. Inspired by the superior adaptability and plasticity of mammalian brains, we posit that neuromodulation with neurotransmitters constitutes a third axis of learning, complementary to neural activity and synaptic plasticity, and should be explicitly modelled in artificial neural networks. In this positional paper, we argue that incorporating neuromodulatory principles into ANN design represents a promising and underexplored research direction, and we advocate for greater attention to this perspective in the development of adaptive and continual learning systems.

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.

Identifying technological trends is a core scientometric task, yet traditional frequency-based approaches struggle to capture substantial meaning shifts of domain-specific terms. We hypothesise that contextual embeddings can complement frequency dynamics to effectively track diachronic semantic change. We compare frequency and embedding-based approaches across Astrophysics and NLP corpora spanning from 2010 to 2024. Candidate terms are extracted using KeyBERT (utilizing SciBERT as its underlying language model) and filtered for significant frequency increases using Fisher's exact test. These terms are then evaluated for genuine semantic shift by domain experts to establish ground-truth labels. To quantify semantic drift, each term's contextual embedding ''clouds'' from the two discrete periods are compared using multiple metrics: cosine distance, average pairwise distance, Hotelling-type T 2 , and maximum mean discrepancy. Results indicate that frequency-based methods align slightly better with human judgments of ''trend-related terms'' than semantic metrics (Precision@50 of 0.62 vs 0.60 in Astrophysics). The two signals show a correlation of around 0.6. Several terms identified exclusively by embedding metrics (e.g., ''primordial black holes'') represent critical conceptual developments invisible to pure frequency analysis. These findings indicate that semantic metrics may capture complementary information, highlighting the value of integrating contextual embeddings into scientometric trend analysis.

Historians have reconstructed the twentieth-century transformation of general relativity and gravitation (GRG) at the field level and through individual careers, but connecting these scales requires a way to compare researchers with the changing field over time. We develop such a comparison, setting a researcher's publications and references against GRG field literature from the same, earlier, and later two-year periods. Building on Own Vocabulary and Embedding Density Estimation from our earlier two-case study (arXiv:2501.00391), we extend the analysis to the fifty most-published authors in a NASA/ADS corpus of about 180,000 GRG records (1911 to 2000) and add two citation-based measures, Referenced Vocabulary and Citation Identity. The four measures compare an author's written language, cited literature, semantic neighbourhood, and cited-authority configuration with the surrounding field. The earlier cases suggested that closer field-vocabulary alignment accompanies a denser semantic neighbourhood. Across the fifty authors this holds only partially. Written and cited vocabularies tend to move together, usually resembling later GRG literature as the field turned towards astrophysical and cosmological research. Semantic neighbourhoods more often lie where the field's publications were concentrated in earlier periods, while co-citation patterns follow no single temporal direction, and the two citation measures frequently place the same researcher differently despite drawing on identical reference lists. Individual trajectories can thus combine vocabulary tied to later field states with older semantic or citation structures, and these divergent cases mark patterns for closer historical investigation. The approach transfers to other fields with defensible corpus boundaries and adequate coverage of texts, references, and disambiguated author identities.

Autoresearch agents are reshaping the research ecosystem, but they can also let flawed claims enter the literature at scale. Human advisors catch such issues in drafts through careful, traceable feedback, yet advisor-style assessment requires extensive manual effort and does not scale. To shift automated paper assessment from a judge to a diagnostician, we introduce PaperDoctor, an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations. First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through three layers: L1 surface screening, L2 typed verifiers that route each claim to the appropriate evidence, and L3 reproducers that rerun experiments by priority. Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion, making critiques auditable and actionable. Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget, surfacing reproducibility gaps and quantitative limitations that are invisible from the manuscript alone. We evaluate PaperDoctor on 30 in-progress papers, yielding 70.6% agreement and all positive holistic scores, and on 40 manuscripts across machine learning, natural science, and social science, covering human- and AI-authored papers with code. Overall, PaperDoctor produces more auditable feedback than human and other agentic reviewers, pairs critiques with concrete suggestions by design, and complements dimensions often overlooked by human reviewers. We also develop an interactive interface that lets authors browse findings grounded in their paper. PaperDoctor reframes automated paper assessment as diagnosis rather than verdict, taking a concrete step toward AI advisors for more rigorous AI-assisted scientific discovery.

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.

Research data repositories are essential infrastructure for scientific inquiry and for ensuring that datasets follow FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles. However, repository reuse depends on the quality and completeness of geospatial and thematic metadata, which researchers generally provide voluntarily. Given limited curation resources, it is unsurprising that even Harvard Dataverse, the world's largest general-purpose research repository, contains many incomplete metadata records. Missing fields represent lost information and reduce interoperability. We find that datasets with more missing metadata receive fewer downstream citations and have fewer resolvable connections to other datasets. The implications are particularly important for geospatial datasets: only 0.3% of research datasets include a bounding box, and most represent archival points rather than complete geographic shapes. Our analysis shows that geospatial metadata helps connect concepts across disciplines. After embedding Harvard Dataverse datasets in a metadata knowledge graph, we find that datasets are twice as likely to connect across scientific disciplines through shared geospatial metadata as through keywords. This suggests that geographic metadata is a more reliable basis for cross-disciplinary interoperability than keyword vocabularies, which often remain discipline-specific. We train and fine-tune a small language model using datasets from Harvard Dataverse. Through geospatial metadata enrichment, we increase the share of datasets from different disciplines connected through metadata elements from 58.5% to 63.2%.

