Papers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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, $p{=}0.11$).

Autonomous research systems increasingly make the scientific workflow executable: agents can propose ideas, run code, inspect results, and draft papers. But executable workflows do not by themselves produce research judgment. We analyze where current systems lose trial experience: weak evidence becomes prose, pilot signals become broad claims, memory remains textual, and recurring process failures do not change later behavior. We introduce Sibyl-AutoResearch, a self-evolving AutoResearch framework built around Scientific Trial-and-Error Harnesses. A harness lets agents run bounded trials, preserve positive and negative outcomes, and route lessons into later planning, validation, claim scope, scheduling, critique, writing, and harness repair. We formalize this through two auditable conversion units: trial-to-behavior conversion, which links trial signals to later research actions, and trial-to-harness-behavior conversion, which links recurring process failures to system updates. We implement the framework in SIBYL, a file-backed autonomous research system that exposes the state, roles, memory, gates, and artifact traces needed to inspect these conversion paths. A retrospective audit identifies eight high-confidence conversion events, with a median latency of one iteration and a maximum latency of three iterations. A recovered-failure registry further shows how five naturally occurring failure classes, including duplicate results, stale numbers, and unsupported statistics, were blocked, downgraded, or routed into later repair. These traces do not establish a comparative performance claim; they show that the proposed conversion units are recoverable from realistic autonomous-research workspaces. The SIBYL framework and system are available at https://github.com/Sibyl-Research-Team/AutoResearch-SibylSystem.

Recent auto-research systems can produce complete papers, but feasibility is not the same as quality, and the field still lacks a systematic study of how good agent-generated papers actually are. We introduce ResearchArena, a minimal scaffold that lets off-the-shelf agents (Claude Code using Opus 4.6, Codex using GPT-5.4, and Kimi Code using K2.5) carry out the full research loop themselves (ideation, experimentation, paper writing, self-refinement) under only lightweight guidance. Across 13 computer science seeds and 3 trials per agent-domain pair, ResearchArena yields 117 agent-generated papers, each evaluated under three complementary lenses: a manuscript-only reviewer (SAR), an artifact-aware peer review (PR) in which agents inspect the workspace alongside the manuscript, and an human conducted meta-review. Under SAR alone the picture is optimistic: Claude Code obtains the highest score, outperforms Analemma's FARS, and matches the weighted-average human ICLR 2025 submission, suggesting that minimally scaffolded agents can produce papers that look competitive on manuscript-only review. Manual inspection, however, reveals this picture is overstated: SAR scores are poorly aligned with its actual acceptance decisions and reward plausible framing without verifying experimental substance. Under artifact-aware PR scores drop sharply, and manual auditing identifies experimental rigor as the major bottleneck, decomposing into three failure modes (fabricated results, underpowered experiments, and plan/execution mismatch) that are highly agent-dependent: Codex 5%/8% paper-vs-artifact mismatch / fabricated references versus Kimi Code 77%/72%, a $\sim$15$\times$ spread that tracks distinct research personas the agents develop. None of the 117 agent-generated papers reaches the acceptance bar of a top-tier venue. This suggests that we are still gapped from the true auto-research.

AI-assisted research is crossing a threshold: fully automated systems can now generate research papers for as little as $15, while long-horizon agents can execute experiments, draft manuscripts, and simulate critique with minimal human input. Yet this productivity frontier exposes a deeper integrity problem: under scientific pressure, even frontier LLMs still fabricate results, miss hidden errors, and fail to judge novelty reliably. Studying developments through April 2026, we present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle, organized into four epistemological phases: Creation (idea generation, literature review, coding & experiments, tables & figures), Writing (paper writing), Validation (peer review, rebuttal & revision), and Dissemination (posters, slides, videos, social media, project pages, and interactive agents). We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy: AI excels at structured, retrieval-grounded, and tool-mediated tasks, but remains fragile for genuinely novel ideas, research-level experiments, and scientific judgment. Generated ideas often degrade after implementation, research code lags far behind pattern-matching benchmarks, and end-to-end autonomous systems have not yet consistently reached major-venue acceptance standards. We further show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes, making human-governed collaboration the most credible deployment paradigm. Finally, we provide a structured taxonomy, benchmark suite, and tool inventory, cross-stage design principles, and a practitioner-oriented playbook, with resources maintained at our project page.

Large-scale news corpora support a wide range of research in Computational Social Science and NLP, yet access remains constrained: commercial archives impose prohibitive costs and licensing restrictions, while open alternatives like Common Crawl's CC-News require terabyte-scale storage and computationally intensive processing. We present Infini-News, a retrieval toolkit and index for the entire CC-News archive from August 2016 to the latest available snapshot. Our contributions are threefold. First, we extract, clean the text, and parse the structured metadata of over 1.35B articles. Second, we enrich the corpus with language detection using three frontier language classifiers (GlotLID, lingua, and CommonLingua), and with multi-source geographic attribution that resolves a country of origin for 83.4% of articles across 222 countries. Third, we construct Infini-gram indexes: suffix-array structures that let researchers search the full archive for arbitrary text patterns in sub-second time. Together, these resources lower the barrier to longitudinal, cross-national media research.

