Daily Papers

Scientific paper evaluation often involves not only assessing a manuscript itself, but also relating it to contemporaneous research and prior literature. However, existing LLM-based methods typically model these signals separately and lack a unified mechanism for aggregating review evidence across papers. We propose GraphReview, a graph-based LLM framework that formulates paper evaluation as inference-time graph evidence expansion over a semantic paper graph. The graph jointly captures intrinsic quality, synchronic links among contemporaneous papers, and diachronic links to prior work. LLMs are used to estimate node-level quality priors and generate edge-level comparative evidence through pairwise paper comparisons, while Personalized PageRank integrates these structured signals for quality ranking, decision prediction, and review generation. To produce higher-quality graph evidence, we propose reward-induced maximum likelihood objectives for training the LLM backbones. Experiments show that GraphReview consistently outperforms the strongest baseline, achieving average improvements of 29.7% on decision and ranking metrics, including gains of 23.7% in Accuracy and 57.6% in Spearman's ρ. It also produces higher-quality review texts and generalizes effectively across time periods and conference venues.

The ability to estimate the quality of scientific papers is central to how both humans and AI systems will advance scientific knowledge in the future. However, existing LLM-based estimation methods suffer from high inference cost, whereas the faster direct score regression approach is limited by scale inconsistencies. We present NAIPv2, a debiased and efficient framework for paper quality estimation. NAIPv2 employs pairwise learning within domain-year groups to reduce inconsistencies in reviewer ratings and introduces the Review Tendency Signal (RTS) as a probabilistic integration of reviewer scores and confidences. To support training and evaluation, we further construct NAIDv2, a large-scale dataset of 24,276 ICLR submissions enriched with metadata and detailed structured content. Trained on pairwise comparisons but enabling efficient pointwise prediction at deployment, NAIPv2 achieves state-of-the-art performance (78.2% AUC, 0.432 Spearman), while maintaining scalable, linear-time efficiency at inference. Notably, on unseen NeurIPS submissions, it further demonstrates strong generalization, with predicted scores increasing consistently across decision categories from Rejected to Oral. These findings establish NAIPv2 as a debiased and scalable framework for automated paper quality estimation, marking a step toward future scientific intelligence systems. Code and dataset are released at https://sway.cloud.microsoft/Pr42npP80MfPhvj8.

Current developments in large language models (LLMs) have enabled impressive zero-shot capabilities across various natural language tasks. An interesting application of these systems is in the automated assessment of natural language generation (NLG), a highly challenging area with great practical benefit. In this paper, we explore two options for exploiting the emergent abilities of LLMs for zero-shot NLG assessment: absolute score prediction, and comparative assessment which uses relative comparisons between pairs of candidates. Though comparative assessment has not been extensively studied in NLG assessment, we note that humans often find it more intuitive to compare two options rather than scoring each one independently. This work examines comparative assessment from multiple perspectives: performance compared to absolute grading; positional biases in the prompt; and efficient ranking in terms of the number of comparisons. We illustrate that LLM comparative assessment is a simple, general and effective approach for NLG assessment. For moderate-sized open-source LLMs, such as FlanT5 and Llama2-chat, comparative assessment is superior to prompt scoring, and in many cases can achieve performance competitive with state-of-the-art methods. Additionally, we demonstrate that LLMs often exhibit strong positional biases when making pairwise comparisons, and we propose debiasing methods that can further improve performance.

Today, comprehensive evaluation of large-scale machine learning models is possible thanks to the open datasets produced using crowdsourcing, such as SQuAD, MS COCO, ImageNet, SuperGLUE, etc. These datasets capture objective responses, assuming the single correct answer, which does not allow to capture the subjective human perception. In turn, pairwise comparison tasks, in which one has to choose between only two options, allow taking peoples' preferences into account for very challenging artificial intelligence tasks, such as information retrieval and recommender system evaluation. Unfortunately, the available datasets are either small or proprietary, slowing down progress in gathering better feedback from human users. In this paper, we present IMDB-WIKI-SbS, a new large-scale dataset for evaluating pairwise comparisons. It contains 9,150 images appearing in 250,249 pairs annotated on a crowdsourcing platform. Our dataset has balanced distributions of age and gender using the well-known IMDB-WIKI dataset as ground truth. We describe how our dataset is built and then compare several baseline methods, indicating its suitability for model evaluation.

The Minimum Weighted Feedback Arc Set (MWFAS) problem is closely related to the task of deriving a global ranking from pairwise comparisons. Recent work by He et al. (ICML 2022) advanced the state of the art on ranking benchmarks using learning based methods, but did not examine the underlying connection to MWFAS. In this paper, we investigate this relationship and introduce efficient combinatorial algorithms for solving MWFAS as a means of addressing the ranking problem. Our experimental results show that these simple, learning free methods achieve substantially faster runtimes than recent learning based approaches, while also delivering competitive, and in many cases superior, ranking accuracy. These findings suggest that lightweight combinatorial techniques offer a scalable and effective alternative to deep learning for large scale ranking tasks.

With the advent of highly capable instruction-tuned neural language models, benchmarking in natural language processing (NLP) is increasingly shifting towards pairwise comparison leaderboards, such as LMSYS Arena, from traditional global pointwise scores (e.g., GLUE, BIG-bench, SWE-bench). This paper empirically investigates the strengths and weaknesses of both global scores and pairwise comparisons to aid decision-making in selecting appropriate model evaluation strategies. Through computational experiments on synthetic and real-world datasets using standard global metrics and the popular Bradley-Terry model for pairwise comparisons, we found that while global scores provide more reliable overall rankings, they can underestimate strong models with rare, significant errors or low confidence. Conversely, pairwise comparisons are particularly effective for identifying strong contenders among models with lower global scores, especially where quality metrics are hard to define (e.g., text generation), though they require more comparisons to converge if ties are frequent. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/HSPyroblast/srw-ranking under a permissive license.

Large language models (LLMs) are currently applied to scientific paper evaluation by assigning an absolute score to each paper independently. However, since score scales vary across conferences, time periods, and evaluation criteria, models trained on absolute scores are prone to fitting narrow, context-specific rules rather than developing robust scholarly judgment. To overcome this limitation, we propose shifting paper evaluation from isolated scoring to collaborative ranking. In particular, we design Comparison-Native framework for Paper Evaluation (CNPE), integrating comparison into both data construction and model learning. We first propose a graph-based similarity ranking algorithm to facilitate the sampling of more informative and discriminative paper pairs from a collection. We then enhance relative quality judgment through supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning with comparison-based rewards. At inference, the model performs pairwise comparisons over sampled paper pairs and aggregates these preference signals into a global relative quality ranking. Experimental results demonstrate that our framework achieves an average relative improvement of 21.8\% over the strong baseline DeepReview-14B, while exhibiting robust generalization to five previously unseen datasets. https://github.com/ECNU-Text-Computing/ComparisonReview{Code}.

Generative models, such as large language models and text-to-image diffusion models, are increasingly used to create visual designs like user interfaces (UIs) and presentation slides. Finetuning and benchmarking these generative models have often relied on datasets of human-annotated design preferences. Yet, due to the subjective and highly personalized nature of visual design, preference varies widely among individuals. In this paper, we study this problem by introducing DesignPref, a dataset of 12k pairwise comparisons of UI design generation annotated by 20 professional designers with multi-level preference ratings. We found that among trained designers, substantial levels of disagreement exist (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.25 for binary preferences). Natural language rationales provided by these designers indicate that disagreements stem from differing perceptions of various design aspect importance and individual preferences. With DesignPref, we demonstrate that traditional majority-voting methods for training aggregated judge models often do not accurately reflect individual preferences. To address this challenge, we investigate multiple personalization strategies, particularly fine-tuning or incorporating designer-specific annotations into RAG pipelines. Our results show that personalized models consistently outperform aggregated baseline models in predicting individual designers' preferences, even when using 20 times fewer examples. Our work provides the first dataset to study personalized visual design evaluation and support future research into modeling individual design taste.

Unsupervised image representations have significantly reduced the gap with supervised pretraining, notably with the recent achievements of contrastive learning methods. These contrastive methods typically work online and rely on a large number of explicit pairwise feature comparisons, which is computationally challenging. In this paper, we propose an online algorithm, SwAV, that takes advantage of contrastive methods without requiring to compute pairwise comparisons. Specifically, our method simultaneously clusters the data while enforcing consistency between cluster assignments produced for different augmentations (or views) of the same image, instead of comparing features directly as in contrastive learning. Simply put, we use a swapped prediction mechanism where we predict the cluster assignment of a view from the representation of another view. Our method can be trained with large and small batches and can scale to unlimited amounts of data. Compared to previous contrastive methods, our method is more memory efficient since it does not require a large memory bank or a special momentum network. In addition, we also propose a new data augmentation strategy, multi-crop, that uses a mix of views with different resolutions in place of two full-resolution views, without increasing the memory or compute requirements much. We validate our findings by achieving 75.3% top-1 accuracy on ImageNet with ResNet-50, as well as surpassing supervised pretraining on all the considered transfer tasks.