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.

Capturing the digital trace of handwriting usually requires a specific stylus and a compatible substrate, be it a capacitive touchscreen, an ElectroMagnetic Resonance (EMR) tablet as used in Wacom systems or special paper. While writing on regular paper offers rich haptics, no latency and is well known for improving information retention, no low-cost and widely accepted, effective solution exists to digitize such a pen trace. The challenge is to accurately track the pen's trajectory without an external reference system while allowing unrestricted freedom of pen movement across a surface. We propose an innovative solution that combines a digital pen, advanced artificial intelligence algorithms, and adaptive AI techniques to reconstruct the digital trace of handwriting. Our approach integrates hardware development, focusing on a sensor-equipped pen, with software innovations to optimize trajectory reconstruction and processing in real time using an embedded AI. This work aims to advance the state-of-the-art in automated trace reconstruction of handwriting, enabling a seamless connection between traditional handwriting on paper and capturing the trace digitally.

Reproducibility is essential to scientific progress, yet the growing volume and complexity of scientific publications make exhaustive manual verification increasingly impractical. Although recent advances in large language model (LLM) agents enable automated experiment reproduction, existing evaluations largely focus on final repositories and are typically limited to machine learning (ML). We introduce AgentActionBench, a process-oriented benchmark for evaluating agent-based experiment reproduction across ML and AI4Science domains. Our framework uses an MCP-based Action Recorder to capture agents' behaviour throughout the reproduction process and evaluates the resulting traces with paper-specific rubrics. AgentActionBench contains 150 papers, including 120 ML papers and 30 AI4Science papers. A human-annotated subset covering 10% of the benchmark provides validation data, while model-assisted augmentation expands the full benchmark to more than 10,000 rubric items. Experimental results show that current systems remain limited, with execution as the primary bottleneck. Meanwhile, the strong Pearson and Spearman correlations between model-generated and human-annotated rubrics validate the reliability of our scalable rubric-generation approach.

Language models leave a distinctive vocabulary in the prose they help write, and we measure how much of the astronomy literature now carries it. From the full text of 207,111 astro-ph papers spanning 2015 to mid-2026, we count those words in each paper and model the counts, in proportion to paper length, as a mixture of assisted and unassisted writing in a hierarchical Bayesian model. Papers from before 2020 calibrate the unassisted rate, and the 392 papers that disclose model use calibrate the assisted one. Our answer depends on how often these words would appear today if nobody used a model, a rate that must be modeled rather than observed, so we extend it past 2020 under three assumptions and report all three. For 2025 that gives $54^{+8}_{-8}\,(\mathrm{stat},\,95\%)\,^{+26}_{-0}\,(\mathrm{sys,\ background})$% of papers, the second error being the spread across the three. The estimate stays at or above 36% when we vary that choice, the calibration, and the requirement that adoption only rises. A word list built from the astro-ph corpus, keeping only words that rose across every subfield, leaves 2025 in the same range. Assisted writing is also getting harder to see, since authors adapt to the words that reveal it and the marker excess more than halves between 2023 and 2026. Our model allows for that fading, so it can separate a fainter trace from reduced use. More than half of recent astro-ph papers therefore carry a language-model trace, while only 0.81% of 2025 papers disclose it, one declaration for every $\sim$66 papers with a trace.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as research agents, yet their ability to track shifts in research attention is difficult to evaluate because reviews and research ideas lack uniquely verifiable outcomes. We introduce Research Attention Prediction (RAP), a rolling benchmark covering 278 AI/ML fields and 1,390 episodes. At each cut-off, an LLM agent searches a temporally restricted arXiv corpus and predicts the next six months' paper shares across eight frozen research directions. Search generally helps, but all four diagnostic models perform worse than an exact-count exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) baseline in compositional accuracy. We identify two linked bottlenecks. Under cumulative-history access, State carry-forward outperforms direct Forecast for all four diagnostic models; frozen-evidence replay links a shared component of this reversal to Forecast-oriented policies retrieving a smaller share of recent evidence. Even with exact historical activity, future-specific updating remains limited, with only GPT-5.5 plus reopened Search slightly surpassing EWMA. Fine-tuning on realised outcomes improves Qwen3-4B's forecast Spearman correlation by 0.105 on held-out fields at later origins, with gains also on change-rich episodes.

