Papers

Fact-checking articles encode rich supporting evidence and reasoning, yet this evidence remains largely inaccessible to automated verification systems due to unstructured presentation. We introduce PrimeFacts, a methodology and resource for extracting fine-grained evidence from full fact-checking articles. We compile 13,106 PolitiFact articles with claims, verdicts, and all referenced sources, and we identify 49,718 in-article hyperlinks as natural anchors to pinpoint key evidence. Our framework leverages large language models (LLMs) to rewrite these anchor sentences into stand-alone, context-independent premises and investigates the extraction of additional implicit evidence. In evaluations on cross-article evidence retrieval and claim verification, the extracted premises substantially improve performance. Decontextualized evidence yields higher retrievability, achieving up to a 30 percent relative gain in Mean Reciprocal Rank over verbatim sentences, and using the evidence for verdict prediction raises Macro-F1 by 10-20 points over the baseline. These gains are consistent across different verdict granularities (2-class vs. 5-class) and model architectures. A qualitative analysis indicates that the decontextualized premises remain faithful to the original sources. Our work highlights the promise of reusing fact-checkers' evidence for automation and provides a large-scale resource of structured evidence from real-world fact-checks.

As LLMs become increasingly capable, editorial boards and program committees are growing concerned about reviewers who fully outsource peer review to commercial chatbots. This concern stems from prior findings that current chatbots lack the independent critical thinking and depth of reasoning required to assess scientific novelty. One promising direction for mitigating this concern is to embed hidden instructions into manuscripts that disrupt or alter chatbot-generated reviews. However, existing methods remain intuitive and fragile, as they typically rely on homogeneous payloads injected in an inter-stream manner, rendering them susceptible to sanitization or neutralization. In this paper, we identify End-to-End Review Outsourcing as an emerging threat and propose IntraGuard, a black-box, venue-agnostic defense framework grounded in the structural--visual decoupling inherent to the PDF. Designed for committee-side deployment, IntraGuard supports both explicit strategies that trigger refusal or warning signals, and implicit strategies that embed predefined textual markers into the generated review. These strategies can be deployed via any of three intra-stream injection mechanisms, each of which seamlessly embeds heterogeneous defensive text objects within the PDF's underlying structure without altering its visual presentation. Extensive evaluations across 7 real-world commercial chatbot settings and 12 venues spanning diverse disciplines show that IntraGuard achieves a defense success rate of up to 84%, while preserving peer-review invariance for human reviewers. IntraGuard is lightweight and hardware-independent, incurring an average overhead of only one second per manuscript on a commodity personal computer. We further evaluate 11 adaptive attacks spanning manuscript sanitization and instruction interference, and discuss the implications of constructing ensemble defenses.

Large language models offer a tempting solution to address the peer review crisis. This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews. We ground this position in an empirical comparison of human- versus AI-generated ICLR 2026 reviews and an evaluation of the effect of automated paper rewriting on different AI reviewers. We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity. 2) AI review scores are trivially gameable through paper laundering: prompting an LLM to rewrite a paper could significantly increase the scores from AI reviewers, demonstrating that LLM reviewers are easy to game through stylistic changes rather than scientific results. However, non-gameability and review diversity are necessary but not sufficient conditions for automation. We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation -- not general-purpose LLMs deployed without rigorous evaluation.

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.

Recent work has used LLM agents to reproduce empirical social science results with access to both the data and code. We broaden this scope by asking: Can they reproduce results given only a paper's methods description and original data? We develop an agentic reproduction system that extracts structured methods descriptions from papers, runs reimplementations under strict information isolation -- agents never see the original code, results, or paper -- and enables deterministic, cell-level comparison of reproduced outputs to the original results. An error attribution step traces discrepancies through the system chain to identify root causes. Evaluating four agent scaffolds and four LLMs on 48 papers with human-verified reproducibility, we find that agents can largely recover published results, but performance varies substantially between models, scaffolds, and papers. Root cause analysis reveals that failures stem both from agent errors and from underspecification in the papers themselves.

We present pAI/MSc, an open-source, customizable, modular multi-agent system for academic research workflows. Our goal is not autonomous scientific ideation, nor fully automated research. It is narrower and more practical: to reduce by orders of magnitude the human steering required to turn a specified hypothesis into a literature-grounded, mathematically established, experimentally supported, submission-oriented manuscript draft. pAI/MSc is built with a current emphasis on machine learning theory and adjacent quantitative fields.