Pairwise re-ranking models predict which of two documents is more relevant to a query and then aggregate a final ranking from such preferences. This is often more effective than pointwise re-ranking models that directly predict a relevance value for each document. However, the high inference overhead of pairwise models limits their practical application: usually, for a set of k documents to be re-ranked, preferences for all k^2-k comparison pairs excluding self-comparisons are aggregated. We investigate whether the efficiency of pairwise re-ranking can be improved by sampling from all pairs. In an exploratory study, we evaluate three sampling methods and five preference aggregation methods. The best combination allows for an order of magnitude fewer comparisons at an acceptable loss of retrieval effectiveness, while competitive effectiveness is already achieved with about one third of the comparisons.

With the rapid and continuous increase in academic publications, identifying high-quality research has become an increasingly pressing challenge. While recent methods leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated paper evaluation have shown great promise, they are often constrained by outdated domain knowledge and limited reasoning capabilities. In this work, we present PaperEval, a novel LLM-based framework for automated paper evaluation that addresses these limitations through two key components: 1) a domain-aware paper retrieval module that retrieves relevant concurrent work to support contextualized assessments of novelty and contributions, and 2) a latent reasoning mechanism that enables deep understanding of complex motivations and methodologies, along with comprehensive comparison against concurrently related work, to support more accurate and reliable evaluation. To guide the reasoning process, we introduce a progressive ranking optimization strategy that encourages the LLM to iteratively refine its predictions with an emphasis on relative comparison. Experiments on two datasets demonstrate that PaperEval consistently outperforms existing methods in both academic impact and paper quality evaluation. In addition, we deploy PaperEval in a real-world paper recommendation system for filtering high-quality papers, which has gained strong engagement on social media -- amassing over 8,000 subscribers and attracting over 10,000 views for many filtered high-quality papers -- demonstrating the practical effectiveness of PaperEval.

Creativity evaluation remains a challenging frontier for large language models (LLMs). Current evaluations heavily rely on inefficient and costly human judgments, hindering progress in enhancing machine creativity. While automated methods exist, ranging from psychological testing to heuristic- or prompting-based approaches, they often lack generalizability or alignment with human judgment. To address these issues, in this paper, we propose a novel pairwise-comparison framework for assessing textual creativity, leveraging shared contextual instructions to improve evaluation consistency. We introduce CreataSet, a large-scale dataset with 100K+ human-level and 1M+ synthetic creative instruction-response pairs spanning diverse open-domain tasks. Through training on CreataSet, we develop an LLM-based evaluator named CrEval. CrEval demonstrates remarkable superiority over existing methods in alignment with human judgments. Experimental results underscore the indispensable significance of integrating both human-generated and synthetic data in training highly robust evaluators, and showcase the practical utility of CrEval in boosting the creativity of LLMs. We will release all data, code, and models publicly soon to support further research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities as automatic evaluators in assessing the quality of generated natural language. However, LLMs still exhibit biases in evaluation and often struggle to generate coherent evaluations that align with human assessments. In this work, we first conduct a systematic study of the misalignment between LLM evaluators and human judgement, revealing that existing calibration methods aimed at mitigating biases are insufficient for effectively aligning LLM evaluators. Inspired by the use of preference data in RLHF, we formulate the evaluation as a ranking problem and introduce Pairwise-preference Search (PairS), an uncertainty-guided search method that employs LLMs to conduct pairwise comparisons and efficiently ranks candidate texts. PairS achieves state-of-the-art performance on representative evaluation tasks and demonstrates significant improvements over direct scoring. Furthermore, we provide insights into the role of pairwise preference in quantifying the transitivity of LLMs and demonstrate how PairS benefits from calibration.

Traditional document similarity measures provide a coarse-grained distinction between similar and dissimilar documents. Typically, they do not consider in what aspects two documents are similar. This limits the granularity of applications like recommender systems that rely on document similarity. In this paper, we extend similarity with aspect information by performing a pairwise document classification task. We evaluate our aspect-based document similarity for research papers. Paper citations indicate the aspect-based similarity, i.e., the section title in which a citation occurs acts as a label for the pair of citing and cited paper. We apply a series of Transformer models such as RoBERTa, ELECTRA, XLNet, and BERT variations and compare them to an LSTM baseline. We perform our experiments on two newly constructed datasets of 172,073 research paper pairs from the ACL Anthology and CORD-19 corpus. Our results show SciBERT as the best performing system. A qualitative examination validates our quantitative results. Our findings motivate future research of aspect-based document similarity and the development of a recommender system based on the evaluated techniques. We make our datasets, code, and trained models publicly available.

The rapid advancement of Large Language Models (LLMs) necessitates robust evaluation methodologies. Current benchmarking approaches often rely on comparing model outputs against predefined prompts and reference outputs. Relying on predefined reference outputs hinders flexible adaptation of benchmarks to the rapidly evolving capabilities of LLMs. This limitation necessitates periodic efforts to prepare new benchmarks. To keep pace with rapidly evolving LLM capabilities, we propose a more flexible benchmarking approach. Our method, \textbf{Varco Arena}, provides reference-free benchmarking of LLMs in tournament style. \textbf{Varco Arena} directly compares LLM outputs across a diverse set of prompts, determining model rankings through a single-elimination tournament structure. This direct pairwise comparison offers two key advantages: (1) Direct comparison, unmediated by reference text, more effectively orders competing LLMs, resulting in more reliable rankings, and (2) reference-free approach to benchmarking adds flexibility in updating benchmark prompts by eliminating the need for quality references. Our empirical results, supported by simulation experiments, demonstrate that the \textbf{Varco Arena} tournament approach aligns better with the current Elo model for benchmarking LLMs. The alignment is measured in terms of Spearman correlation, showing improvement over current practice of benchmarking that use reference outputs as comparison anchors.

Efficiently ranking relevant items from large candidate pools is a cornerstone of modern information retrieval systems -- such as web search, recommendation, and retrieval-augmented generation. Listwise rerankers, which improve relevance by jointly considering multiple candidates, are often limited in practice: either by model input size constraints, or by degraded quality when processing large sets. We propose a model-agnostic method for fast reranking large sets that exceed a model input limits. The method first partitions candidate items into overlapping blocks, each of which is ranked independently in parallel. Implicit pairwise comparisons are then derived from these local rankings. Finally, these comparisons are aggregated to construct a global ranking using algorithms such as Winrate or PageRank. Experiments on TREC DL-2019 show that our method achieves an nDCG@10 of 70.88 compared to the 57.68 for full-context listwise approach using gpt-4.1-mini as long-context model, while reducing latency from 21 to 8 seconds. The implementation of the algorithm and the experiments is available in the repository: https://github.com/V3RGANz/jointrank

Many tasks revolve around editing a document, whether code or text. We formulate the revision similarity problem to unify a wide range of machine learning evaluation problems whose goal is to assess a revision to an existing document. We observe that revisions usually change only a small portion of an existing document, so the existing document and its immediate revisions share a majority of their content. We formulate five adequacy criteria for revision similarity measures, designed to align them with human judgement. We show that popular pairwise measures, like BLEU, fail to meet these criteria, because their scores are dominated by the shared content. They report high similarity between two revisions when humans would assess them as quite different. This is a fundamental flaw we address. We propose a novel static measure, Excision Score (ES), which computes longest common subsequence (LCS) to remove content shared by an existing document with the ground truth and predicted revisions, before comparing only the remaining divergent regions. This is analogous to a surgeon creating a sterile field to focus on the work area. We use approximation to speed the standard cubic LCS computation to quadratic. In code-editing evaluation, where static measures are often used as a cheap proxy for passing tests, we demonstrate that ES surpasses existing measures. When aligned with test execution on HumanEvalFix, ES improves over its nearest competitor, SARI, by 12% Pearson correlation and by >21% over standard measures like BLEU. The key criterion is invariance to shared context; when we perturb HumanEvalFix with increased shared context, ES' improvement over SARI increases to 20% and >30% over standard measures. ES also handles other corner cases that other measures do not, such as correctly aligning moved code blocks, and appropriately rewarding matching insertions or deletions.

