Papers

In this paper, we describe NAVER LABS Europe's submission to the instruction-following speech processing short track at IWSLT 2026. We participate again in the constrained setting, developing systems capable of jointly performing ASR, ST, and SQA from English speech into Chinese, Italian, and German. Building on our previous submission, ranked first in last year's short track, we update our multi-stage training pipeline by replacing the speech projector with SpeechMapper, a method for learning a speech-to-LLM embedding projector using only ASR data. In addition, we introduce a synthetic SQA dataset, fakACL, composed of artificially generated scientific presentations. This dataset is built by prompting the LLM backbone, segmenting the generated talks, and synthesizing speech with SeamlessM4T-large-v2. The combination of an improved speech projection mechanism and domain-specific synthetic data allows our model to outperform last year's best short-track system, while being considerably more compact and relying on a weaker LLM backbone. This year's results place our system tied for first place in the overall short track ranking.

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

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

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

Scientific literature search often requires more than retrieving papers from a single query: users' intents are underspecified, preference-dependent, and evolve through interaction. Existing search agents typically rely on fixed pipelines or implicit language-only reasoning, making their search strategies difficult to control, inspect, and refine. We introduce PaperPilot, a multi-turn literature search agent that frames scientific search as workflow induction. Given an anchor paper and a user query, PaperPilot constructs an executable DAG of paper-search operators, including keyword search, citation expansion, filtering, scoring, reranking, and evidence extraction. User feedback is then used to refine both the query and the workflow itself. We train PaperPilot with supervised workflow imitation and preference optimization over controlled workflow corruptions. Experiments show that PaperPilot-9B improves over the base Qwen3.5-9B toolset agent under multi-turn interaction, increasing Hit@5 from 58.0 to 77.0, MRR from 47.5 to 59.4, and nDCG@10 from 26.8 to 32.5, while reducing workflow execution errors from 9.5% to 0%. These results show that explicit, editable search workflows provide an effective and controllable interface for aligning literature search agents with complex scientific intent.

In this article, we present dynamic modeling, gait synthesis, and feedback control design for a modular novel subsurface robot, designed for human-free subsurface exploration and excavation. The subsurface propagator design is based on two major aspects: 1) anchor and propel movement like an earthworm and 2) excavation similar to tunnel boring machines. This design is decoupled into five separate modules: one drill head to excavate and create cavity for propagation, two modules to anchor the robot, and two modules to enable propagation of the body. In order to design a controller for each of the modules, dynamic models using the Euler-Lagrange framework are developed. These mathematical models are used as a baseline to design controlled decoupled operation of the different joint movements. The operation of robotic assembly is constructed via a centralized state machine for gait synthesis with integration of the designed feedback controller. The controllers are tested on the real robot geometry to aid sim-to-real integration: A physics-based Unity simulation using a CAD model of the robot and integration of the trained controller via ROS verifies the performance of the robot. The experimental results demonstrate that the proposed design, controllers and the gait synthesis strategy together are capable of anchoring the robot in place and creating an total advancement of 30,mm into the soil after completing 3 gait cycles.

The present study analyzed over 26,000 research articles published between 1991 and 2021 in twenty-one major LIS (Library and Information Science) journals, using the machine learning (ML) approach to categorize the research methods used by LIS scholars. The findings of this study are significant. Firstly, there has been a shift in the research strategy from conceptual research (e.g., "Theoretical approach") to empirical research (e.g., "Interview") in LIS investigations over the past 31 years. Secondly, the research topics explored by LIS scholars during this period have moved from system-centered issues (e.g., "Information retrieval/models and algorithms") to user-centered topics (e.g., "Information services "). Thirdly, the study revealed dynamic and revealing relationships between the 18 research topics identified in the study and the 16 research methods commonly adopted in the LIS field. These dynamic relationships can be visualized by year and longitudinally via an interactive map created in this study.

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

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

This paper presents preliminary findings from a UKRI-funded Metascience project comparing three LLM-based approaches, GPT-4o, Mistral, and a bespoke algorithm, DSIT-Taxonomies, for extracting and classifying research entities from funding proposals. Our project "Tracking Stars and Unicorns" aims to identify early signals of emerging research areas to inform public investment. Our methodology employed a three-stage pipeline, leveraging Mistral for primary entity extraction and mapping against the OpenAlex Topics taxonomy. We evaluated our approach across 42 proposals' abstracts from different areas and observed that Mistral and GPT-4o produce comparable, high-quality entity sets with significant semantic overlap, outperforming the fragmented DSIT-Taxonomies approach. Crucially, the Mistral-based approach achieved superior topic classification accuracy (90.5%) compared to the full DSIT-Taxonomies pipeline (71.4%). We conclude that Mistral offers a high-performance, operationally efficient, and secure solution for large-scale analysis of sensitive grant data.