Many recent document embedding models are trained on document-as-image representations, embedding rendered pages as images rather than the underlying source. Meanwhile, existing benchmarks for scientific document retrieval, such as ArXivQA and ViDoRe, treat documents as images of pages, implicitly favoring such representations. In this work, we argue that this paradigm is not well-suited for text-rich multimodal scientific documents, where critical evidence is distributed across structured sources, including text, tables, and figures. To study this setting, we introduce ArXivDoc, a new benchmark constructed from the underlying LaTeX sources of scientific papers. Unlike PDF or image-based representations, LaTeX provides direct access to structured elements (e.g., sections, tables, figures, equations), enabling controlled query construction grounded in specific evidence types. We systematically compare text-only, image-based, and multimodal representations across both single-vector and multi-vector retrieval models. Our results show that: (1) document-as-image representations are consistently suboptimal, especially as document length increases; (2) text-based representations are most effective, even for figure-based queries, by leveraging captions and surrounding context; and (3) interleaved text+image representations outperform document-as-image approaches without requiring specialized training.

Hyperspectral tree species classification is challenging due to limited and imbalanced class labels, spectral mixing (overlapping light signatures from multiple species), and ecological heterogeneity (variability among ecological systems). Addressing these challenges requires methods that integrate biological and structural characteristics of vegetation, such as canopy architecture and interspecific interactions, rather than relying solely on spectral signatures. This paper presents a biologically informed, semi-supervised deep learning method that integrates multi-sensor Earth observation data, specifically hyperspectral imaging (HSI) and airborne laser scanning (ALS), with expert, ecological knowledge. The approach relies on biologically inspired pseudo-labelling over a precomputed canopy graph, yielding accurate classification at low training cost. In addition, ecological priors on species cohabitation are automatically derived from reliable sources using large language models (LLMs) and encoded as a cohabitation matrix with likelihoods of species occurring together. These priors are incorporated into the pseudo-labelling strategy, effectively introducing expert knowledge into the model. Experiments on a real-world forest dataset demonstrate 5.6% improvement over the best reference method. Expert evaluation of cohabitation priors reveals high accuracy with differences no larger than 15%.

This article argues that the most important significance of the AI revolution, especially the rise of large language models, lies not simply in automation, but in a fundamental change in how complex information and human know-how are carried, replicated, and shared. From this perspective, AI for Science is especially important because it may transform not only the efficiency of research, but also the structure of scientific collaboration, discovery, publishing, and evaluation. The article outlines a gradual path from AI as a research tool to AI as a scientific collaborator, and discusses how AI is likely to fundamentally reshape scientific publication. It also argues that continuous learning and diversity of ideas are essential if AI is to play a meaningful role in original scientific discovery.

This position paper argues that recent progress with diversity in NLP is disproportionately concentrated on a small number of areas surrounding fairness. We further argue that this is the result of a number of incentives, biases, and barriers which come together to disenfranchise marginalized researchers in non-fairness fields, or to move them into fairness-related fields. We substantiate our claims with an investigation into the demographics of NLP researchers by subfield, using our research to support a number of recommendations for ensuring that all areas within NLP can become more inclusive and equitable. In particular, we highlight the importance of breaking down feedback loops that reinforce disparities, and the need to address geographical and linguistic barriers that hinder participation in NLP research.

AGI has become the Holly Grail of AI with the promise of level intelligence and the major Tech companies around the world are investing unprecedented amounts of resources in its pursuit. Yet, there does not exist a single formal definition and only some empirical AGI benchmarking frameworks currently exist. The main purpose of this paper is to develop a general, algebraic and category theoretic framework for describing, comparing and analysing different possible AGI architectures. Thus, this Category theoretic formalization would also allow to compare different possible candidate AGI architectures, such as, RL, Universal AI, Active Inference, CRL, Schema based Learning, etc. It will allow to unambiguously expose their commonalities and differences, and what is even more important, expose areas for future research. From the applied Category theoretic point of view, we take as inspiration Machines in a Category to provide a modern view of AGI Architectures in a Category. More specifically, this first position paper provides, on one hand, a first exercise on RL, Causal RL and SBL Architectures in a Category, and on the other hand, it is a first step on a broader research program that seeks to provide a unified formal foundation for AGI systems, integrating architectural structure, informational organization, agent realization, agent and environment interaction, behavioural development over time, and the empirical evaluation of properties. This framework is also intended to support the definition of architectural properties, both syntactic and informational, as well as semantic properties of agents and their assessment in environments with explicitly characterized features. We claim that Category Theory and AGI will have a very symbiotic relation.