Many peer-review venues are using algorithms to assign submissions to reviewers. The crux of such automated approaches is the notion of the "similarity score" -- a numerical estimate of the expertise of a reviewer in reviewing a paper -- and many algorithms have been proposed to compute these scores. However, these algorithms have not been subjected to a principled comparison, making it difficult for stakeholders to choose the algorithm in an evidence-based manner. The key challenge in comparing existing algorithms and developing better algorithms is the lack of publicly available gold-standard data. We address this challenge by collecting a novel dataset of similarity scores that we release to the research community. Our dataset consists of 477 self-reported expertise scores provided by 58 researchers who evaluated their expertise in reviewing papers they have read previously. Using our dataset, we compare several widely used similarity algorithms and offer key insights. First, all algorithms exhibit significant error, with misranking rates between 12%-30% in easier cases and 36%-43% in harder ones. Second, most specialized algorithms are designed to work with titles and abstracts of papers, and in this regime the SPECTER2 algorithm performs best. Interestingly, classical TF-IDF matches SPECTER2 in accuracy when given access to full submission texts. In contrast, off-the-shelf LLMs lag behind specialized approaches.

Given the rapid ascent of large language models (LLMs), we study the question: (How) can large language models help in reviewing of scientific papers or proposals? We first conduct some pilot studies where we find that (i) GPT-4 outperforms other LLMs (Bard, Vicuna, Koala, Alpaca, LLaMa, Dolly, OpenAssistant, StableLM), and (ii) prompting with a specific question (e.g., to identify errors) outperforms prompting to simply write a review. With these insights, we study the use of LLMs (specifically, GPT-4) for three tasks: 1. Identifying errors: We construct 13 short computer science papers each with a deliberately inserted error, and ask the LLM to check for the correctness of these papers. We observe that the LLM finds errors in 7 of them, spanning both mathematical and conceptual errors. 2. Verifying checklists: We task the LLM to verify 16 closed-ended checklist questions in the respective sections of 15 NeurIPS 2022 papers. We find that across 119 {checklist question, paper} pairs, the LLM had an 86.6% accuracy. 3. Choosing the "better" paper: We generate 10 pairs of abstracts, deliberately designing each pair in such a way that one abstract was clearly superior than the other. The LLM, however, struggled to discern these relatively straightforward distinctions accurately, committing errors in its evaluations for 6 out of the 10 pairs. Based on these experiments, we think that LLMs have a promising use as reviewing assistants for specific reviewing tasks, but not (yet) for complete evaluations of papers or proposals.

Recent advances have made long-form report-generating systems widely available. This has prompted evaluation frameworks that use LLM-as-judge protocols and claim verification, along with meta-evaluation frameworks that seek to validate these methods. Many of the meta-evaluations estimate an evaluation quality's by comparing its assessments against human pairwise preferences. Prior work, however, suggests that human pairwise preference may be overly simplistic and can fail to capture nuances of expert expectations. We conduct a case study in meta-evaluation for long-form QA benchmarks using ScholarQA-CS2, a benchmark designed for assessing retrieval-augmented deep-research QA in the scientific domain. We comprehensively validate the benchmark through human pairwise preference judgments, then critically examine the strengths, weaknesses, and confounders of this approach. We show that pairwise preference rankings are best suited for system-level evaluation, while explicit metric-wise annotations and expert annotators are critical for reliable metric-level assessment, with subjectivity remaining a key challenge. Based on our findings, we offer practical guidelines for designing future meta-evaluations that better align evaluation methods, annotator expertise, and reporting practices. By surfacing these methodological challenges, we aim to advance evaluation standards for deep-research systems.

Large Language Models have shown strong potential as rerankers to enhance the overall performance of RAG systems. However, existing reranking paradigms are constrained by a core theoretical and practical dilemma: Pointwise methods, while simple and highly flexible, evaluate documents independently, making them prone to the Ranking Myopia Trap, overlooking the relative importance between documents. In contrast, Listwise methods can perceive the global ranking context, but suffer from inherent List Rigidity, leading to severe scalability and flexibility issues when handling large candidate sets. To address these challenges, we propose Groupwise, a novel reranking paradigm. In this approach, the query and a group of candidate documents are jointly fed into the model, which performs within-group comparisons to assign individual relevance scores to each document. This design retains the flexibility of Pointwise methods while enabling the comparative capability of Listwise methods. We further adopt GRPO for model training, equipped with a heterogeneous reward function that integrates ranking metrics with a distributional reward aimed at aligning score distributions across groups. To overcome the bottleneck caused by the scarcity of high quality labeled data, we further propose an innovative pipeline for synthesizing high quality retrieval and ranking data. The resulting data can be leveraged not only for training the reranker but also for training the retriever. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness of our approach. On two reasoning intensive retrieval benchmarks, BRIGHT and R2MED.

As large-language models have been increasingly used as automatic raters for evaluating free-form content, including document summarization, dialog, and story generation, work has been dedicated to evaluating such models by measuring their correlations with human judgment. For sample-level performance, methods which operate by using pairwise comparisons between machine-generated text perform well but often lack the ability to assign absolute scores to individual summaries, an ability crucial for use cases that require thresholding. In this work, we propose a direct-scoring method which uses synthetic summaries to act as pairwise machine rankings at test time. We show that our method performs comparably to state-of-the-art pairwise evaluators in terms of axis-averaged sample-level correlations on the SummEval (+0.03), TopicalChat (-0.03), and HANNA (+0.05) meta-evaluation benchmarks, and release the synthetic in-context summaries as data to facilitate future work.

Medical systematic reviews typically require assessing all the documents retrieved by a search. The reason is two-fold: the task aims for ``total recall''; and documents retrieved using Boolean search are an unordered set, and thus it is unclear how an assessor could examine only a subset. Screening prioritisation is the process of ranking the (unordered) set of retrieved documents, allowing assessors to begin the downstream processes of the systematic review creation earlier, leading to earlier completion of the review, or even avoiding screening documents ranked least relevant. Screening prioritisation requires highly effective ranking methods. Pre-trained language models are state-of-the-art on many IR tasks but have yet to be applied to systematic review screening prioritisation. In this paper, we apply several pre-trained language models to the systematic review document ranking task, both directly and fine-tuned. An empirical analysis compares how effective neural methods compare to traditional methods for this task. We also investigate different types of document representations for neural methods and their impact on ranking performance. Our results show that BERT-based rankers outperform the current state-of-the-art screening prioritisation methods. However, BERT rankers and existing methods can actually be complementary, and thus, further improvements may be achieved if used in conjunction.

Automatic literature survey generation has attracted increasing attention, yet most existing systems follow a one-shot paradigm, where a large set of papers is retrieved at once and a static outline is generated before drafting. This design often leads to noisy retrieval, fragmented structures, and context overload, ultimately limiting survey quality. Inspired by the iterative reading process of human researchers, we propose \ours, a framework based on recurrent outline generation, in which a planning agent incrementally retrieves, reads, and updates the outline to ensure both exploration and coherence. To provide faithful paper-level grounding, we design paper cards that distill each paper into its contributions, methods, and findings, and introduce a review-and-refine loop with visualization enhancement to improve textual flow and integrate multimodal elements such as figures and tables. Experiments on both established and emerging topics show that \ours\ substantially outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in content coverage, structural coherence, and citation quality, while producing more accessible and better-organized surveys. To provide a more reliable assessment of such improvements, we further introduce Survey-Arena, a pairwise benchmark that complements absolute scoring and more clearly positions machine-generated surveys relative to human-written ones. The code is available at https://github.com/HancCui/IterSurvey\_Autosurveyv2.

Understanding scientific papers requires more than answering isolated questions or summarizing content. It involves an integrated reasoning process that grounds textual and visual information, interprets experimental evidence, synthesizes information across sources, and critically evaluates scientific claims. However, existing benchmarks typically assess these abilities in isolation, making it difficult to evaluate scientific paper understanding as a unified set of interacting cognitive abilities. In this work, we introduce PAPERMIND, a benchmark designed to evaluate integrated and agent-oriented scientific reasoning over research papers. PAPERMIND is constructed from real scientific papers across seven domains, including agriculture, biology, chemistry, computer science, medicine, physics, and economics. It comprises four complementary task families that collectively operationalize distinct cognitive facets of scientific paper reasoning, including multimodal grounding, experimental interpretation, cross-source evidence reasoning, and critical assessment. By analyzing model behavior across multiple tasks, PAPERMIND enables a diagnostic evaluation of integrated scientific reasoning behaviors that are difficult to assess through isolated task evaluations. Extensive experiments on both opensource and closed-source multimodal LLMs reveal consistent performance gaps across tasks, highlighting persistent challenges in integrated scientific reasoning and critique. Our benchmark and dataset are available at https:// github.com/Yanjun-Zhao/PaperMind.

