Scientific Communication

Large language models are moving from helping write up research to helping do it, which makes it important to know how the scientific text they produce differs from human writing. Work on this question has stayed mostly at the surface, using lexical and stylistic cues that light paraphrasing erases. We look instead at rhetorical structure, the sequence of argumentative moves through which a text makes its case. We study research-article introductions under Swales' CARS model, and compare original introductions from published linguistics articles with generated counterparts of the same papers. We find that human-written introductions are more flexible in which moves they use and in what order, while the generated ones are more uniform. Giving the models the CARS definitions makes them more rigid.

As autonomous AI agents take on every stage of scientific inquiry, research output is expanding far beyond human review capacity. Yet scientific communication still relies on natural-language prose: an informal medium prone to ambiguity, hidden assumptions, and untracked limitations that machines cannot reliably audit. We introduce Lara, a machine-checkable language and protocol for checking and revising support for research claims. By turning research arguments into executable artifacts, Lara provides an epistemic kernel for autonomous science: it enables automated validation pipelines for research agents, lets declared bridges connect arguments across papers into an auditable network, and allows both humans and machines to recheck the standing of an encoded claim in milliseconds. In a Lara program, authors explicitly declare their claims, supporting evidence and assumptions, and known objections or limitations. A lightweight, deterministic checker adjudicates these interactions, assigning each claim a reproducible status: "justified", "defeated", "contested", or "gap", which marks a claim whose support is incomplete and locates the unanswered question. Case studies cover empirical review, a philosophical debate without measurements, and the loss of support when an assumed axiom is withdrawn. We establish the metatheory of claim checking and cross-context argument transport, and mechanize the semantic guarantees in Lean 4 (roughly 117,000 lines), leaving three arguments on paper. The audited public metatheory is "sorry"-free and uses only Lean's three standard axioms; some executable examples additionally trust native evaluation.

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.

Since late 2022, a Limitations section has become mandatory at many top-tier NLP conferences. The growing number of accepted papers at these venues has resulted in a vast corpus of self-reported limitations that cannot all be manually reviewed, yet remains systematically unanalyzed. Therefore, in this paper, we conduct a large-scale analysis of the Limitations sections from ACL and EMNLP papers published between 2020 and 2025 to understand what researchers disclose about their own work. To do so, we implement a novel human-AI framework for iterative hybrid qualitative coding. This framework enables us to investigate trends in self-reported limitations over time, their correlations with specific paper attributes, and the writing patterns that recur around these disclosures. Our findings offer a critical reflection on the diverse reported challenges as well as the self-reporting practices of researchers in the NLP community.

Generalisations are common in scientific communication, even though they are semantically ambiguous. An automated method is needed to identify and categorise claims according to their level of generalisation, in order help detect an over-reliance on generalisations and possible misrepresentations of scientific findings. We introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of generalisations in the scientific domain, NLPGenX, which labels claims according to their level of generality and framing within the text. We operationalise this taxonomy with an LLM-powered framework, NLPGenA, that automatically classifies sentences from scientific articles into 5 different generalisation classes. We validate our framework with human annotators and use the framework to construct a large-scale dataset of NLP papers annotated according to generality, with auxiliary labels for hedging and vague descriptors (NLPGens). We use NLPGens to analyse the use of generalisations in NLP papers across multiple venues and subdomains, and to examine associations with citation counts, hedging, and vague descriptors.

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.

Interdisciplinary research is accelerating, yet scientific papers remain difficult to understand outside their home fields. We study large language model (LLM)-based simplification of scientific texts and present a human-in-the-loop workflow that transforms expert summaries into more accessible versions for non-specialists. Using SciSummNet as the source corpus, we first generate baseline simplifications with GPT-4o-mini. In Phase 1, readers from STEM fields outside computer science identify difficult sentences and phrases and compare the original and GPT-simplified summaries in terms of comprehensibility, naturalness, and simplicity. In Phase 2, computer science experts use this feedback to create expert-edited reference simplifications. We release the resulting corpus together with human judgments and automatic evaluation results. The Phase 1 judgments show a clear preference for the GPT-generated summaries in terms of comprehensibility and simplicity, while qualitative analysis of the Phase 2 edits highlights the importance of preserving domain-specific terminology and the strength of scientific claims. The resulting resource supports the training and benchmarking of simplification systems for cross-disciplinary scientific communication.