Scientific figures are the interface through which research claims are inspected and reused, but final published panels rarely expose the data or plotting code that produced them. Recovering this hidden provenance from pixels is therefore underdetermined. We introduce SciFigure2Code, an AI-reconstructed benchmark that instead evaluates presentation recovery: generating editable Python programs that preserve how a scientific panel is arranged and read. Role-specialized Codex agents generate, execute, visually refine, and audit silver-standard presentation programs that capture geometry, visual hierarchy, encodings, annotations, and typography without claiming to recover original measurements or author source code. This reconstruction-and-audit protocol turns final published panels into auditable reference packages; the resulting resource contains 6,740 reviewed panels and SciFigureBench, a balanced 337-panel test set across 31 chart subtypes, five domains, and three complexity levels. Across 14 zero-shot models in image-only and caption-assisted settings, execution, multi-component layouts, axes, legends, and scientific labels remain weak. Claude Opus 4.7 achieves the highest image-only Overall score, Claude Opus 4.6 leads caption-assisted reconstruction, and two-stage plan-then-code prompting improves Overall for all four tested models. SciFigure2Code provides an auditable testbed for agents that construct editable, visually faithful scientific figure presentations.

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.

The decipherment of historical encrypted manuscripts poses a fundamental challenge in Digital Humanities: before any transcription can begin, the symbol inventory of the underlying cipher alphabet must first be identified and characterized. We address this challenge through symbol spotting: given a candidate alphabet specified as a set of rendered font glyphs, the task is to determine whether and where its characters appear in an unseen handwritten document, without any labeled examples from the target script. The main difficulty lies in the domain gap between clean, digitally rendered font queries and degraded handwritten manuscript symbols. We propose a three-stage pipeline that bridges this gap without manual annotation, combining a joint SimCLR+DANN encoder for domain-invariant glyph representations with an embedding-space style-adaptation mechanism applied at retrieval time, requiring no re-training. Experiments on fourteen pages from seven encrypted manuscript collections show that our method outperforms zero-shot foundation models, including CLIP and DINOv2, by a large margin ($+0.194$ P@1 over CLIP ViT-L/14), and surpasses task-specific trained baselines by $+0.138$ P@1. We further demonstrate that the Raw-Cover metric, computed in a fully unsupervised setting, provides a meaningful script-family fingerprint that identifies the underlying alphabet of an unknown document. This capability is of direct practical relevance to palaeographers, historians, and other researchers working with undeciphered manuscripts.

Scientific methodology figures are essential for communicating complex methods clearly, yet creating them remains labor-intensive and typically requires multiple rounds of refinement. Recent image-generation models can synthesize visually appealing raster figures, but producing a human-satisfactory result in a single generation step remains difficult. Moreover, precise edits to raster figures are challenging for both humans and models. We formulate scientific figure generation as recursive SVG program construction and propose \textsc{FigTree}, a \textit{multi-agent} system that automatically transforms a scientific paper into a structured vector figure. \textsc{FigTree} grounds figure content in the source paper, decomposes a figure into a hierarchy of local regions, generates each region as a short SVG program, and assembles the resulting fragments. A render-critic refinement loop jointly inspects the rendered figure and its underlying program, enabling visual defects to be traced to specific statements and accurately repaired. We conduct extensive evaluations of \textsc{FigTree} on figure quality and editability, showing that \textsc{FigTree} produces high-quality figures, while also enabling more effective editing than existing raster-based methods.

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.

We seek to understand the effect of adding disruptive highly-capable new technologies to competitions by assessing the addition of Dynamite to Rock-Paper-Scissors. We find that providing a versatile Dynamite move to only one player provides limited value (win probability increases from 50% to 55.5%) and is played rarely. That value decreases further if the game is expanded beyond just the original three moves. We also observe several mechanisms by which prior moves can become strategically unplayable, or obsolete. We hope that this model illustrates some non-intuitive aspects of developing new versatile technologies. We also hope that it illustrates some pitfalls for developers and integrators to avoid in order to create value rather than merely capability.

Recent efforts have aimed to automate scientific diagram generation from paper content (Lin et al., 2026; Zhu et al., 2026a). However, fully satisfying an author's visual and communicative preferences in a single turn is challenging: in our formative user study (N = 14), all participants requested further revisions after viewing an initial draft, and 86% of them rated the refined diagrams as more satisfactory. Despite the clear demand, the multi-turn workflow remains largely underexplored. To bridge this gap, we present MTPaperBananaBench, a benchmark for multi-turn diagram generation containing 292 images annotated with 3,518 user requirements. To reduce expensive human studies and enable scalable benchmarking, we construct a user simulator that, at each turn, identifies unsatisfied requirements and converts k of them into natural language feedback. Evaluating both requirement satisfaction and overall diagram quality reveals two key failure modes shared across baseline multiturn systems: (1) quality drift, where diagram quality progressively declines over turns, and (2) forgetting, where previously implemented features are lost in subsequent turns. To address these issues, we introduce PaperBanana-Interact, a multi-agent system that refines diagrams via an internal critique-and-refine loop. PaperBanana-Interact consistently improves rather than degrades diagram quality across turns, outperforming baselines by 11.9-18.6 points in quality score and reducing forgetting by 3.7-6.2 points.