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

Automatically generated videos from scientific papers are increasingly used for education and research dissemination. However, existing evaluation metrics mainly measure visual quality or whether key points from the paper appear in the video without assessing whether the video actually helps viewers understand the ideas. We introduce EffectivePresentationScorer, a framework for evaluating the instructional quality of scientific presentation videos. It checks whether a video explains the main ideas clearly, introduces needed background concepts, and connects technical details to the main contribution of the paper. When we apply EffectivePresentationScorer to the existing paper-to-video generation systems, we find that generated videos mention the correct topics and follow the structure of the paper but fail to explain prerequisite concepts or clarify why the method works. These failures are often ignored by existing video evaluation metrics, which focus on content presence rather than explanatory quality.

Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving. However, this rapid acceleration is creating a systemic challenge: traditional human peer review cannot scale to match the influx of AI-assisted science. Ultimately, to resolve this tension, we must also deploy AI to accelerate the verification and review process itself. To frame the discussion around this transition, we propose a taxonomy consisting of four progressive levels of AI-human collaboration in scientific evaluation, and discuss various trade-offs involved with each. As a step toward this future, we introduce the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), an agentic AI framework built for deep scientific review and verification. PAT ingests full scientific manuscripts and produces a comprehensive evaluation, checking theoretical results, validating experiments, suggesting improvements, and identifying potential flaws. By utilizing inference scaling techniques, PAT is able to identify deeper issues than a single model call alone, achieving a 34% improvement over zero-shot recall on mathematical errors in the SPOT benchmark. Pilot deployments of PAT as a pre-submission tool for authors at two major Computer Science conferences -- STOC and ICML -- demonstrate its ability to identify critical errors and suggest substantive improvements to research papers. By catching errors early, PAT eases the cognitive burden placed on referees, while preserving their control over the outcomes of the review process.

Existing texture datasets for tactile sensing primarily consist of sensor readings from a specific sensor interacting with available surfaces/objects rather than describing the textures themselves, limiting fair comparison between tactile sensors and hindering reproducible research. In this work, we introduce a 3D-printable dataset of mathematically defined textures designed to be fabricated reliably across different printers and filament types. The dataset consists of six parametrically generated surface patterns derived from combinations of sine-wave and Fourier-based functions, giving controlled variation in spatial frequency, amplitude, and directional structure. We evaluate the reproducibility of these textures across three popular 3D printers and multiple filament types by measuring variance in images captured using an optical TacTip sensor under controlled contact conditions. Our results show that print quality, particularly peak sharpness and stringing, affects tactile variance, with higher-end printers producing significantly more consistent signatures. Classification experiments using neural networks and PCA-based models further demonstrate that high-quality prints support strong within-printer generalisation, while cross-printer generalisation remains challenging due to geometric inconsistencies. This work establishes the first openly available, physically reproducible 3D-printed texture benchmark, providing a foundation for fair comparison of tactile sensors.

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

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

Over a series of seven papers, Andreas & Günther have introduced seven definitions of actual causation and have classified them as belonging to three different, competing, types of accounts: factual difference-making, counterfactual difference-making, and regularity-based. I show that their most recent - factual difference-making - definition instantiates all three types, thereby proving that these are distinctions without a difference. I further compare their novel account to the other six accounts on several crucial examples, revealing that this undermines all seven of their accounts.

We introduce NatureBench, a cross-discipline benchmark of 90 tasks distilled from peer-reviewed Nature-family publications, designed to evaluate whether AI coding agents can move beyond reproduction toward discovery on real scientific problems. NatureBench is built on NatureGym, an automated pipeline that constructs a standardized, per-task containerized environment from a source paper, addressing the environment-fragmentation problem that has limited the credibility of prior agent-on-research benchmarks. Evaluating ten frontier agent configurations under a strict web-search-disabled protocol, we find that the strongest model surpasses SOTA on only 17.8% of tasks under the g>0.1 criterion. Analysis of method pathways reveals that agents succeed primarily through methodological translation, converting scientific tasks into familiar supervised prediction problems, rather than through genuine scientific invention. Failures are dominated by wrong method choice and insufficient compute budget, not by task misunderstanding. We release the benchmark, the NatureGym pipeline, and a public leaderboard with maintainer-side reproduction. Code: https://github.com/FrontisAI/NatureBench