Motivation: The rapid growth of biological data has intensified the need for transparent, reproducible, and well-documented computational workflows. The ability to clearly connect the steps of a workflow in the code with their description in a paper would improve workflow comprehension, support reproducibility, and facilitate reuse. This task requires the linking of bioinformatics tools in workflow code with their mentions in a published workflow description. Results: We present CoPaLink, an automated approach that integrates three components: named entity recognition (NER) for identifying tool mentions in scientific text, NER for tool mentions in workflow code, and entity resolution based on word embedding similarity. We propose approaches for all three steps, achieving a high individual F1-measure (77 - 90) and a joint accuracy of 66 when evaluated on Nextflow workflows using Sentence-BERT. CoPaLink leverages corpora of scientific articles and workflow executable code with curated tool annotations to bridge the gap between narrative descriptions and workflow implementations. Availability: The code is available at https://gitlab.liris.cnrs.fr/sharefair/copalink-experiments and https://gitlab.liris.cnrs.fr/sharefair/copalink. The corpora are also available: CPL-Article (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20746904), CPL-Code (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20746970) and CPL-Gold-Entity-Resolution (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20746994).

ArXiv recently prohibited the upload of unpublished review papers to its servers in the Computer Science domain, citing a high prevalence of LLM-generated content in these categories. However, this decision was not accompanied by quantitative evidence. In this work, we investigate this claim by measuring the proportion of LLM-generated content in review vs. non-review research papers in recent years. Using two high-quality detection methods, we find a substantial increase in LLM-generated content across both review and non-review papers, with a higher prevalence in review papers. However, when considering the number of LLM-generated papers published in each category, the estimates of non-review LLM-generated papers are almost six times higher. Furthermore, we find that this policy will affect papers in certain domains far more than others, with the CS subdiscipline Computers & Society potentially facing cuts of 50%. Our analysis provides an evidence-based framework for evaluating such policy decisions, and we release our code to facilitate future investigations at: https://github.com/yanaiela/llm-review-arxiv.

Across the social and medical sciences, researchers recognize that specifying planned research activities (i.e., 'registration') prior to the commencement of research has benefits for both the transparency and rigour of science. Despite this, evidence suggests that study registrations frequently go unexamined, minimizing their effectiveness. In a way this is no surprise: manually checking registrations against papers is labour- and time-intensive, requiring careful reading across formats and expertise across domains. The advent of AI unlocks new possibilities in facilitating this activity. We present RegCheck, a modular LLM-assisted tool designed to help researchers, reviewers, and editors from across scientific disciplines compare study registrations with their corresponding papers. Importantly, RegCheck keeps human expertise and judgement in the loop by (i) ensuring that users are the ones who determine which features should be compared, and (ii) presenting the most relevant text associated with each feature to the user, facilitating (rather than replacing) human discrepancy judgements. RegCheck also generates shareable reports with unique RegCheck IDs, enabling them to be easily shared and verified by other users. RegCheck is designed to be adaptable across scientific domains, as well as registration and publication formats. In this paper we provide an overview of the motivation, workflow, and design principles of RegCheck, and we discuss its potential as an extensible infrastructure for reproducible science with an example use case.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly generate citation-backed responses, yet citation hallucination remains a major challenge for trustworthy scientific information access. We introduce REASONS, a benchmark of 12,723 sentence-level citation instances spanning 12 arXiv subject categories, designed to evaluate scientific citation attribution under varying evidence conditions. We propose a dual-metric framework consisting of Abstention Rate (AR) and Hallucination Rate (HR) to characterize the trade-off between reliability and responsiveness. Using author-attribution and title-attribution tasks, we evaluate proprietary and open-source LLMs under zero-context, metadata-augmented, cascaded metadata-augmented prompting (CMP), retrieval-augmented, and adversarial settings. Advanced RAG lowers HR relative to Naive RAG (65.4% vs. 87.6%) but reduces AR from 5.0% to 0%. Under adversarial metadata, several systems exceed 85% HR, while retrieval-augmented variants frequently maintain near-zero abstention. Human evaluation of 1,000 outputs ($κ=0.78$) finds a 12.7:1 ratio of factual hallucinations to acceptable paraphrases. Our findings demonstrate that citation attribution systems should be evaluated not only for correctness but also for their ability to abstain appropriately under uncertainty. REASONS provides a benchmark and evaluation framework for studying attribution reliability in citation generation.