A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leaves the structure of whole documents untouched. Scientific papers are written to a clear and largely uniform structure and make a natural substrate for lifting this paradigm to the document level. We present a pipeline that unfolds each paper into a multi-turn generation trajectory in which a teacher model reconstructs the writing process of the whole paper: a writing request, a global plan, and pre-writing deliberation for each section. All section texts and the abstract are kept verbatim from the source paper. We apply the pipeline to 1.8M quality-filtered arXiv papers and obtain a 60B-token corpus for continued pre-training (CPT) that is roughly twice the source text. The same reverse construction extends to instruction data and evaluation. We build an SFT dataset of 200K samples using answers derived from paper text. We also use held-out papers to construct PAW-Bench, a benchmark of 2,940 academic writing tasks with per-task rubrics and checklists. In controlled experiments, CPT on our corpus followed by SFT on public datasets improves writing performance while preserving general reasoning and improving long document reading. Replacing part of the writing SFT data with our synthetic instruction data further improves performance on PAW-Bench.

Anti-amyloid therapies and blood-based biomarkers are changing Alzheimer disease workups into a two-stage measurement workflow: screen broadly with cheaper information, then spend scarce confirmatory amyloid measurements where they support the decision that will be reported. Amyloid positron-emission tomography (PET) remains one such protocol measurement for amyloid burden, but PET slots, trial budgets, and payer-facing evidence packages are finite. This paper asks a deliberately operational question: when is simple transparent PET validation enough, and when is a fitted residual-uncertainty score worth the added complexity? For a weighted protocol target, the first-order value of validating subject i is the product of target influence and residual protocol uncertainty. Generic uncertainty sampling uses only the second factor and can spend PET measurements on subjects that are hard to predict but weak for the scientific, clinical, or commercial claim. We apply this rule to the A4/LEARN PET archive, treating observed PET as a design laboratory for scarce-confirmation studies. For the primary APOE4 carrier versus non-carrier contrast in Centiloid 24-or-higher PET positivity, simple APOE4-balanced validation recovers nearly all of the target-specific gain: at PET budget 200, the confidence-interval width ratio relative to random validation is 0.923 for APOE4 balancing and 0.914 for target-specific scoring, while generic uncertainty sampling is 0.980. Other targets behave differently: target-specific scoring gives larger gains for an age-slope analysis and for cutoff-indexed PET positivity. The practical message is simple: spend scarce protocol measurements according to the claim being validated, not only according to prediction uncertainty.

A small number of firms based in two states produce the most capable frontier AI models. The governments of those states have shown both the legal power and the political will to decide which other countries may use these systems. In June 2026 the United States required a leading developer to obtain licences before releasing its most advanced models to any foreign person, including foreign nationals resident in the United States. The affected models were withdrawn worldwide at short notice, partly because the restriction proved impractical to administer. This followed within months of the first documented case of a largely autonomous, AI-run cyber espionage campaign, and coincided with mounting evidence that frontier models alter the economics of both cyber attack and cyber defence. This article examines how these two developments interact, and situates them within the unusual market dynamics now driving large-scale AI development. It argues that access to frontier AI is becoming part of national cyber defence, that such access can be revoked, and that the obvious remedy of sovereign capability remains only partly feasible for all but a handful of states. Drawing on evidence about training costs, the concentration of computing power and the support offered by national AI programmes, it asks what sovereignty can realistically mean for small and middle powers, and for large powers as well. The article proposes a layered strategy: negotiated access guarantees, sovereignty at the level of inference, hedging with open-weight models, pooled regional capability, sustained talent development and continued investment in basic cyber resilience. The open-weight hedge proves at once more capable and more politically exposed than is commonly assumed. Much of the near-term risk lies in how capable models are deployed and contained rather than in their apparent performance.

As AI systems proliferate in consumer facing applications, questions about liability for AI related harms remain unresolved. This working paper examines whether India's Consumer Protection Act, 2019, adequately addresses harm caused by defective AI products and services, and whether it proportionately allocates liability across the AI value chain. The Act's broad definitions of product liability, harm, and deficiency appear technology agnostic and potentially applicable to AI related incidents including personal injury, psychological harm, biased outputs, and loss of control. However, significant gaps remain. Proving causation between AI defects and consumer harm presents a technical challenge, as AI failures often stem from design choices rather than discrete defects. Additionally, the Act's framework assumes distinct roles for manufacturers, sellers, and service providers, yet the AI value chain involves overlapping responsibilities among data providers, model developers, deployers, and users that do not neatly map to these categories. Current liability frameworks lack proportionate mechanisms to effectively address complex, multistakeholder AI harms. While the Act may cover AI entities, enforcement requires clarification on sector specific overlaps.

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.

Turning a research idea into a complete paper requires more than text generation: the system must retrieve literature, design and execute experiments, revise claims according to evidence, produce publication-ready figures, and maintain consistency across a long generation process. We present Spark-to-Paper, an end-to-end research paper generation system implemented as thirteen composable skills inside an existing coding assistant, without requiring a separate agent platform or orchestration service. Spark-to-Paper separates model-based judgment from deterministic operations that can be directly executed and checked. It further separates experiment planning from reporting, so that required evidence is specified before results are observed and manuscript claims are revised according to measured outcomes. To improve reliability over long research trajectories, the system combines deterministic integrity checks with self-critique and bounds a failure mode we call the Self-Refutation Loop, in which repeated experiments continue to reject the original research objective. Spark-to-Paper also produces editable vector figures through programmatic plotting for experimental results and code-based reconstruction for generated method diagrams. Across eight controlled research topics, Spark-to-Paper achieves 99.5% citation validity and 96.4% figure editability. A controlled ablation increases fabrication detection from 14% for a single-pass draft to 92% with the full integrity and review stack, while adversarial review achieves 74% precision. The full system uses 11.9M tokens, costs $8.1 per manuscript, and requires 3.2 hours on average. These results show that end-to-end research paper generation can be implemented as a lightweight, composable workflow inside existing coding assistants while keeping experimental evidence central to how claims are accepted, revised, or abandoned.