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

Hallucinations of ASR models - fluent transcriptions with no basis in audio - degrade system performance and pose risks in downstream applications. Robust detection of such errors remains a challenge. This paper studies Whisper large v3 hallucination detection on real-speech human-annotated data across three paradigms: text-based, LLM-based, and internal decoder state probing. Text classifiers utilizing metrics for text evaluation achieve high recall but degrade without reference transcripts. LLM-based detection improves precision with domain-specific prompt conditioning, yet remains less competitive than the lightweight text-based methods. Probing Whisper's decoder representations, without a ground-truth reference, yields the strongest performance, revealing that hallucination traits are encoded across intermediate decoding layers. A late-fusion meta-classifier combining text and internal-state outputs achieves the best overall detection performance.

Purpose: Peer review is essential to scientific publishing, but increasing submission volumes have placed growing pressure on reviewers and editors. This study examines the relationship between sentiment toward specific review aspects and peer review duration. It also investigates how this relationship varies across disciplines and review rounds, with the aim of supporting targeted manuscript revision and improving review efficiency. Design/methodology/approach: We adopt a two-stage approach. First, fine-grained aspects are extracted from peer review reports, and a sentiment classification model is used to determine the sentiment associated with each aspect. Second, correlations between aspect-level sentiment and peer review duration are analyzed. Sentiment scores are also calculated for different review rounds to determine whether these relationships change over successive rounds. Findings: Review sentiment has a weak but statistically significant negative correlation with peer review duration, indicating that more positive reviews tend to be associated with shorter review periods. Aspects concerning Evaluation and Results and Impact and Research Value show relatively stronger correlations with review duration. The relationships between aspect-level sentiment and review duration also differ significantly across review rounds. Originality/value: This study connects the textual content of peer review reports with the temporal characteristics of the review process. By identifying review aspects that are more closely associated with review duration, it provides evidence that may help authors prioritize revisions and assist reviewers and editors in improving review efficiency. The findings contribute to reducing the burden of peer review and accelerating scholarly communication and knowledge dissemination.

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

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) compression papers often evaluate a compressor on one to three readers and treat the compressed evidence layer as evaluation-neutral. We show this assumption is false: fixed compression can raise average accuracy while hiding reader upgrades and reversing model rankings. Across 20 readers and ten domain-method settings over four QA benchmarks and one summarization benchmark, compression gain decreases with reader baseline (nine of ten settings significant, p < 0.05). Generic summarization flips 31% of pairwise model rankings on LongMemEval-S, and a fixed HotpotQA compressor hides 80% of the raw upgrade from Qwen 7B to GPT-4.1-mini. Two opposing forces explain this paradox: compression rescues weak readers by removing noise they cannot filter, and harms strong readers by dropping details they would have used. The pattern appears across structured compilation, generic summarization, three trained compressor families, query-focused summarization, and an external audit of nine published compression papers. We release ragscale, a toolkit built on 177,000 row-level compression transitions, so any compression paper can audit reader scaling with three readers in one day.

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

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

Reproducing research results from papers and released code is central to scientific progress. Existing works have introduced benchmarks to evaluate whether LLM agents can assist with reproducibility, but they are difficult to scale due to their reliance on substantial manual effort for data curation and evaluation. We introduce ReproRepo, a scalable framework for reproducibility evaluation that leverages human-raised GitHub issues as naturally occurring supervision on realistic reproduction blockers. We instantiate ReproRepo on 1,149 recent machine learning papers from major conferences and evaluate four frontier model-agent configurations. Our results show that LLM agents, even without executing code, can identify many real-world reproducibility problems from paper-repository pairs: the best agent in our study, namely Codex with GPT-5.5, surfaces at least one semantically related human-reported blocker for $\sim$90% of papers in the study. Further analysis shows that agents are particularly effective for surfacing visible failures and identifying the right semantic region, but may still be insufficient in exact localization. ReproRepo can serve as a reusable, scalable framework for future evaluations of LLM agents on real-world reproducibility auditing. Our code is released at https://github.com/LithiumDA/ReproRepo.