Ranking passages by prompting a large language model (LLM) can achieve promising performance in modern information retrieval (IR) systems. A common approach is to sort the ranking list by prompting LLMs for pairwise comparison. However, sorting-based methods require consistent comparisons to correctly sort the passages, which we show that LLMs often violate. We identify two kinds of intrinsic inconsistency in LLM-based pairwise comparisons: order inconsistency which leads to conflicting results when switching the passage order, and transitive inconsistency which leads to non-transitive triads among all preference pairs. In this paper, we propose LLM-RankFusion, an LLM-based ranking framework that mitigates these inconsistencies and produces a robust ranking list. LLM-RankFusion mitigates order inconsistency using in-context learning (ICL) to demonstrate order-agnostic comparisons and calibration to estimate the underlying preference probability between two passages. We then address transitive inconsistency by aggregating the ranking results from multiple rankers. In our experiments, we empirically show that LLM-RankFusion can significantly reduce inconsistent pairwise comparison results, and improve the ranking quality by making the final ranking list more robust.

Scientific paper recommendation is typically evaluated as static ranking over a fixed candidate set, yet real scientific reading unfolds as a daily, longitudinal process in which interests shift and feedback accumulates. We introduce PaperFlow, a framework that organizes it into three coupled stages: Profiling, which constructs and maintains a structured, inspectable scholarly profile from heterogeneous cold-start evidence; Recommending, which ranks each date-specific paper stream through multi-signal aggregation under a fixed display budget; and Adapting, which updates user state from semantically distinct feedback signals and models interest drift across days. We further define a longitudinal user-day benchmark that fixes users, dates, candidate pools, visible inputs, and hidden simulated relevance labels under a shared temporal information boundary. The benchmark contains 24 simulated research users, 50 daily paper streams, 1,200 user-day episodes, 20,727 unique papers, and 497,448 episode-paper records. We additionally specify a blind human-evaluation protocol to validate alignment between automatic metrics and expert judgments. Experiments against five scientific recommendation baselines show that PaperFlow achieves the strongest oracle-based ranking, the highest behavioral alignment with simulated reading selections, and the best blind human-evaluation score.

This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents. While AI-driven paper writing has become a growing concern, rigorous evaluation of the quality and potential risks of AI-written papers remains limited, and a unified understanding of their reliability is still lacking. We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal additional resources, and the result is subsequently compared against the original paper. PaperRecon disentangles the evaluation of the AI-written papers into two orthogonal dimensions, Presentation and Hallucination, where Presentation is evaluated using a rubric and Hallucination is assessed via agentic evaluation grounded in the original paper source. For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025. Our experiments reveal a clear trade-off: while both ClaudeCode and Codex improve with model advances, ClaudeCode achieves higher presentation quality at the cost of more than 10 hallucinations per paper on average, whereas Codex produces fewer hallucinations but lower presentation quality. This work takes a first step toward establishing evaluation frameworks for AI-driven paper writing and improving the understanding of its risks within the research community.

We introduce a novel framework for analyzing sorting algorithms in pairwise ranking prompting (PRP), re-centering the cost model around LLM inferences rather than traditional pairwise comparisons. While classical metrics based on comparison counts have traditionally been used to gauge efficiency, our analysis reveals that expensive LLM inferences overturn these predictions; accordingly, our framework encourages strategies such as batching and caching to mitigate inference costs. We show that algorithms optimal in the classical setting can lose efficiency when LLM inferences dominate the cost under certain optimizations.

Existing cross-encoder models can be categorized as pointwise, pairwise, or listwise. Pairwise and listwise models allow passage interactions, which typically makes them more effective than pointwise models but less efficient and less robust to input passage order permutations. To enable efficient permutation-invariant passage interactions during re-ranking, we propose a new cross-encoder architecture with inter-passage attention: the Set-Encoder. In experiments on TREC Deep Learning and TIREx, the Set-Encoder is as effective as state-of-the-art listwise models while being more efficient and invariant to input passage order permutations. Compared to pointwise models, the Set-Encoder is particularly more effective when considering inter-passage information, such as novelty, and retains its advantageous properties compared to other listwise models. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/webis-de/ECIR-25.

Reranker models aim to re-rank the passages based on the semantics similarity between the given query and passages, which have recently received more attention due to the wide application of the Retrieval-Augmented Generation. Most previous methods apply pointwise encoding, meaning that it can only encode the context of the query for each passage input into the model. However, for the reranker model, given a query, the comparison results between passages are even more important, which is called listwise encoding. Besides, previous models are trained using the cross-entropy loss function, which leads to issues of unsmooth gradient changes during training and low training efficiency. To address these issues, we propose a novel Listwise-encoded Contrastive text reRanker (ListConRanker). It can help the passage to be compared with other passages during the encoding process, and enhance the contrastive information between positive examples and between positive and negative examples. At the same time, we use the circle loss to train the model to increase the flexibility of gradients and solve the problem of training efficiency. Experimental results show that ListConRanker achieves state-of-the-art performance on the reranking benchmark of Chinese Massive Text Embedding Benchmark, including the cMedQA1.0, cMedQA2.0, MMarcoReranking, and T2Reranking datasets.

By consolidating scattered knowledge, the literature review provides a comprehensive understanding of the investigated topic. However, reading, conducting, or peer-reviewing review papers generally demands a significant investment of time and effort from researchers. To improve efficiency, this paper aims to provide a thorough review of reviews in the PAMI field from diverse perspectives. First, this paper proposes several article-level, field-normalized, and large language model-empowered bibliometric indicators to evaluate reviews. To facilitate this, a meta-data database dubbed RiPAMI, and a topic dataset are constructed. Second, based on these indicators, the study presents comparative analyses of representative reviews, unveiling the characteristics of publications across various fields, periods, and journals. The newly emerging AI-generated literature reviews are also appraised, and the observed differences suggest that most AI-generated reviews still lag behind human-authored reviews in multiple aspects. Third, we briefly provide a subjective evaluation of representative PAMI reviews and introduce a paper structure-based typology of literature reviews. This typology may improve the clarity and effectiveness for scholars in reading and writing reviews, while also serving as a guide for AI systems in generating well-organized reviews. Finally, this work offers insights into the current challenges of literature reviews and envisions future directions for their development.

Language models are known to hallucinate incorrect information, and it is unclear if they are sufficiently accurate and reliable for use in scientific research. We developed a rigorous human-AI comparison methodology to evaluate language model agents on real-world literature search tasks covering information retrieval, summarization, and contradiction detection tasks. We show that PaperQA2, a frontier language model agent optimized for improved factuality, matches or exceeds subject matter expert performance on three realistic literature research tasks without any restrictions on humans (i.e., full access to internet, search tools, and time). PaperQA2 writes cited, Wikipedia-style summaries of scientific topics that are significantly more accurate than existing, human-written Wikipedia articles. We also introduce a hard benchmark for scientific literature research called LitQA2 that guided design of PaperQA2, leading to it exceeding human performance. Finally, we apply PaperQA2 to identify contradictions within the scientific literature, an important scientific task that is challenging for humans. PaperQA2 identifies 2.34 +/- 1.99 contradictions per paper in a random subset of biology papers, of which 70% are validated by human experts. These results demonstrate that language model agents are now capable of exceeding domain experts across meaningful tasks on scientific literature.

As large language models and AI agents become the primary consumers of search results, document set quality determines the upper bound of downstream generation. Yet existing evaluation systems remain confined to scoring documents independently and aggregating via nDCG, ignoring inter-document interactions (redundancy, conflict, complementarity) and unable to answer what makes one document set better than another. To address these issues, we propose a complete evaluate-diagnose-optimize framework. We design SetwiseEvalKit, a three-level, nine-dimension document set evaluation benchmark covering both short-form and long-form scenarios, comprising approximately 28K high-quality evaluation rubrics. We systematically evaluate 12 rerankers: even the best method achieves no more than 45% coverage, cross-document coordination dimensions are universally weak, and no single method maintains top performance across both settings. Building on this, we propose Rubric4Setwise, a training-free method that converts rubric-based evaluation criteria into document set selection signals, achieving the best downstream generation performance with fewer documents and search rounds. It is the only method that maintains state-of-the-art results across both scenarios, validating the effectiveness of closing the loop from evaluation to optimization.