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.

Frontier language models solve reasoning problems in a single forward pass that would have been research contributions years ago, yet fail at multi-hour tasks: losing track of earlier decisions, declaring half-finished work done, or drifting from goals. We call this the horizon gap and survey 1,547 arXiv papers (2024-2026) collected via systematic seed harvest with a disclosed 26.8% bleed filter, extended by targeted supplementation. We disambiguate three routinely conflated properties: long-horizon (task property: required steps), long-context (model property: token capacity), and long-term memory (system property: persistence across steps/sessions). We organize the corpus into six categories tracking a long-horizon task's lifecycle -- planning, memory, execution, training, evaluation, and foundations/safety -- crossed with an axis capturing where horizons are carried (within-context, within-task-beyond-context, or cross-task-persistent). Across all categories, we find the same pattern: outcome-only signals grow uninformative as horizons lengthen, and the field's response -- whether process reward models, credit assignment, or trajectory-level diagnostics -- manufactures denser step-level signals. We treat critical and diagnostic literature as first-class threads throughout, arguing that segregating critique from method would routinely split single papers across chapters. We close by naming open measurement problems: decomposing model versus harness capability, managing correlated bias in process-level signals used for both training and evaluation, and whether long-horizon reliability admits general predictive theory.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly deployed as planners in robotic systems, where they translate natural-language commands into executable actions grounded in visual scene understanding. This tight coupling between perception and instruction-following introduces a new attack surface: adversarial text placed within the robot's visual field can act as an indirect prompt injection into the VLM's reasoning stack. We present a systematic study of physical prompt injection attacks against VLM-controlled sorting, introducing a four-category taxonomy, indirect signage, task redefinition, authority impersonation, and conflict injection, instantiated as a benchmark of 20 attack prompts evaluated across three physical scene layouts and three command formulations that vary in destination specificity and rule explicitness. Across 5,670 trials on three frontier VLMs (GPT-4o, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Qwen3-VL-32B), attacks succeed at 27.0%, 29.4%, and 5.0% respectively, with authority-impersonating and negation attacks transferring across all three models. Analysis of reasoning traces reveals that successful compromise is nearly always conscious (99.9% acknowledgment rate), and that models defend through structurally different mechanisms, explicit rejection for Gemini, perceptual inattention for GPT-4o. We evaluate three simple mitigations: prompt-based defense (75-100% effective, model-dependent), two-stage verification (85-100%), and pre-processing text masking (100%). Our findings show that VLM-controlled manipulation is meaningfully vulnerable to human-readable physical signage, and that simple defenses substantially reduce risk, though defense choice involves trade-offs. The defenses preserve general task capabilities in our benchmark, but they may impair tasks that require reading in-scene labels.

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.

Autonomous research agents can generate hypotheses, execute experiments, and draft manuscripts, yet their outputs often contain unsupported claims and inconsistencies between research questions, experiments, results, and conclusions. We argue that this problem is partly architectural: existing systems organize research as sequential pipelines but do not explicitly maintain or validate the evolving claim-evidence structure across stages. In this paper, we introduce EviGraph, an autonomous research framework that represents the research process as a typed evidence graph containing Problem, Gap, Hypothesis, Experiment, Finding, and Claim nodes. The graph serves as the operational state of the agent rather than a post-hoc record. EviGraph inspects evidence chains for missing dependencies, semantic misalignment, and result-claim inconsistencies, localizes the earliest weak node, and regenerates its affected downstream subgraph. Graph checkpointing prevents unsuccessful repairs from corrupting previously validated evidence. Manuscripts are generated only after every retained claim is grounded in a validated evidence chain. Experiments on ARC-Bench-ML and NanoResearch-20 show that EviGraph outperforms the compared end-to-end research-agent baselines in overall research performance, improves Claim Support Rate by 40.19% over the strongest baseline, and achieves 87.73% Experimental Data Consistency. These results demonstrate the value of explicit evidence-state maintenance for reliable autonomous research.

The personal archive of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (1857-1935) is held as fond 555 of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The archive scanned the fond and published the images, but with no queryable catalogue, no full-text search and no dataset: the holdings can only be browsed one page at a time. This paper describes a machine-readable catalogue of all 2,019 files and 51,008 scans, a dating for 1,969 files taken from the archive's own descriptions, a page-level classification of every scan into handwriting and typescript, and a growing corpus of machine transcriptions (currently 322 files, 5,454 scans). It also reports a way to measure handwritten-text-recognition accuracy in an archive with no ground truth. Archives of the typewriter era often preserve one text twice, as manuscript and as a typed copy; transcribing both and comparing isolates the reading error, since source and pipeline are identical and only page difficulty differs. Across 294 such pairs from 27 files, two readings of a handwritten page agree on a median 37% of words. On two files that also have a published edition the estimate can be checked against ground truth: it is unbiased to within a percentage point and ranks pages as the truth does (rank correlation 0.92 where the edition is a faithful witness). This bounds use: two variants of one work here share 19% of words, below the rate at which two readings of a single page agree, so the redactions cannot be collated word by word at this quality. That negative result is reported as such, and the constraint is built into the tool.

AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers' concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.

Scientific poster construction compresses a long multimodal paper into a readable, editable canvas. Existing systems hide request-level failures by scoring only completed outputs; direct image generation is not element-editable, while coding-agent workflows are costly. PosterMELD is a template-conditioned multi-agent pipeline: capacity-aware slots guide writing before rendering, and deterministic gates plus vision-language model (VLM) review route failures to bounded repair. Each accepted request exports editable PowerPoint (PPTX) and Portable Network Graphics (PNG) artifacts; explicit design controls yield same-paper variants. Across 621 papers, Print-Ready Rate (PRR) counts requests passing geometric, readability, asset-integrity, and obvious-factual-error checks, with native editability reported separately. A frozen VLM assigns conditional Craftsmanship-Harmony-Expressiveness (CHE) scores to print-ready outputs. PosterMELD attains 81.3% PRR, 3.4 times P2P's rate and 5.2 times PosterGen's, and the highest conditional CHE among generated methods with multiple print-ready outputs. Native editability and explicit design controls are retained at a mean cost of USD 0.38 per request, 3.5% of Codex+Skill's. Code and resources are available at https://github.com/Shannon4Science/PosterMELD.

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.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled AI systems to assist scientific research and peer review. However, an essential capability for reliable AI-assisted scientific workflows remains underexplored: verifying whether reviewer feedback leads to meaningful and evidence-supported manuscript improvements. We introduce AutoSupervision, which evaluates whether scientific manuscript revisions genuinely address reviewer concerns through grounded evidence. AutoSupervision leverages transparent peer-review records as a natural source of supervision, where reviewer comments specify scientific concerns, author responses describe claimed resolutions, and revised manuscripts provide evidence of changes. Given reviewer comments, author responses, and revised manuscripts, models must characterize reviewer concerns, determine whether concerns have been addressed, and identify supporting manuscript evidence. We construct AutoSupervision from 56,000 Nature Communications articles and corresponding review records. Then we conducted experiments on LLMs, the ablation study, and the case study. Our results show that while LLMs perform well in characterizing reviewer concerns, with GPT-5.5 achieving a score of 0.754, evidence-based verification remains the primary bottleneck, with the best-performing model reaching only 0.501.

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.

Quality control in printing, particularly in rotogravure printing, still depends on slow, costly, and subjective manual inspection. Automated surface defect detection is critical for maintaining high-quality standards in rotogravure printing. Deep learning models give prospects for automation. However, training robust deep learning models, such as YOLO or Vision Transformers, is heavily hindered by the extreme scarcity of real-world industrial defects images. To overcome this limitation, this paper introduces a novel synthetic data generation framework tailored for rotogravure printing quality control. The proposed pipeline automatically generates high-fidelity images of specific printing defects (creases, streaks, misregistration, etc.) and outputs corresponding bounding boxes and annotations. To validate the framework, a synthetic dataset of 7533 images was generated and used to train the state-of-the-art object-detection model RFDETR. Experimental results demonstrate that the model trained on our synthetic data achieves a Mean Average Precision (mAP) of 80.9% on real industrial testing samples. This framework provides a zero-cost, rapid-deployment solution for automating defect inspection in printing lines without requiring massive manual data collection.

Bibliometric indicators - citation counts, h-indexes, co-authorship networks - have long anchored science, technology, and innovation (STI) analytics, yet suffer from temporal lag, semantic shallowness, and an inability to capture the non-linear dynamics of contemporary knowledge ecosystems. Dynamic knowledge graphs and large language models (LLMs) have each been proposed as remedies, but neither is sufficient alone: existing scholarly knowledge graphs remain largely static, while LLM-driven pipelines are prone to hallucination, opacity, and corpus bias without structured grounding. This paper proposes a hybrid, symbolic-first framework integrating all three traditions under explicit methodological constraint. Organized across five layers - an open scholarly data backbone, a dynamic versioned knowledge graph, a constrained LLM-assisted semantic augmentation layer, a multi-layer validation pipeline, and an analytics layer - the framework positions LLMs strictly as generators of provisional candidate enrichments. Candidates become analytically admissible only after passing structural, evidentiary, comparative, and selective expert validation, with full provenance recorded at every stage. The analytics layer supports both established bibliometric indicators and extended graph-based analyses, including trend emergence detection, science-to-technology pathway mapping, and policy-oriented gap analysis. The framework's central theoretical contribution is treating validation as the mediating principle between semantic flexibility and epistemic discipline, enabling STI analytics that is semantically richer and temporally more responsive than static bibliometrics while remaining aligned with the evidentiary standards of science-of-science research. Governance considerations addressing reproducibility, bias, and auditability are also discussed.