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

Pre-submission hardening of human-authored LaTeX computer science papers differs from drafting assistance because it requires adversarial whole-paper review, explicit no-fix outcomes, and bounded artifact-safe revision. Existing writing assistants, critique generators, and judge-centered loops lack durable issue identity across rounds, deterministic routing from critique to adjudication, and manuscript control that can reject invalid concerns or defer author-dependent ones. We present PaperJury, a closed-loop review-verdict-revise-verify system built on a deterministic-versus-semantic split: deterministic orchestration manages decomposition, a frozen claim spine, a durable ledger, routing, stopping, and exact-once patch application, while semantic agents are limited to bounded review, judgment, and repair. PaperJury combines bounded holistic review, contestability-based routing, a due-process trial, and risk-proportional guard chains for anchor-bounded edits, yielding terminal outcomes of invalid-drop, valid-fixable, and author-required. In a two-arm expert-review evaluation on held-out Vision, natural language processing, and machine learning papers against four baselines, we assess issue quality, verdict and routing quality, edit safety, convergence behavior, and cost, supporting the thesis that load-bearing safety and completion logic should reside in deterministic orchestration rather than model discretion. PaperJury is available at https://github.com/u7079256/paperjury.

Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns. We validate AIPR, which reads a submitted manuscript and emits five 0-100 quality dimensions and a weighted overall score, against the public decision outcomes of a major machine learning venue. AIPR grades by prompting alone, with no fine-tuning on reviews or decisions. Across 300 ICLR submissions with public decision tiers and reviewer ratings, graded under a frozen pipeline with hypotheses pre-registered before any score met any outcome, the overall score separates rejected from accepted submissions (AUROC 0.82, 95% CI 0.78-0.87), rises monotonically across tiers, and tracks the mean reviewer rating. The signal is strongest where we claim it: the lowest-scoring fifth is rejected far above the base rate, with oral papers absent. The validity comes mostly from the model: a one-paragraph prompt on the same model discriminates almost as well as the full pipeline (the small gap favours the pipeline but does not meet the pre-declared criterion, p = 0.09). What the engineering adds is reliability and a grounded review: AIPR's score barely moves across repeated runs (0.7 vs. 2.8 points within-paper SD) where the bare prompt swings, and the same pass returns a rubric-structured, evidence-grounded review rather than a bare number, with the human keeping the decision.

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

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

STEM education faces challenges in personalization and interdisciplinary integration. AI technology has brought new possibilities, but the mechanisms by which AI reshapes the STEM education ecosystem require systematic investigation. This study employs bibliometric methods to analyze 242 publications from 2015-2025, constructing knowledge maps to reveal the evolutionary trajectory. The findings show that the field has transformed from intelligent tutoring systems to inquiry-based learning and computational thinking cultivation driven by LLMs. AI's key contribution lies in providing intelligent scaffolding that lowers the threshold for understanding knowledge. In this sense, AI is a core driving force promoting its shift from knowledge transmission to capability development.

Mathematical knowledge is split between bibliographic databases (e.g., MathSciNet, zbMATH Open) and formal proof libraries (e.g., Lean mathlib), preventing unified access between published results and their formalizations. We propose a relational bridge-database that aligns publication metadata with formal artifacts, providing an interoperability layer between mathematical literature and machine-verifiable proofs. We introduce a paper-level formalization score that measures how much of a publication is covered in formal systems. As a feasibility study, we show how such scores can be estimated via cross-document alignment between informal texts and Lean formalizations, enabling large-scale analysis of formalization coverage. This framework is a first step toward integrating bibliographic and formal mathematical ecosystems into scalable, machine-actionable knowledge graphs linking publications to formal proof objects.

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

Optical Music Recognition (OMR) has seen major progress in model design, with end-to-end methods now capable of recognising notation at all levels of complexity. However, the impact of this progress has been limited by the visual domains of available training datasets, which are largely born-digital. Existing large collections of sheet music in libraries and other heritage institutions contain predominantly manuscripts, whose visual domains are highly diverse and different, so existing OMR systems fail when applied in the real world. These institutions are often resource-constrained, so large in-domain datasets cannot be expected. We provide a first baseline on real-world manuscripts with complex piano notation in the resource-constrained scenario. Using fine-grained music notation graph (MuNG) annotations and the Smashcima synthesis tool, we then show that while some direct transcriptions of in-domain data remain essential, domain adaptation using synthetic musical manuscript images brings significant improvement. Furthermore, the symbols used do not need to be in-domain, so the expensive fine-grained annotation can be avoided. We thus bring OMR closer to one of its stated goals: preserving and promoting musical cultural heritage.