We report on the ongoing development of arXiv's HTML Papers offering, available on every new TeX/LaTeX submission since its initial release in 2023. The main highlights from 2025 and early 2026 are: (i) community-driven improvements to HTML fidelity and service health, with roughly half of 6,000 user reports resolved; (ii) corpus-scale conversion work aimed at 90% error-free HTML (currently 75%); (iii) initial MathML 4 Intent annotations for accessible speech output; (iv) an in-progress Rust port of LaTeXML, reducing compute costs and enabling faster previews on submission. The arXiv HTML Papers project remains experimental, but is gradually maturing as we better understand the needs of arXiv's readers and the technical opportunities presented by new standards and by advances in programming languages and AI.

Transparent and standardized reporting is essential for reproducible scientific research, yet adherence to reporting guidelines remains inconsistent because of the manual effort required to select and complete checklists. We present CheckSupport, an open-source, locally deployable system that uses large language models to automate the recommendation of reporting checklists and the evidence-grounded completion of checklists for scientific manuscripts. CheckSupport employs a staged prompting strategy that decomposes reporting workflows into constrained inference tasks, prioritizing faithful extraction over generative text synthesis. All inference is performed locally using instruction-tuned models, preserving data privacy and enabling reproducible, auditable workflows. Evaluated on a corpus of peer-reviewed manuscripts, CheckSupport achieved 90% overall accuracy for checklist recommendations and 88% overall accuracy for item-level completion while operating on CPU-only hardware. On average, the wall-clock time per manuscript was 12.5 seconds, including the checklist recommendation and full checklist completion. These results demonstrate that large language models, when applied as structured inference components, can reduce reporting burden and support more transparent and reproducible scientific reporting across disciplines.

AI is transforming life sciences research at unprecedented speed, accelerating discovery across protein structure prediction, genome modeling, and drug development (Jumper et al., 2021; Mak et al., 2024). Yet this rapid advancement, coupled with the open science movement, introduces significant dual-use research concerns that have received limited empirical scrutiny. Here we present the first systematic analysis of dual-use research of concern (DURC) content on open preprint servers. We screened ~52,000 bioRxiv preprints (2024-2025) using a hybrid pipeline of lexical filtering and large language model (LLM) evaluation, scoring metadata across nine DURC, three PEPP, and five governance categories aligned with U.S. and Australia Group oversight frameworks. Our analysis reveals that dual-use-adjacent knowledge is routinely present in openly accessible titles and abstracts, often exceeding established risk thresholds even in studies with legitimate public health objectives. While this mapping captures surface-level information diffusion, it does not measure operational capability, downstream misuse potential, or the substantial technical and biosafety barriers that constrain harmful application. We argue that institutional review processes, funding requirements, and preprint platform policies must evolve to incorporate proactive, metadata-level monitoring without compromising scientific transparency. Ultimately, harmonizing controlled-access mechanisms for high-risk methodologies with open summaries of scientific contributions offers a pragmatic framework for governing AI-accelerated biology at scale.

Manually curated biomedical repositories -- spanning bioactivity, genomics, and chemistry -- are expensive to maintain, lag behind primary literature, and discard experimental context, obscuring nuances needed to assess data correctness and coverage. We show that PubMed itself can be autonomously and cost-effectively turned into structured datasets that are larger, more nuanced, and more accurate than the curated databases they replace. We present three coupled contributions: (1) an LLM-based entity-tagging pipeline, grounded in nine biomedical ontologies, that tags 4.5B entities across 19 categories in a 22.5M-paper, 2.5T-token PubMed corpus; (2) hybrid sparse-dense retrieval supporting entity-filtered semantic queries over the tagged corpus; and (3) Starling, a multi-agent deep research system that, given only a natural-language task description, designs precision- and recall-targeted retrieval filters, induces an extraction schema, and emits structured records with nuance-rich fields and supporting passages. Across six tasks -- blood-brain barrier permeability, oral bioavailability, acute toxicity (LD50), gene-disease associations, protein subcellular localization, and chemical reactions -- Starling produces ~6.3M records (91K-3M per task); several are, to our knowledge, the largest public datasets for their property. Frontier-model rejection of our extractions is 0.6-7.7% across tasks, far below error rates we measure on widely used curated counterparts (e.g., 16.5% on BBB_Martins, 7.3% on Bioavailability_Ma). Beyond scale and accuracy, the supporting passages carry nuance tabular databases discard -- e.g., oral bioavailability may depend on fed vs. fasted state. Together, the corpus, retrieval, and agent establish a foundation for AI-driven therapeutic design. Code and datasets: https://github.com/starling-labs/starling.