Methodological progress in artificial intelligence (AI) for electronic health records (EHRs) depends on our ability to determine which algorithms work better, and under which conditions. However, such progress is thought to be hindered by difficulties in reproducibility and in defining clinically meaningful evaluation tasks. We empirically study these barriers by re-implementing 12 historical and recent algorithms within a shared evaluation framework and evaluating them on two clinical datasets, MIMIC-IV and NWICU. We compare two complementary task families: expert-authored clinically meaningful tasks and generated tasks defined from randomly sampled event codes and prediction horizons. We ask whether relative algorithms comparisons transfer across task families and datasets, whether residual task heterogeneity contains useful methodological structure, and what a controlled comparison reveals about progress over the last decade. We find that aggregate pairwise comparisons transfer strongly across evaluation settings, including from randomly generated tasks to clinically meaningful tasks and across datasets. At the same time, clinically meaningful tasks exhibit greater task-method interaction, providing preliminary evidence that task properties can help explain when particular modeling choices are advantageous. Finally, newer algorithms do not consistently outperform earlier approaches: gradient-boosted trees remain highly competitive when paired with a modern, wide and sparse representation of the EHR. Together, these results suggest that useful methodological knowledge may require less task engineering than commonly assumed, while highlighting the importance of understanding the structured heterogeneity that remains across tasks and methods.

Comparative settings (e.g. pairwise choice, listwise ranking) have been adopted by a wide range of subjective studies for image quality assessment (IQA), as it inherently standardizes the evaluation criteria across different observers and offer more clear-cut responses. In this work, we extend the edge of emerging large multi-modality models (LMMs) to further advance visual quality comparison into open-ended settings, that 1) can respond to open-range questions on quality comparison; 2) can provide detailed reasonings beyond direct answers. To this end, we propose the Co-Instruct. To train this first-of-its-kind open-source open-ended visual quality comparer, we collect the Co-Instruct-562K dataset, from two sources: (a) LMM-merged single image quality description, (b) GPT-4V "teacher" responses on unlabeled data. Furthermore, to better evaluate this setting, we propose the MICBench, the first benchmark on multi-image comparison for LMMs. We demonstrate that Co-Instruct not only achieves 30% higher superior accuracy than state-of-the-art open-source LMMs, but also outperforms GPT-4V (its teacher), on both existing related benchmarks and the proposed MICBench. Our model is published at https://huggingface.co/q-future/co-instruct.

We study the ranking of individuals, teams, or objects, based on pairwise comparisons between them, using the Bradley-Terry model. Estimates of rankings within this model are commonly made using a simple iterative algorithm first introduced by Zermelo almost a century ago. Here we describe an alternative and similarly simple iteration that provably returns identical results but does so much faster -- over a hundred times faster in some cases. We demonstrate this algorithm with applications to a range of example data sets and derive a number of results regarding its convergence.

Document embeddings and similarity measures underpin content-based recommender systems, whereby a document is commonly represented as a single generic embedding. However, similarity computed on single vector representations provides only one perspective on document similarity that ignores which aspects make two documents alike. To address this limitation, aspect-based similarity measures have been developed using document segmentation or pairwise multi-class document classification. While segmentation harms the document coherence, the pairwise classification approach scales poorly to large scale corpora. In this paper, we treat aspect-based similarity as a classical vector similarity problem in aspect-specific embedding spaces. We represent a document not as a single generic embedding but as multiple specialized embeddings. Our approach avoids document segmentation and scales linearly w.r.t.the corpus size. In an empirical study, we use the Papers with Code corpus containing 157,606 research papers and consider the task, method, and dataset of the respective research papers as their aspects. We compare and analyze three generic document embeddings, six specialized document embeddings and a pairwise classification baseline in the context of research paper recommendations. As generic document embeddings, we consider FastText, SciBERT, and SPECTER. To compute the specialized document embeddings, we compare three alternative methods inspired by retrofitting, fine-tuning, and Siamese networks. In our experiments, Siamese SciBERT achieved the highest scores. Additional analyses indicate an implicit bias of the generic document embeddings towards the dataset aspect and against the method aspect of each research paper. Our approach of aspect-based document embeddings mitigates potential risks arising from implicit biases by making them explicit.

In recent years, the rapid increase in scientific papers has overwhelmed traditional review mechanisms, resulting in varying quality of publications. Although existing methods have explored the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated scientific reviewing, their generated contents are often generic or partial. To address the issues above, we introduce an automated paper reviewing framework SEA. It comprises of three modules: Standardization, Evaluation, and Analysis, which are represented by models SEA-S, SEA-E, and SEA-A, respectively. Initially, SEA-S distills data standardization capabilities of GPT-4 for integrating multiple reviews for a paper. Then, SEA-E utilizes standardized data for fine-tuning, enabling it to generate constructive reviews. Finally, SEA-A introduces a new evaluation metric called mismatch score to assess the consistency between paper contents and reviews. Moreover, we design a self-correction strategy to enhance the consistency. Extensive experimental results on datasets collected from eight venues show that SEA can generate valuable insights for authors to improve their papers.

Despite recent advances in text-to-3D generative methods, there is a notable absence of reliable evaluation metrics. Existing metrics usually focus on a single criterion each, such as how well the asset aligned with the input text. These metrics lack the flexibility to generalize to different evaluation criteria and might not align well with human preferences. Conducting user preference studies is an alternative that offers both adaptability and human-aligned results. User studies, however, can be very expensive to scale. This paper presents an automatic, versatile, and human-aligned evaluation metric for text-to-3D generative models. To this end, we first develop a prompt generator using GPT-4V to generate evaluating prompts, which serve as input to compare text-to-3D models. We further design a method instructing GPT-4V to compare two 3D assets according to user-defined criteria. Finally, we use these pairwise comparison results to assign these models Elo ratings. Experimental results suggest our metric strongly align with human preference across different evaluation criteria.

Best-of-N (BoN) sampling, a common strategy for test-time scaling of Large Language Models (LLMs), relies on reward models to select the best candidate solution from multiple generations. However, traditional reward models often assign arbitrary and inconsistent scores, limiting their effectiveness. To address this, we propose a Pairwise Reward Model (Pairwise RM) combined with a knockout tournament for BoN sampling. Instead of assigning absolute scores, given one math problem, Pairwise RM evaluates two candidate solutions' correctness simultaneously. This approach eliminates the need for arbitrary scoring and enables cross-validation of solutions through parallel comparison. In the knockout tournament, Pairwise RM conducts pairwise comparisons between candidate solutions and eliminates the incorrect ones iteratively. We construct \ourdataset, a large-scale dataset of 443K pairwise comparisons derived from NumiaMath and annotated using gemini-1.5-flash, and train the Pairwise RM via supervised fine-tuning. Experiments on MATH-500 and the Olympiad Bench demonstrate significant improvements over traditional discriminative reward models. And a 40\% to 60\% relative improvement is achieved on the top 50\% challenging problems.

The rapid growth of scientific literature has made it increasingly difficult for researchers to efficiently discover, evaluate, and synthesize relevant work. Recent advances in multi-agent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong potential for understanding user intent and are being trained to utilize various tools. In this paper, we introduce Paper Circle, a multi-agent research discovery and analysis system designed to reduce the effort required to find, assess, organize, and understand academic literature. The system comprises two complementary pipelines: (1) a Discovery Pipeline that integrates offline and online retrieval from multiple sources, multi-criteria scoring, diversity-aware ranking, and structured outputs; and (2) an Analysis Pipeline that transforms individual papers into structured knowledge graphs with typed nodes such as concepts, methods, experiments, and figures, enabling graph-aware question answering and coverage verification. Both pipelines are implemented within a coder LLM-based multi-agent orchestration framework and produce fully reproducible, synchronized outputs including JSON, CSV, BibTeX, Markdown, and HTML at each agent step. This paper describes the system architecture, agent roles, retrieval and scoring methods, knowledge graph schema, and evaluation interfaces that together form the Paper Circle research workflow. We benchmark Paper Circle on both paper retrieval and paper review generation, reporting hit rate, MRR, and Recall at K. Results show consistent improvements with stronger agent models. We have publicly released the website at https://papercircle.vercel.app/ and the code at https://github.com/MAXNORM8650/papercircle.

Professional-document review is a constraint-checking problem in which decisions depend on relations among text, geometry, pages, and document revisions. We present an evidence-grounded pipeline that normalizes extracted facts, executes four-state rules deterministically, retains source spans, and escalates unresolved cases. We evaluate its PDF evidence allocator on 160 reference-based tasks from 29 construction projects using a repeated four-system test and a disjoint two-system breadth extension. In the repeated test, reallocating a four-image budget from retrieved page overviews to one overview and three overlapping tiles improves project-family standardized decision accuracy by 10.6 percentage points (95% project-cluster bootstrap CI: 4.3 to 18.0; exact p = 0.031). This effect does not persist in the broader block: Region-RAG changes accuracy by -4.1 points (95% CI: -10.2 to 1.9; exact p = 0.209), while an equal-image sensitivity favors page breadth. Exact finding-set recovery remains low, false passes remain common, and repeated-run agreement is poorly calibrated. The results identify a resolution-breadth trade-off rather than a universal advantage for region-focused evidence, motivating rule-aware evidence routing and expert review.