Charts and images appear together throughout scientific publications, yet most computational work does not characterize their coherence. We argue that a chart, its accompanying image, and the caption that links them form a multimodal unit, and that the inferential work required to read it varies systematically. To capture this variation, we develop a typology of reasoning gaps, R1 through R5, that characterizes how chart, image, and text jointly convey a scientific claim, and the interpretive work this demands of the reader. Some pairs restate the same data, while in other pairs, charts are used to quantify a structure the image localizes, project image content onto an external variable, audit an image-based claim, or jointly construct a frame that neither panel can establish alone. The typology is anchored in the grounding theory of communication and was derived bottom-up, with a neuroscience expert, from a corpus of 79 traumatic brain injury papers and 32 chart-image pairs. Crucially, the levels provide a systematic mechanism for identifying where grounding succeeds or breaks down, rather than leaving it to subjective inference. We show this in a study in which a domain expert and three non-experts judge vision-language model (VLM) descriptions of 25 pairs: the level predicts where their judgments align and where they diverge, isolating the points at which contextual knowledge, not the figure, carries coherence. This typology thus offers figure designers a systematic way to balance text against chart-image pairs, bridging the expert-to-non-expert divide in reading a scientific takeaway.

Russian and Arabic are among the major languages of scientific communication. Language barriers impede the exchange of research results between these communities, which affects international collaboration and the progress of sustainability-related research. We present a benchmark for Arabic--Russian scientific translation. The benchmark includes a hybrid parallel corpus of about 27,000 sentence pairs, compiled from scientific abstracts and general-domain texts (religion, news, conversations). We fine-tune three multilingual language models -- mT5-base (580M parameters), NLLB-200-distilled-1.3B (1.3B), and Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct (7B) -- using LoRA with ranks 8, 16, 32, and 64. The Qwen2.5-7B model with QLoRA (rank 8) yields BLEU 23.15, chrF 43.89, BERTScore 0.906, and COMET 0.758. These are +4.36 BLEU and +0.051 COMET above the zero-shot baseline. Few-shot prompting with three examples does not improve performance, indicating that domain-specific fine-tuning is required. We release the models, the corpus, and the evaluation code. By lowering the language barrier for scientific texts, the work enables knowledge exchange between Arabic-speaking and Russian-speaking researchers. It contributes to sustainable partnerships (UN SDG 17) and innovation infrastructure (SDG 9), aligning with the conference's focus on technology-driven sustainable development.

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.

Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment (N = 801; 32,040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48% in OpenAlex and 32% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database r = 0.96, p < 10^-8). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; r = 0.77-0.84), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also saw the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English and non-English authors. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift -0.18 Likert units, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.14]; d_z = -0.28, p < 10^-20), funding willingness (d_z = -0.12) and policy support (d_z = -0.08), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency (d_z = +0.07). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.

Scientific publication is still organized primarily around static manuscripts, even though much of scientific progress depends on tacit know-how: how to run code, reproduce figures, interpret edge cases, choose useful follow-up directions, and avoid failed paths. Large language model agents create an opportunity to publish not only knowledge, but also operational know-how in a form that future readers and researchers can directly use. This paper outlines the Agentic Publication Protocol (APP), a lightweight repository format for packaging a paper together with code, data, environment information, reproducibility instructions, and an agent-facing instruction file. APP treats a version-controlled repository as the publication object and uses \texttt{AGENTS.md} and optional skills to define a paper agent that can explain the work, reproduce key results when possible, and support follow-up research. We describe the design principles and details of the protocol, as well as the agent skills useful for publishing papers under the protocol. We also describe development tools for evaluating and improving the protocol and associated agent skills. Finally, we provide a broader discussion of the future of scientific research in the agent era.

Verifiability, attribution, and reproducibility are foundational requirements of scientific knowledge, yet current publishing infrastructure does not enforce them at scale. We introduce Traxia, an agent-native scientific publishing framework in which AI research agents publish verifiable papers, build reputational identities, peer-review one another, and collaborate with humans in a shared provenance model. Traxia treats agents as first-class epistemic participants: every paper carries a reasoning trace, every claim a confidence interval, every agent a cryptographically signed identity, and every collaboration an immutable contribution log. We formalise five components: Agent Identity and Registry, Verifiable Publishing Layer, four-tier Peer Review Protocol, Reputation and Staking Engine, and a Knowledge Graph with contradiction detection. The framework targets reproducibility failure, provenance opacity, and exclusion of Global South research capacity. This paper presents architectural foundations and formal specifications only; it does not report empirical results. Evaluation and deeper component studies will follow in subsequent papers. A prototype partially implements core formalisms; the full system remains under active development.