Cross-lingual voice cloning aims to generate speech in a target language while preserving speaker identity from a source-language reference. This task is central to speech translation and is the focus of the IWSLT 2026 Cross-Lingual Voice Cloning track. A key challenge is maintaining intelligibility and naturalness in the presence of accent variation and domain-specific vocabulary. We build on a multilingual text-to-speech model, FishAudio-S2-Pro, and introduce language tag prompting to improve language control and reduce accent leakage. We further apply reinforcement learning (RL) fine-tuning for task adaptation and observe improvements in intelligibility. Finally, we propose a reference-conditioned lexical matching method that improves pronunciation of domain-specific terms when lexical overlap is present. Results show that language prompting provides the largest gains, while lexical matching yields consistent improvements on matched subsets.

Research metrics use attention as evidence of societal impact. Yet attention serves as evidence only once interpreted, and its meaning depends on its contextual structure, not on volume alone. Altmetrics represents signals in isolation, keeping a count of the attention an output received, or a sequence of when. We address this with attention flows, representations that situate an output's attention in the contexts through which it is distributed. To evaluate the flow, we build a benchmark of analogy queries, each testing whether the relationship between two outputs, applied to a third, yields a fourth. The count and sequence baselines fail to recover these relationships, whereas flows learned as dynamic contextualised representations recover them. The recovered structure also survives partial observation and rests on its contexts instead of volume. These findings support attention represented as contextually structured for research evaluation.

The rapid pace of scientific publishing has made the identification and synthesis of high-impact work an increasingly urgent challenge. We introduce MIRAI (Multi-year Inference of Research trends and Academic Impact), a deep learning framework that predicts paper impact using only it's title, abstract, and publication date. We train MIRAI on the arXiv academic graph to predict 5-year PageRank and citation counts, achieving Spearman's $ρ$ of 0.4686 on PageRank prediction and 0.6192 on citation prediction for papers published in 2021. We propose a research ideation pipeline built on top of MIRAI that produces research ideas oriented towards high impact. These ideas were judged as more impactful than a baseline without MIRAI by an unbiased LLM judge at a 4:3 ratio. We make the 5-year citation prediction model publicly available at https://predict-paper-impact.vercel.app.

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

With the advent of Large Language Models, single-task and token-based multi-task models have evolved into instruction-based systems that infer task and target language implicitly from natural language prompts. This trend is reflected in IWSLT's Instruction Following Track, which this year introduced new tasks including an unknown surprise task, posing a genuine challenge against overfitting to known tasks. We present KIT's submission to the Long and Short Instruction Following tracks in the unconstrained setting. Our approach combines a general data augmentation pipeline that converts short-form corpora into long-form training data through segment concatenation, LLM-based label generation, and cross-lingual translation, yielding over 1M instances across six tasks and four languages. We further show that likelihood-based re-ranking, while highly effective for ASR, systematically degrades semantic tasks by spuriously selecting candidates generated from segmented audio processing rather than holistic long-form inference, a failure mode resolved by combining likelihood with Minimum Bayes Risk decoding.

Automated subject cataloging assigns controlledvocabulary headings to bibliographic records, but LCSH has no standard public benchmark. We introduce LCSHBench: 22,346 books in 15 languages from the openly licensed Harvard, Columbia, and Princeton catalogs. Records enter only when at least two independent cataloging agencies assigned LCSH; we release per-catalog provenance plus union and unanimous answer views. A concordance study of 465,187 works cataloged by all three libraries shows why this design matters: libraries usually agree on the underlying topic (93.3% share a concept-level heading) but often differ in exact expression (39.4% have identical heading sets). LCSHBench therefore scores both exact and concept matches, with set and rank metrics broken down by language and heading type, across open-vocabulary generation and full-vocabulary retrieval. As a first demonstration, a low-rank fine-tune of a 300M on-device embedder improves cross-lingual retrieval and beats a 3,072-dimensional hosted embedder on development exact recall@200 (0.659 vs 0.623). The language panel shows the gain is not uniform, and held-out-test and end-to-end confirmation remain future work.

Understanding and anticipating scientific change requires models that distinguish between endogenous consolidation and exogenous diffusion of scientific concepts. Using the quantum computing subtree of concepts in OpenAlex, we construct a temporally resolved concept co-occurrence network and track each concept pair through its upstream citation lineage and downstream diffusion. We train LightGBM models on distributional and diversity-aware features to predict four outcomes: endogenous reinforcement, exogenous diffusion, their ratio, and diffusion entropy. After controlling for overall publication growth of the scientific body, endogenous reinforcement proves largely unpredictable in the primary quantum-computing benchmark. In contrast, exogenous diffusion and entropy are strongly predictable ($R^2$ up to $0.78à) and are driven by upstream heterogeneity, citation breadth, and distributional dispersion, as shown by SHAP analyses; replications on robotics, advanced materials, and neuro implants confirm that exogenous diffusion remains the top-ranked target across fields ($R^2_test \sim 0.60-0.87$), while endogenous predictability rises markedly in neuro implants (R^2_test = 0.83), indicating that the quantum-computing asymmetry does not generalise uniformly. Case studies reveal that sharp entropy increases coincide with the opening of new conceptual frontiers, while entropy collapses signal technological convergence or paradigm displacement. These results demonstrate that conceptual diffusion is governed by stable structural regularities embedded in semantic and citation environments. By identifying early diversity-based signals of cross-domain uptake, the approach provides a scalable foundation for anticipatory scientometrics, technology foresight, and innovation-oriented policy analysis in rapidly evolving research fields.