Scientific paper retrieval, particularly framed as document-to-document retrieval, aims to identify relevant papers in response to a long-form query paper, rather than a short query string. Previous approaches to this task have focused on abstracts, embedding them into dense vectors as surrogates for full documents and calculating similarity across them, although abstracts provide only sparse and high-level summaries. To address this, we propose PRISM, a novel document-to-document retrieval method that introduces multiple, fine-grained representations for both the query and candidate papers. In particular, each query paper is decomposed into multiple aspect-specific views and individually embedded, which are then matched against candidate papers similarity segmented to consider their multifaceted dimensions. Moreover, we present SciFullBench, a novel benchmark in which the complete and segmented context of full papers for both queries and candidates is available. Then, experimental results show that PRISM improves performance by an average of 4.3% over existing retrieval baselines.

The surge in scientific submissions has placed increasing strain on the traditional peer-review process, prompting the exploration of large language models (LLMs) for automated review generation. While LLMs demonstrate competence in producing structured and coherent feedback, their capacity for critical reasoning, contextual grounding, and quality sensitivity remains limited. To systematically evaluate these aspects, we propose a comprehensive evaluation framework that integrates semantic similarity analysis and structured knowledge graph metrics to assess LLM-generated reviews against human-written counterparts. We construct a large-scale benchmark of 1,683 papers and 6,495 expert reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS in multiple years, and generate reviews using five LLMs. Our findings show that LLMs perform well in descriptive and affirmational content, capturing the main contributions and methodologies of the original work, with GPT-4o highlighted as an illustrative example, generating 15.74% more entities than human reviewers in the strengths section of good papers in ICLR 2025. However, they consistently underperform in identifying weaknesses, raising substantive questions, and adjusting feedback based on paper quality. GPT-4o produces 59.42% fewer entities than real reviewers in the weaknesses and increases node count by only 5.7% from good to weak papers, compared to 50% in human reviews. Similar trends are observed across all conferences, years, and models, providing empirical foundations for understanding the merits and defects of LLM-generated reviews and informing the development of future LLM-assisted reviewing tools. Data, code, and more detailed results are publicly available at https://github.com/RichardLRC/Peer-Review.

This paper highlights the need to bring document classification benchmarking closer to real-world applications, both in the nature of data tested (X: multi-channel, multi-paged, multi-industry; Y: class distributions and label set variety) and in classification tasks considered (f: multi-page document, page stream, and document bundle classification, ...). We identify the lack of public multi-page document classification datasets, formalize different classification tasks arising in application scenarios, and motivate the value of targeting efficient multi-page document representations. An experimental study on proposed multi-page document classification datasets demonstrates that current benchmarks have become irrelevant and need to be updated to evaluate complete documents, as they naturally occur in practice. This reality check also calls for more mature evaluation methodologies, covering calibration evaluation, inference complexity (time-memory), and a range of realistic distribution shifts (e.g., born-digital vs. scanning noise, shifting page order). Our study ends on a hopeful note by recommending concrete avenues for future improvements.}

Leaderboards rank long-horizon agents by their final outputs. Yet a higher score alone does not establish whether two systems are comparable or which stage accounts for the difference. Unequal evidence, inputs, or budgets can affect scores, and statistical corrections do not remove this mismatch. We introduce compositional controllability to address these questions. A comparison window covers one stage, several stages, or the whole agent. Our central result bounds the gap between observed and controlled score differences using only nuisance outside the window. This yields an admissibility test applied before scores are inspected. Inadmissible comparisons are refused. For admissible pairs, an ordering is certified only when the score gap exceeds the combined sampling and nuisance radii; otherwise, it remains undecided. These decisions give each system a rank interval. We introduce BioLitBench, a benchmark of 2,042 biomedical articles represented as structured claim graphs. Among seven published pipelines, a conventional statistical analysis declares a winner in 14 of 21 pairwise comparisons. Yet the top-ranked system alone received the target review's bibliography. To isolate pipeline performance, our test requires matched inputs and a fixed backbone model. It refuses 11 of the 21 comparisons, including every comparison involving the top-ranked system. Seven of the 14 conventional conclusions fall within these refused pairs. The same comparison windows support stage-level training. We train SCRIBE on Qwen3.8-27B using rewards measured at each stage's exit. Under matched evidence, SCRIBE achieves a certified rank interval of [1,2], with certified advantages over all evaluated published pipelines and the evaluated Claude and OpenAI agents. Under same pool, SCRIBE matches the strongest published retriever and is certified above three published pipelines.

Automated research systems support literature synthesis, ideation, experiments, writing, and peer review, but their evaluation is dispersed across tasks, benchmarks, and studies that are difficult to compare directly. We review this literature from the perspective of evaluation design and evidence, covering six targets: literature synthesis, research ideation, executable workflows, scholarly writing and communication, automatic peer review, and end-to-end research. We compare task construction, evidence sources, evaluators, and scoring procedures to explain the capabilities assessed by different designs. Our synthesis highlights three recurring lessons: output checks, process checks, and human studies provide complementary information; evaluator calibration is specific to the property being assessed; and resource budgets and attempt selection are integral to interpreting performance comparisons. We identify diagnostic evaluation designs and documented gaps in supporting evidence, and translate these comparisons into reporting and audit recommendations for specific evaluation settings. The survey helps readers navigate existing evaluations, select appropriate benchmarks, and design subsequent studies.

Minimum Bayes Risk (MBR) decoding is a text generation technique that has been shown to improve the quality of machine translations, but is expensive, even if a sampling-based approximation is used. Besides requiring a large number of sampled sequences, it requires the pairwise calculation of a utility metric, which has quadratic complexity. In this paper, we propose to approximate pairwise metric scores with scores calculated against aggregated reference representations. This changes the complexity of utility estimation from O(n^2) to O(n), while empirically preserving most of the quality gains of MBR decoding. We release our source code at https://github.com/ZurichNLP/mbr

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.

Creating test collections for offline retrieval evaluation requires human effort to judge documents' relevance. This expensive activity motivated much work in developing methods for constructing benchmarks with fewer assessment costs. In this respect, adjudication methods actively decide both which documents and the order in which experts review them, in order to better exploit the assessment budget or to lower it. Researchers evaluate the quality of those methods by measuring the correlation between the known gold ranking of systems under the full collection and the observed ranking of systems under the lower-cost one. This traditional analysis ignores whether and how the low-cost judgements impact on the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to the full collection. We fill this void by proposing a novel methodology to evaluate how the low-cost adjudication methods preserve the pairwise significant differences between systems as the full collection. In other terms, while traditional approaches look for stability in answering the question "is system A better than system B?", our proposed approach looks for stability in answering the question "is system A significantly better than system B?", which is the ultimate questions researchers need to answer to guarantee the generalisability of their results. Among other results, we found that the best methods in terms of ranking of systems correlation do not always match those preserving statistical significance.

Using language models to scalably approximate human preferences on text quality (LLM-as-a-judge) has become a standard practice applicable to many tasks. A judgment is often extracted from the judge's textual output alone, typically with greedy decoding. However, LLM judges naturally provide distributions over judgment tokens, inviting a breadth of inference methods for extracting fine-grained preferences. We find that taking the mean of the judgment distribution consistently outperforms taking the mode (i.e. greedy decoding) in all evaluation settings (i.e. pointwise, pairwise, and listwise). We further explore novel methods of deriving preferences from judgment distributions, and find that methods incorporating risk aversion often improve performance. Lastly, we analyze LLM-as-a-judge paired with chain-of-thought (CoT) prompting, showing that CoT can collapse the spread of the judgment distribution, often harming performance. Our findings show that leveraging distributional output improves LLM-as-a-judge, as opposed to using the text interface alone.