Humans increasingly turn to Language Models (LMs) in ways that shape beliefs and drive decisions, including discussing, rewriting, and summarizing information from scientific articles, news, and medical reports. However, in these domains, where it often matters how confidently a claim is expressed, little is known about whether LMs faithfully preserve the degree of confidence. In this work, we investigate certainty distortion in LMs, defined as meaningful changes in expressed certainty during transformations intended to preserve meaning. We propose an LM-based evaluation metric that is consistent with population-level judgments of certainty. Using this metric, we characterize certainty distortion across different sizes and families of models in the context of scientific and medical communication tasks. Our results show that certainty distortion affects up to 75% of LM outputs and is systematically asymmetric in rewriting tasks with most LMs being 1.5-2x more likely to increase the expressed certainty than to decrease it. These effects can compound over repeated paraphrasing: in the medical domain, claude-haiku-4.5 increases certainty in 20% of examples after a single iteration, increasing to 40% after five iterations. Prompt-based interventions reduce overall certainty distortion but do not eliminate it. Together, these findings reveal a general bias toward inflating expressed certainty, with direct implications for users who rely on LMs in high-stakes domains.

Science news is an important medium to communicate discoveries between the research communities and the public. Yet, most metrics for generated or summarized text evaluate semantic similarity and factual consistency, but do not measure how much knowledge readers learn from the news. We introduce KnowledgeGain, a metric that evaluates the quality of science news by measuring how much knowledge readers gained after reading it. To evaluate the metric, we first performed a controlled human study and showed that the metric successfully captures the differential knowledge gained by human readers reading different types of science media. The data allowed us to calibrate a prompt-only LLM reader simulator. We use it to rank and filter candidate articles before human evaluation. A second human study shows that articles selected with this simulator improve post-reading accuracy and normalized KnowledgeGain over a strong generation baseline. Our work is a step toward generating science news that better meets the knowledge and comprehension goals of Bloom's Taxonomy.

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.

The dominance of colonial languages in African education and scientific communication limits how hundreds of millions of speakers of African languages access and produce scientific knowledge. A core obstacle is the lack of established scientific terminology in these languages. We introduce AfriScience-MT, a parallel corpus covering six African languages (Amharic, Hausa, Luganda, Northern Sotho, Yorùbá, and isiZulu) across 11 scientific domains. Professional translators, working with expert science communicators, translated plain-language summaries of scientific papers into each target language and created new terms where none existed. We benchmark machine translation systems and large language models in zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuned settings. Our results show that closed-source models outperform all open-source models at both the sentence and document levels: GPT-5.4 and Gemini-3.1-Flash-Lite lead with average sentence-level COMET scores of 68.3 and 68.0, respectively, and tie at an average document-level COMET of 48.3. Among open systems, fine-tuned NLLB-1.3B reaches 67.3 at the sentence level, and TranslateGemma-12B reaches 44.0 at the document level with 1-shot in-context learning. We release AfriScience-MT to support benchmarking and document-level scientific MT for African languages.

The increasing volume of scientific research necessitates effective communication across language barriers. Machine translation (MT) offers a promising solution for accessing international publications. However, the scientific domain presents unique challenges due to its specialized vocabulary and complex sentence structures. In this paper, we present the development of a collection of parallel and monolingual corpora for the scientific domain. The corpora target the language pairs Spanish-English, French-English, and Portuguese-English. For each language pair, we create a large general scientific corpus as well as four smaller corpora focused on the domains of: Cancer Research, Energy Research, Neuroscience, and Transportation research. To evaluate the quality of these corpora, we utilize them for fine-tuning general-purpose neural machine translation (NMT) systems. We provide details regarding the corpus creation process, the fine-tuning strategies employed, and we conclude with the evaluation results.