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

Visual posters are a compact medium for communicating dense information, yet progress on automatic poster generation remains difficult to measure because existing evaluations are often restricted to paper-only inputs, narrow domains, or surface-level visual similarity. We introduce Any2Poster Bench, a benchmark for any-source poster generation that evaluates systems across eight input modalities--PDFs, URLs, PPTX, DOCX, Markdown, LaTeX, notebooks, and videos--and five content domains. Any2Poster Bench pairs each source with quiz-based probes of verbatim factual retention and interpretive understanding, together with VLM-based judgments of visual quality, layout, readability, content completeness, and logical flow, enabling reproducible assessment of both information fidelity and visual communication. To instantiate and validate this benchmark, we further present Any2Poster Agent, an end-to-end reference agent that parses heterogeneous sources, organizes salient content, plans poster layouts, renders posters, and iteratively refines them using visual feedback. On Any2Poster Bench, Any2Poster Agent achieves 87.25% average accuracy across input modalities and 87.28% across content domains. On PaperQuiz-style evaluation, where prior paper-to-poster agents are directly comparable, Any2Poster Agent improves over PosterAgent-4o from 51.06-51.33% to 72.58% overall accuracy and from 116-121 to 145.16 in density-augmented score. Together, Any2Poster Bench and Any2Poster Agent provide a reusable evaluation resource and a competitive baseline for studying multimodal, domain-general poster generation.

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

Research is advancing faster than ever with artificial intelligence (AI); and so are the corresponding research papers. The exploding volume of AI-generated papers have put a strain to peer review, leading to the usage of AI-generated review, potentially wide yet sneaky. However, relevant ethical concerns about confidentiality, quality, and fairness are raised and no consensus has been reached in the broad research community. We expect the debate to continue for a while, but in the meantime, we ask an alternative, practical question: \textit{can AI review improve paper drafting?} We study 20 computer architecture papers, with varying levels of submission lineage, to expose how well AI review aligns with human review, quantified by a set of metrics we define. To conduct the case study, we build a web UI-integrated tool, \emph{AI-Paper-Review}, that generates structured AI review of a draft paper, available at https://github.com/unarylab/ai-paper-review. This tool selects several AI reviewers from a diverse pool of AI reviewers and clusters and ranks their comments based on commonality and importance of review comments. It also allows to align AI comments with human comments to facilitate metric-based validation. The case study shows that AI review can cover a significant fraction of human-raised issues, but also raises issues missing in human review. This paper is not intended to encourage using AI for peer review at the current stage, but to study that (1) how AI review can improve paper drafting and (2) the potential and limitation of AI-based peer review. The release of the tool and the case study data is intended to instigate future research on this topic. Misuse for peer review would violate the ethics policies from major academic venues.

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

Recent advances in visual language models have enabled autonomous agents for complex reasoning, tool use, and document understanding. However, existing document agents mainly transform papers into static artifacts such as summaries, webpages, or slides, which are insufficient for technical papers involving dynamic mechanisms and state transitions. In this work, we propose a Paper-to-Interactive-System Agent that converts research papers into executable interactive web systems. Given a PDF paper, the agent performs end-to-end processing without human intervention, including paper understanding, system modeling, and interactive webpage synthesis, enabling users to manipulate inputs and observe dynamic behaviors. To evaluate this task, we introduce a benchmark of 19 research papers paired with expert-built interactive systems as ground truth. We further propose PaperVoyager, a structured generation framework that explicitly models mechanisms and interaction logic during synthesis. Experiments show that PaperVoyager significantly improves the quality of generated interactive systems, offering a new paradigm for interactive scientific paper understanding.