Peer review, as a cornerstone of scientific research, ensures the integrity and quality of scholarly work by providing authors with objective feedback for refinement. However, in the traditional peer review process, authors often receive vague or insufficiently detailed feedback, which provides limited assistance and leads to a more time-consuming review cycle. If authors can identify some specific weaknesses in their paper, they can not only address the reviewer's concerns but also improve their work. This raises the critical question of how to enhance authors' comprehension of review comments. In this paper, we present SEAGraph, a novel framework developed to clarify review comments by uncovering the underlying intentions behind them. We construct two types of graphs for each paper: the semantic mind graph, which captures the author's thought process, and the hierarchical background graph, which delineates the research domains related to the paper. A retrieval method is then designed to extract relevant content from both graphs, facilitating coherent explanations for the review comments. Extensive experiments show that SEAGraph excels in review comment understanding tasks, offering significant benefits to authors.

Academic project websites can more effectively disseminate research when they clearly present core content and enable intuitive navigation and interaction. However, current approaches such as direct Large Language Model (LLM) generation, templates, or direct HTML conversion struggle to produce layout-aware, interactive sites, and a comprehensive evaluation suite for this task has been lacking. In this paper, we introduce Paper2Web, a benchmark dataset and multi-dimensional evaluation framework for assessing academic webpage generation. It incorporates rule-based metrics like Connectivity, Completeness and human-verified LLM-as-a-Judge (covering interactivity, aesthetics, and informativeness), and PaperQuiz, which measures paper-level knowledge retention. We further present PWAgent, an autonomous pipeline that converts scientific papers into interactive and multimedia-rich academic homepages. The agent iteratively refines both content and layout through MCP tools that enhance emphasis, balance, and presentation quality. Our experiments show that PWAgent consistently outperforms end-to-end baselines like template-based webpages and arXiv/alphaXiv versions by a large margin while maintaining low cost, achieving the Pareto-front in academic webpage generation.

As scientific research proliferates, researchers face the daunting task of navigating and reading vast amounts of literature. Existing solutions, such as document QA, fail to provide personalized and up-to-date information efficiently. We present Paper Copilot, a self-evolving, efficient LLM system designed to assist researchers, based on thought-retrieval, user profile and high performance optimization. Specifically, Paper Copilot can offer personalized research services, maintaining a real-time updated database. Quantitative evaluation demonstrates that Paper Copilot saves 69.92\% of time after efficient deployment. This paper details the design and implementation of Paper Copilot, highlighting its contributions to personalized academic support and its potential to streamline the research process.

Research planning is the decisive capability of AI scientists. Yet a research plan admits no verifiable answer, so reinforcement learning lacks the environment it requires: tasks paired with a critic. Rubrics extracted from scientific papers can supply the critic. Existing pipelines, however, draw the question and the criteria from the same content, so the reward can be earned by paraphrase. The rubric is further compressed into a single scalar per rollout. We introduce PaperGym, a unified framework that turns each research paper into a complete training environment. PaperGym exploits the structure of a paper: the question is synthesized from the research goal and background, while the criteria are derived from the method and experiments. The criteria span methodological innovation and experimental design, and criterion leakage falls to 3.7%, versus 11.90% to 34.10% in existing datasets. Training uses the rubric twice: first as privileged context for OPSD's self-teacher, then as the reward for GRPO. Across Qwen3-1.7B/4B/8B, this schedule outperforms supervised fine-tuning, either stage alone, and the reverse ordering, improving five-benchmark averages by +5.6, +5.0, and +4.8 points. With the recipe held fixed, models trained on PaperGym-20k win 58.1% of three-way comparisons, against 28.2% for RubricHub Science. The trained Qwen3-8B reaches 73.48 on ResearchQA, above the far larger Kimi K2.6. We release the pipeline, the 20,000-instance corpus PaperGym-20k, and the benchmarks PaperGym-Innov and PaperGym-Design.

Learning scientific document representations can be substantially improved through contrastive learning objectives, where the challenge lies in creating positive and negative training samples that encode the desired similarity semantics. Prior work relies on discrete citation relations to generate contrast samples. However, discrete citations enforce a hard cut-off to similarity. This is counter-intuitive to similarity-based learning, and ignores that scientific papers can be very similar despite lacking a direct citation - a core problem of finding related research. Instead, we use controlled nearest neighbor sampling over citation graph embeddings for contrastive learning. This control allows us to learn continuous similarity, to sample hard-to-learn negatives and positives, and also to avoid collisions between negative and positive samples by controlling the sampling margin between them. The resulting method SciNCL outperforms the state-of-the-art on the SciDocs benchmark. Furthermore, we demonstrate that it can train (or tune) models sample-efficiently, and that it can be combined with recent training-efficient methods. Perhaps surprisingly, even training a general-domain language model this way outperforms baselines pretrained in-domain.

Effective information retrieval (IR) from vast datasets relies on advanced techniques to extract relevant information in response to queries. Recent advancements in dense retrieval have showcased remarkable efficacy compared to traditional sparse retrieval methods. To further enhance retrieval performance, knowledge distillation techniques, often leveraging robust cross-encoder rerankers, have been extensively explored. However, existing approaches primarily distill knowledge from pointwise rerankers, which assign absolute relevance scores to documents, thus facing challenges related to inconsistent comparisons. This paper introduces Pairwise Relevance Distillation (PairDistill) to leverage pairwise reranking, offering fine-grained distinctions between similarly relevant documents to enrich the training of dense retrieval models. Our experiments demonstrate that PairDistill outperforms existing methods, achieving new state-of-the-art results across multiple benchmarks. This highlights the potential of PairDistill in advancing dense retrieval techniques effectively. Our source code and trained models are released at https://github.com/MiuLab/PairDistill

We present PeerQA, a real-world, scientific, document-level Question Answering (QA) dataset. PeerQA questions have been sourced from peer reviews, which contain questions that reviewers raised while thoroughly examining the scientific article. Answers have been annotated by the original authors of each paper. The dataset contains 579 QA pairs from 208 academic articles, with a majority from ML and NLP, as well as a subset of other scientific communities like Geoscience and Public Health. PeerQA supports three critical tasks for developing practical QA systems: Evidence retrieval, unanswerable question classification, and answer generation. We provide a detailed analysis of the collected dataset and conduct experiments establishing baseline systems for all three tasks. Our experiments and analyses reveal the need for decontextualization in document-level retrieval, where we find that even simple decontextualization approaches consistently improve retrieval performance across architectures. On answer generation, PeerQA serves as a challenging benchmark for long-context modeling, as the papers have an average size of 12k tokens. Our code and data is available at https://github.com/UKPLab/peerqa.

While Pairwise Ranking Prompting (PRP) with Large Language Models (LLMs) is one of the most effective zero-shot document ranking methods, it has a quadratic computational complexity with respect to the number of documents to be ranked, as it requires an enumeration over all possible document pairs. Consequently, the outstanding ranking performance of PRP has remained unreachable for most real-world ranking applications. In this work, we propose to harness the effectiveness of PRP through pairwise distillation. Specifically, we distill a pointwise student ranker from pairwise teacher labels generated by PRP, resulting in an efficient student model that retains the performance of PRP with substantially lower computational costs. Furthermore, we find that the distillation process can be made sample-efficient: with only 2% of pairs, we are able to obtain the same performance as using all pairs for teacher labels. Thus, our novel approach provides a solution to harness the ranking performance of PRP without incurring high computational costs during both distillation and serving.

Academic posters are vital for scholarly communication, yet their manual creation is time-consuming. However, automated academic poster generation faces significant challenges in preserving intricate scientific details and achieving effective visual-textual integration. Existing approaches often struggle with semantic richness and structural nuances, and lack standardized benchmarks for evaluating generated academic posters comprehensively. To address these limitations, we introduce P2P, the first flexible, LLM-based multi-agent framework that generates high-quality, HTML-rendered academic posters directly from research papers, demonstrating strong potential for practical applications. P2P employs three specialized agents-for visual element processing, content generation, and final poster assembly-each integrated with dedicated checker modules to enable iterative refinement and ensure output quality. To foster advancements and rigorous evaluation in this domain, we construct and release P2PInstruct, the first large-scale instruction dataset comprising over 30,000 high-quality examples tailored for the academic paper-to-poster generation task. Furthermore, we establish P2PEval, a comprehensive benchmark featuring 121 paper-poster pairs and a dual evaluation methodology (Universal and Fine-Grained) that leverages LLM-as-a-Judge and detailed, human-annotated checklists. Our contributions aim to streamline research dissemination and provide the community with robust tools for developing and evaluating next-generation poster generation systems.