Has the style of scientific communication changed due to the growing use of large language models in the writing process? We address this question in the domain of Natural Language Processing by leveraging two data resources we create: a naturalistic corpus of over 37,000 papers from the ACL Anthology (2020-2024); and a synthetic dataset of 3,000 human-written passages and their LLM-generated improvements. We first implement a series of diachronic lexical analyses, showing that both word frequency and usage contexts have changed significantly over time, indicating semantic specialization in some cases and generalization in others. Broadening our perspective, we then model a range of more complex stylistic features and find that LLM-modified texts more frequently contain certain syntactic constructions, more complex and longer words and a lower lexical diversity. Finally, we connect these changes in writing practices to subjective reading experience through a pilot annotation study with 20 domain experts. They overall rate LLM-improved texts as more understandable and exciting, but also express negative qualitative attitudes towards LLMs, highlighting the strongly subjective effect of AI-assisted writing on reading experience.

The communication of scientific knowledge has become increasingly multimodal, spanning text, visuals, and speech through materials such as research papers, slides, and recorded presentations. These different representations collectively convey a study's reasoning, results, and insights, offering complementary perspectives that enrich understanding. However, despite their shared purpose, such materials are rarely connected in a structured way. The absence of explicit links across formats makes it difficult to trace how concepts, visuals, and explanations correspond, limiting unified exploration and analysis of research content. To address this gap, we introduce the Multimodal Conference Dataset (MCD), the first benchmark that integrates research papers, presentation videos, explanatory videos, and slides from the same works. We evaluate a range of embedding-based and vision-language models to assess their ability to discover fine-grained cross-format correspondences, establishing the first systematic benchmark for this task. Our results show that vision-language models are robust but struggle with fine-grained alignment, while embedding-based models capture text-visual correspondences well but equations and symbolic content form distinct clusters in the embedding space. These findings highlight both the strengths and limitations of current approaches and point to key directions for future research in multimodal scientific understanding. To ensure reproducibility, we release the resources for MCD at https://github.com/meghamariamkm2002/MCD

Scientific publication compresses a branching, iterative research process into a linear narrative, discarding the majority of what was discovered along the way. This compilation imposes two structural costs: a Storytelling Tax, where failed experiments, rejected hypotheses, and the branching exploration process are discarded to fit a linear narrative; and an Engineering Tax, where the gap between reviewer-sufficient prose and agent-sufficient specification leaves critical implementation details unwritten. Tolerable for human readers, these costs become critical when AI agents must understand, reproduce, and extend published work. We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package structured around four layers: scientific logic, executable code with full specifications, an exploration graph that preserves the failures compilation discards, and evidence grounding every claim in raw outputs. Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste. On PaperBench and RE-Bench, ARA raises question-answering accuracy from 72.4% to 93.7% and reproduction success from 57.4% to 64.4%. On RE-Bench's five open-ended extension tasks, preserved failure traces in ARA accelerate progress, but can also constrain a capable agent from stepping outside the prior-run box depending on the agent's capabilities. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Orchestra-Research/Agent-Native-Research-Artifact.

The explosive growth of AI research has created unprecedented information overload, increasing the demand for scientific summarization at multiple levels of granularity beyond traditional abstracts. While LLMs are increasingly adopted for summarization, existing benchmarks remain limited in scale, target only a single granularity, and predate the LLM era. Moreover, since the release of ChatGPT in November 2022, researchers have rapidly adopted LLMs for drafting manuscripts themselves, fundamentally transforming scientific writing, yet no resource exists to analyze how this writing has evolved. To bridge these gaps, we introduce SciZoom, a benchmark comprising 44,946 papers from four top-tier ML venues (NeurIPS, ICLR, ICML, EMNLP) spanning 2020 to 2025, explicitly stratified into Pre-LLM and Post-LLM eras. SciZoom provides three hierarchical summarization targets (Abstract, Contributions, and TL;DR) achieving compression ratios up to 600:1, enabling both multi-granularity summarization research and temporal mining of scientific writing patterns. Our linguistic analysis reveals striking shifts in phrase patterns (up to 10x for formulaic expressions) and rhetorical style (23% decline in hedging), suggesting that LLM-assisted writing produces more confident yet homogenized prose. SciZoom serves as both a challenging benchmark and a unique resource for mining the evolution of scientific discourse in the generative AI era. Our code and dataset are publicly available on GitHub (https://github.com/janghana/SciZoom) and Hugging Face (https://huggingface.co/datasets/hanjang/SciZoom), respectively.

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