This study empirically analyzed generative AI as an emerging discovery pathway to academic library resources. Utilizing web analytics from August 2023 to October 2025, the research identifies a significant increase in AI-mediated traffic, particularly following the integration of linked citation features. Referral analysis identified ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini as the primary platforms driving this traffic. A substantial portion of users reached the institutional repository, primarily accessing electronic theses and dissertations. This pattern suggests that AI retrieval mechanisms effectively surface resources with structured metadata and stable permalinks that are Open Access and freely available. The results illustrate how AI ecosystems currently expose library resources and underscore the need for continued analysis and a strategic response to the evolving AI landscape.

Visual diagrams, figures, and tables are central to scientific papers, and convey information beyond what is captured in text. While blind or low-vision (BLV) scientists have traditionally relied on static alternative text to access figures in papers, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has made interactive question-answering (QA) a feasible paradigm for visual exploration; yet little is known about how scientists use visual QA in practice or how to improve its accessibility. In this work, we interview five BLV and five sighted scientists across different STEM fields to understand how they use two AI tools, ChatGPT and Gemini, to query multimodal scientific documents. Our findings characterize how scientists review multimodal content, including existing practices (along with accessibility workarounds) for engaging with visuals, and feedback on the suitability of AI-generated responses to multimodal queries. We further find that vague or incomplete image descriptions, as well as incorrect AI outputs more broadly, can cause both BLV and sighted scientists to abandon AI workflows. To support future research, we additionally contribute a dataset of 115 queries and responses from our participants' interactions with the AI tools for papers in their field. We close by discussing implications for AI-powered scientific QA systems, emphasizing considerations for access across abilities and domains.

Understanding newspaper images remains a challenging task due to their complex, nested hierarchical structures and dense, heterogeneous layouts. In this paper, we explore two complementary approaches for newspaper structure understanding. First, we present a modular bottom-up pipeline that combines state-of-the-art open-source models: YOLO for layout detection, LayoutReader for reading order prediction, and a custom algorithm for article segmentation. This approach leverages existing robust components while maintaining flexibility and interpretability. Second, we introduce Tiramisu (Tiered Transformers for Hierarchical Structure Understanding), a novel end-to-end transformer-based architecture that explicitly models document hierarchy through an iterative tiered process. Tiramisu performs section and article separation, block localization, semantic categorization, and reading order prediction using highly parallelized attention mechanisms. Finally, we release Finlam La Liberté, a new dataset designed specifically for evaluating hierarchical information retrieval in historical newspapers. Experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of both approaches in reconstructing complex newspaper hierarchies, with comparative analysis highlighting their respective strengths for scalable document digitization. The Tiramisu training code, including the synthetic newspaper generator, is available at https://git.litislab.fr/tiramisu/tiramisu-newspaper-articles-extractor.

With a large controlled vocabulary as the label set, the task of automated subject indexing in a library can be understood as a multi-label classification task. If the set of subject terms is large, the problem fits the Extreme Multi-Label Classification (XMLC) objective. In this study, we apply a selection of specialised supervised XMLC methods to the test case of subject indexing contemporary German scientific literature, collected at the German National Library (DNB). We contrast these results by including a classical lexical matching baseline and three of our own recently developed LLM-based methods into the benchmark. Algorithms are evaluated and compared in several metrics. This includes binary relevance comparisons with previously indexed material, as well as graded relevance ratings by professional subject librarians. A challenge for all methods is to reliably make suggestions from the long tail of the subject vocabulary. We find that supervised XMLC algorithms relying on transformer-based dense features give best results in terms of overall binary relevance metrics. However, focusing on graded relevance and performance in the long tail of our subject vocabulary, the LLM-based generative methods give better results, making them a promising alternative for future productive use.

We report on CoreForge, an experience in using large language models (LLMs) to build an unweighted MaxSAT solver from research papers rather than from an existing solver codebase. The project focuses on unsatisfiability-based MaxSAT algorithms and follows an iterative workflow that combines paper discussions with ChatGPT, implementation through Codex prompts, and repeated LLM-assisted code audits and revisions. Although the codebase implements several algorithms and solver components, our evaluation focuses on configurations that combine core-guided optimization, lightweight preprocessing, core minimization, integration with integer linear optimization backends, and a new core-sequence lookahead approach. Our experience suggests that LLMs can support solver implementation from papers, while requiring external validation, benchmarking, and human guidance. In our experiments, fuzzing and MaxSAT Evaluation instances did not reveal wrong answers in the tested configurations, although performance remains below the best hand-engineered MaxSAT solvers. We summarize what worked, what remained difficult, and the lessons for future LLM-assisted solver development.

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.