Scientific figures are among the most effective means of communicating complex research ideas, yet producing publication-quality illustrations remains one of the most labor-intensive parts of paper preparation. Existing automated systems each target a single figure type under text-only input, leaving the diversity of types and conditions researchers actually use unaddressed; their raster outputs further cannot be locally revised. Because scientific figures are structured compositions of discrete semantic components, the localized errors generators produce on such layouts demand not a stronger backbone but a harness. We instantiate this harness in two complementary systems: Crafter, a multi-agent harness for figure generation that generalizes across figure types and input conditions without architectural changes, and CraftEditor, which applies the same pattern to convert raster outputs into editable SVGs. Moreover, we introduce CraftBench, a benchmark spanning three figure types and four input conditions with human quality annotation. Experiments show that Crafter substantially outperforms both standalone generators and the agentic baseline on PaperBanana-Bench and CraftBench, with ablations confirming each component's independent contribution; CraftEditor faithfully converts outputs into editable SVGs that surpass all baselines. Our code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/HaozheZhao/Crafter.

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

DeFi investment agents, systems that use AI for autonomous on-chain trading, have attained over USD 3 billion in combined token valuations since late 2024. We survey over 1,900 AI-tagged crypto projects, filter to investment-focused agents, and curate 10 representative projects spanning strategy and observability dimensions. We then conduct a deep-dive architectural analysis of two prominent agent frameworks, ElizaOS and Virtuals Protocol, and a quantitative on-chain performance analysis of 11 Solana-based agent treasuries with publicly attributable trading activity, covering 925,323 token holders. We find that current deployments remain early and heterogeneous: (1) in our sample, many projects do not yet provide clear evidence of autonomous trade execution, and developer interviews suggest that many visible deployments remain basic API integrations; (2) agent treasuries retain over USD 30M in paper gains while token holders collectively lost USD 191.7M, with the top 1% of wallets capturing 81.4% of all gains (USD 1.81B); (3) token valuations are weakly connected to treasury fundamentals, with market-cap-to-AUM ratios exceeding 10,000x versus below 1x for established DeFi protocols; and (4) aggregate user gains peaked at USD 2.4B before declining to net losses, with median returns negative on every platform and tokens declining 93% on average from all-time highs. We interpret these outcomes as characteristic of a permissionless, first-generation market in which open infrastructure enables rapid experimentation but also allows naive or speculative agents to launch before robust standards for autonomy, performance, and stakeholder alignment emerge. We therefore propose a maturity framework along three dimensions: autonomous execution, risk-adjusted profitability, and stakeholder alignment, to characterize the gap between current deployments and future investment-grade agent systems.

Industrial Prognostics and Health Management (PHM) provides a representative case study for a broader challenge in applied machine learning: translating published papers into executable, benchmark-ready implementations. Reproducing under-specified methods in PHM is particularly difficult due to restricted access to industrial datasets, incomplete reporting of preprocessing and evaluation protocols, and implicit design choices (e.g., windowing, target construction, data splits) that critically affect performance. Existing paper-to-code systems generate implementations for individual papers, but these artifacts are often not directly comparable due to inconsistencies in assumptions and evaluation settings. We introduce \emph{agentic, framework-based PHM paper reproduction}, where an agent translates a paper into a shared PHM benchmark framework via a \emph{slot-binding interface}. This interface maps equations and protocol descriptions into structured components (task definitions, dataset adapters, windowing, targets, models, and evaluators), while explicitly recording unresolved assumptions. The resulting implementations are validated against standardized task contracts and evaluation hooks, enabling consistent and comparable benchmarking. We evaluate this approach on 16 PHM papers, comparing framework-enhanced, skill-based and prompt-based agentic reproduction against a recent framework-free paper-reproduction agent. We assess reproduction success, model-based code evaluation, framework binding of paper assumptions, and cross-paper benchmark comparability under standardized protocols. Our results show that coupling agentic generation with a shared framework transforms paper reproduction from isolated code synthesis into executable, assumption-aware, and systematically comparable benchmark implementations.

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

CASTLE 2026 asks 185 multiple-choice questions over 600+ hours of synchronized multi-view egocentric video. We explore two approaches on top of a shared multimodal preprocessing layer, including per-person timelines, speaker-resolved transcripts, and multi-VLM caption ensembles. Approach A, SVA: Search-Verify-Answer, is a three-stage pipeline that hierarchically narrows to a primary window, verifies sub-windows with a VLM under four anti-confabulation rules, and fuses evidence with an LLM judge under an evidence-priority hierarchy. Approach B, TMKG: Temporal-Multimodal-Knowledge-Graph, is the contrast: it builds a temporal multimodal knowledge graph, locates a primary cell via graph search, and produces the final answer with a single grounded VLM. SVA reaches a leaderboard accuracy of 0.50 and is our final challenge submission; TMKG reaches 0.35.

The rapid growth of scientific publishing has made it increasingly difficult to track how fast-moving areas evolve. Search engines and LLM-based assistants retrieve or summarize papers, but often hide how the corpus was selected, organized, or connected to temporal patterns. We present $\texttt{Eliot}$, a publicly deployed interactive system for traceable exploration of evolving scientific literature. Motivated by two studies on Large Language Models (LLMs) and Automated Planning and Scheduling (APS), $\texttt{Eliot}$ generalizes literature-evolution analysis beyond hand-built taxonomies and domain-specific scripts. Given explicit query terms and filters, it retrieves arXiv papers at query time, represents each paper by title and abstract, clusters the corpus into themes, assigns representative keywords, and visualizes each cluster's publication-year distribution. We evaluate $\texttt{Eliot}$ as both an applied system and an interactive research aid. An offline configuration study across eight arXiv domains compares document representations, dimensionality reduction methods, and clustering algorithms using intrinsic clustering and topic-coherence metrics; the results support MiniLM embeddings with 10-dimensional UMAP and Agglomerative Clustering as a practical default. A scenario-based survey and expert focus group assess interpretability and use contexts: participants rated cluster labels as meaningful in 85% of scenario responses, and feedback indicated that $\texttt{Eliot}$ is most valuable for auditable overviews of rapidly changing technical areas. These results suggest that query-time clustering and temporal inspection can complement search and generation tools by helping researchers inspect and refine the evidence behind literature trends.

This position statement looks back on two decades of work on shallow embeddings of non-classical logics in classical higher-order logic (HOL), a line of research that expanded into a range of logic embeddings in HOL and inspired the LogiKEy logic-pluralistic knowledge representation and reasoning methodology. This paper advances the case for logical pluralism at object-logic level within a unifying meta-logical framework such as LogiKEy, grounding the argument in computational metaphysics. More broadly, it advocates principled support for logical pluralism in modern proof assistants, and cautions against logical imperialism -- the rigid adoption of a single foundational logic for large-scale theory developments -- which impedes the interdisciplinary reuse that LogiKEy is designed to enable.

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

LLMs deployed in high-stakes domains face fundamental reliability challenges: hallucinations, inconsistencies, and privacy vulnerabilities introduce unacceptable risks where errors carry legal, financial, or safety consequences. This paper presents a hybrid verification architecture combining formal symbolic methods with neural semantic analysis to provide complementary guarantees for LLM-generated content. This architecture employs logical reasoning for input verification, leveraging completeness properties to provide decidable guarantees on structured requirements. For output validation, embedding-based semantic similarity detects contextual hallucinations where formal methods lack expressiveness. This separation is realized in a parallel, actor-based pipeline, addressing limitations of prompt-based self-verification approaches, which inherit the distributional biases that produce hallucinations. The proposed architecture and type-aware verification method are validated with HAIMEDA, a real-world medical device damage assessment reporting system developed through Action Design Research. Evaluation shows hallucination detection rates of over 83% for structured entities and 72% for semantic fabrications, with a 30% reduction in report creation time, demonstrating that neuro-symbolic architectures can provide principled safeguards for LLM deployment in data-sensitive domains.

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

A small number of methodological contributions, including word2vec, the Transformer, large-scale pre-training, and reinforcement learning from human feedback, have reshaped NLP and AI research over the past decade. OpenReview now makes numeric reviewer scores and accept/reject decisions public for every ICLR submission. Whether such review signals identify trajectory-changing papers at submission time, however, remains untested at corpus scale. We answer this question on $36{,}113$ papers from ICLR 2017--2025, identifying \emph{catalysts}: papers whose descendants measurably redirect future research. We compare four disruptiveness measures (the Consolidation/Destabilization (CD) index, node2vec, the direction-aware Embedding Disruptiveness Measure (EDM), and an LLM-based semantic rater) and define a five-type operational catalyst taxonomy (topic initiator, topic bridge, within-topic redirector, simultaneous, and recognition-misaligned). EDM leads at identifying highly cited ICLR papers (AUC $0.83$ vs.\ $0.60$ for CD, $0.49$ for node2vec, and $0.42$ for the LLM rater). Topic initiators precede a $7.55{\times}$ topic-share growth and topic bridges precede an $11.52{\times}$ growth in cross-topic citation flow versus year-matched controls. We found that the peer review scores are essentially orthogonal to future disruptiveness ($|ρ|{\leq}0.005$; accepted and rejected papers have indistinguishable mean EDM, $p{=}0.11$).