Can large language models perform technical comprehension of computer architecture papers--not summarization, but structured critique that names the core mechanism, surfaces buried assumptions, and connects a contribution beyond its own scope? We study Gauntlet, an open-source pipeline that analyzes a paper through five independent expert-persona reviewers and an adversarial synthesis stage. On 20 ISCA 2025 and HPCA 2026 papers, 10 researchers each wrote their own analyses and then judged, for papers other than their own, the human analysis against Gauntlet's. Across the 20 comparisons evaluators preferred Gauntlet in 15 (human in 4, one tie); its advantage is significant on per-analyst totals (two-sided Wilcoxon, p < 0.001) and largest on Critical Rigor. Where humans win, it is on trust and usefulness rather than depth: a confident wrong claim, a mechanism described but not taught, or unprioritized breadth. A 98-paper automated ablation shows the gain comes from the multi-agent structure: the pipeline beats the same model run as a single rich-persona agent on 96% of papers. We release all analyses, scores, and the rubric as a community resource.

Researchers organize the papers they collect into personal folder hierarchies in reference managers, and route each new paper into the folder where it belongs. This task differs from standard hierarchical text classification. A user's folder hierarchy is not a fixed, shared taxonomy but a private and evolving folksonomy whose folder meanings may be topical, shorthand, venue-based, or process-oriented, and are often defined by the papers already stored inside them. We formalize this setting as personalized hierarchical paper routing (PHPR): assigning an incoming paper to folders in a user-specific hierarchy without per-user training. We propose PaperRouter-Agent, a training-free LLM agent that grounds routing decisions in folder members rather than folder names alone. The agent first narrows the candidate hierarchy, retrieves folder-specific evidence, verifies fit by inspecting member papers, and incorporates similarity-gated feedback from past user rejections. A formative study on real personal libraries shows that PaperRouter-Agent raises overall Recall@1 from 0.39 to 0.61 and Recall@3 from 0.57 to 0.83, with the largest gains on organizational folders defined by metadata such as venue or year, where single-shot methods collapses (Recall@1 0.09 to 0.50). On the public LaMP-2 benchmark, the same approach improves accuracy from 44.5% to 51.5% (+9.0 macro-F1) over a single-shot baseline, while remaining low-cost for practical use.

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.

Automatic writer identification systems have progressed remarkably in recent years, yet their deployment in archival paleography remains limited by the scarcity of labeled training data, open scribe sets, and degraded image quality. We present TextileNet, a fully convolutional multi-task network trained exclusively on synthetic data to produce dense pixel-level texture embeddings, which we transfer zeroshot to historical manuscript analysis. As an original contribution to evaluation methodology, we designed a paleographic visual quiz of 80 pair and triplet questions and administered it to a range from lay participants to senior paleographers under strict anonymity, establishing to our knowledge for the first time a human baseline for script-style discrimination on late medieval text. We employ TextileNet embeddings to perform zero-shot retrieval on sub-word granularity for hand and gender identification. Our experimental results help in building the credibility of TextileNet in the paleographic domain, but more than that demonstrate in experimental terms that the question of gender in handwriting needs to be treated with caution.

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.

Autonomous-research agents have demonstrated end-to-end LLM automation in machine-learning sandboxes where execution provides calibration. Frontier physical science differs categorically: physical reasoning underlies every methodology choice, toolchains are often underdocumented, and calibration must come from external literature anchors - which unscaffolded agents cite but do not confront, hallucinating plausible, unverifiable results from internal priors. We present a pipeline that runs end-to-end from a corpus of 11,083 recent condensed-matter physics arXiv papers to a publication-grade manuscript with three substantive physics findings (here on altermagnetic piezomagnetism): the agent autonomously conceives a research direction by mapping the corpus, calibrates methodology by reproducing published references, conducts novel first-principles computations, and writes the manuscript - grounded in literature throughout, across 47 fresh-context sessions in six phases sharing only on-disk state, with 2,162 literature-consultation events. Fault tolerance emerges from redundancy: fresh-context isolation, distributed grounding, and adversarial review catch what any single session misses; pre- and post-pilot stages are fully autonomous, and pilot requires bounded human intervention only at reproduction failures - operational knowledge curation, not scientific direction. Two paired failure modes - a pre-architecture baseline and a no-pilot ablation - isolate structurally enforced numerical confrontation at calibration checkpoints as the operative grounding mechanism. The primitives, characterized failure modes, and quantified intervention pattern lay a foundation for autonomous research in high-stakes scientific domains beyond computational physics.

Scientific machine learning papers typically make computational claims, e.g., that the relative mean square error is less than 5% or that the 95% predictive credible interval covers the test data. A coding agent can be prompted to replicate those claims from paper materials alone, but the prompt does not by itself reliably preserve progress or check whether generated evidence supports the paper's claims. We introduce Paper-replication, a workflow that makes each selected paper claim a target with recorded evidence, and implement it as a coding-agent skill. The workflow makes the agent record those targets, reconstruct the paper's method, run computational experiments, link generated outputs to provenance and comparisons with the paper's claims, record where matched evidence appears in the replication report, and pass validation checks before completion. We evaluate Paper-replication on twelve independent runs across four scientific machine learning papers. All twelve workspaces pass the completion gate, and all 158 recorded targets are matched with report coverage. Even in this completed workspace state, repeated runs differ in how papers are divided into targets, in numerical fidelity to the source papers, in elapsed replication time, in the number of intermediate executions replaced before final evidence is accepted, and in the rules used to accept evidence. Paper-replication makes completion depend on workspace evidence and validation checks rather than on the agent's final message.