Text embedding models serve as a fundamental component in real-world search applications. By mapping queries and documents into a shared embedding space, they deliver competitive retrieval performance with high efficiency. However, their ranking fidelity remains limited compared to dedicated rerankers, especially recent LLM-based listwise rerankers, which capture fine-grained query-document and document-document interactions. In this paper, we propose a simple yet effective unified framework E^2Rank, means Efficient Embedding-based Ranking (also means Embedding-to-Rank), which extends a single text embedding model to perform both high-quality retrieval and listwise reranking through continued training under a listwise ranking objective, thereby achieving strong effectiveness with remarkable efficiency. By applying cosine similarity between the query and document embeddings as a unified ranking function, the listwise ranking prompt, which is constructed from the original query and its candidate documents, serves as an enhanced query enriched with signals from the top-K documents, akin to pseudo-relevance feedback (PRF) in traditional retrieval models. This design preserves the efficiency and representational quality of the base embedding model while significantly improving its reranking performance. Empirically, E^2Rank achieves state-of-the-art results on the BEIR reranking benchmark and demonstrates competitive performance on the reasoning-intensive BRIGHT benchmark, with very low reranking latency. We also show that the ranking training process improves embedding performance on the MTEB benchmark. Our findings indicate that a single embedding model can effectively unify retrieval and reranking, offering both computational efficiency and competitive ranking accuracy.

Scientific research follows multi-turn, multi-step workflows that require proactively searching the literature, consulting figures and tables, and integrating evidence across papers to align experimental settings and support reproducible conclusions. This joint capability is not systematically assessed in existing benchmarks, which largely under-evaluate proactive search, multi-evidence integration and sustained evidence use over time. In this work, we introduce EpiBench, an episodic multi-turn multimodal benchmark that instantiates short research workflows. Given a research task, agents must navigate across papers over multiple turns, align evidence from figures and tables, and use the accumulated evidence in the memory to answer objective questions that require cross paper comparisons and multi-figure integration. EpiBench introduces a process-level evaluation framework for fine-grained testing and diagnosis of research agents. Our experiments show that even the leading model achieves an accuracy of only 29.23% on the hard split, indicating substantial room for improvement in multi-turn, multi-evidence research workflows, providing an evaluation platform for verifiable and reproducible research agents.

The recommendation system plays a vital role in many areas, especially academic fields, to support researchers in submitting and increasing the acceptance of their work through the conference or journal selection process. This study proposes a transformer-based model using transfer learning as an efficient approach for the paper submission recommendation system. By combining essential information (such as the title, the abstract, and the list of keywords) with the aims and scopes of journals, the model can recommend the Top K journals that maximize the acceptance of the paper. Our model had developed through two states: (i) Fine-tuning the pre-trained language model (LM) with a simple contrastive learning framework. We utilized a simple supervised contrastive objective to fine-tune all parameters, encouraging the LM to learn the document representation effectively. (ii) The fine-tuned LM was then trained on different combinations of the features for the downstream task. This study suggests a more advanced method for enhancing the efficiency of the paper submission recommendation system compared to previous approaches when we respectively achieve 0.5173, 0.8097, 0.8862, 0.9496 for Top 1, 3, 5, and 10 accuracies on the test set for combining the title, abstract, and keywords as input features. Incorporating the journals' aims and scopes, our model shows an exciting result by getting 0.5194, 0.8112, 0.8866, and 0.9496 respective to Top 1, 3, 5, and 10.

Peer review relies on substantive, evidence-based questions, yet current LLMs generate surface-level queries that perform worse than human reviewer questions in expert evaluation. To address this gap, we curate a high-quality dataset of reviewer questions from OpenReview and conduct a human preference study where expert annotators evaluate question-paper pairs across three dimensions: effort, evidence, and grounding. From these annotations, we train IntelliReward, a reward model built from a frozen autoregressive LLM with trainable multi-head transformers. Validated against expert judgments, IntelliReward predicts reviewer-question quality better than API-based SFT baselines and provides scalable evaluation. We apply Decoupled Clip and Dynamic Sampling Policy Optimization (DAPO) with IntelliReward to train IntelliAsk, a question-generation model aligned with human standards of effortful, evidence-based critique. Human evaluations show IntelliAsk generates more grounded, substantive and effortful questions than strong baselines and reduces reliance on first-page content. We also find improvements on reasoning and writing benchmarks, suggesting reviewer-question quality correlates with broader capabilities. Compared to Qwen3-32B, IntelliAsk improves MuSR (68.3 vs 64.7 Acc) and WritingBench (8.31 vs 8.07). We release our code, filtered review dataset, expert annotations, IntelliAsk and IntelliReward to support automatic evaluation of grounding, effort, and evidence in LLM-generated review questions.

In the era of large language models, creative writing quality lacks a computable theoretical anchor. The dominant approaches are rubric scoring -- decomposing holistic aesthetic judgment into sub-scores -- and RLHF preference signals -- replacing quality with group votes. Both bypass the statistical structure of the text itself. This paper provides an information-theoretic foundation to fill this gap. We propose 'calibrated surprise' as the information-theoretic essence of excellent creative writing. This judgment matches reading intuition and covers its opposite. This literary judgment admits a precise mathematical formulation. Under full-dimensional constraints Y, feasible writing choices are forced into an extremely narrow space. The rare survivors are, from the unconstrained perspective, exactly the least predictable choices. Both are measured precisely by Shannon mutual information I(X;Y) = H(X) - H(X|Y) -- 'calibrated' corresponds to H(X|Y) approaching 0; 'surprising' corresponds to H(X) going high. The subtraction structure of the formula naturally separates 'well-grounded surprise' from 'pure noise'. We use token-level logprobs from Qwen1.5-7B as an operational proxy for the ideal reader's probability distribution. Across 20 pairs (12 Chinese / 8 English) of high-quality vs. systematically degraded literary passages, 20/20 pairs support the core prediction: high-quality passages have systematically higher I(X;Y) than their degraded versions.

Evaluating long-form responses to research queries heavily relies on expert annotators, restricting attention to areas like AI where researchers can conveniently enlist colleagues. Yet, research expertise is widespread: survey articles synthesize knowledge distributed across the literature. We introduce ResearchQA, a resource for evaluating LLM systems by distilling survey articles from 75 research fields into 21K queries and 160K rubric items. Each rubric, derived jointly with queries from survey sections, lists query-specific answer evaluation criteria, i.e., citing papers, making explanations, and describing limitations. Assessments by 31 Ph.D. annotators in 8 fields indicate 96% of queries support Ph.D. information needs and 87% of rubric items should be addressed in system responses by a sentence or more. Using our rubrics, we are able to construct an automatic pairwise judge obtaining 74% agreement with expert judgments. We leverage ResearchQA to analyze competency gaps in 18 systems in over 7.6K pairwise evaluations. No parametric or retrieval-augmented system we evaluate exceeds 70% on covering rubric items, and the highest-ranking agentic system shows 75% coverage. Error analysis reveals that the highest-ranking system fully addresses less than 11% of citation rubric items, 48% of limitation items, and 49% of comparison items. We release our data to facilitate more comprehensive multi-field evaluations.

There are a few prominent practices for conducting reviews of academic literature, including searching for specific keywords on Google Scholar or checking citations from some initial seed paper(s). These approaches serve a critical purpose for academic literature reviews, yet there remain challenges in identifying relevant literature when similar work may utilize different terminology (e.g., mixed-initiative visual analytics papers may not use the same terminology as papers on model-steering, yet the two topics are relevant to one another). In this paper, we introduce a system, VitaLITy, intended to complement existing practices. In particular, VitaLITy promotes serendipitous discovery of relevant literature using transformer language models, allowing users to find semantically similar papers in a word embedding space given (1) a list of input paper(s) or (2) a working abstract. VitaLITy visualizes this document-level embedding space in an interactive 2-D scatterplot using dimension reduction. VitaLITy also summarizes meta information about the document corpus or search query, including keywords and co-authors, and allows users to save and export papers for use in a literature review. We present qualitative findings from an evaluation of VitaLITy, suggesting it can be a promising complementary technique for conducting academic literature reviews. Furthermore, we contribute data from 38 popular data visualization publication venues in VitaLITy, and we provide scrapers for the open-source community to continue to grow the list of supported venues.

We investigate document page ordering on 5,461 shuffled WOO documents (Dutch freedom of information releases) using page embeddings. These documents are heterogeneous collections such as emails, legal texts, and spreadsheets compiled into single PDFs, where semantic ordering signals are unreliable. We compare five methods, including pointer networks, seq2seq transformers, and specialized pairwise ranking models. The best performing approach successfully reorders documents up to 15 pages, with Kendall's tau ranging from 0.95 for short documents (2-5 pages) to 0.72 for 15 page documents. We observe two unexpected failures: seq2seq transformers fail to generalize on long documents (Kendall's tau drops from 0.918 on 2-5 pages to 0.014 on 21-25 pages), and curriculum learning underperforms direct training by 39% on long documents. Ablation studies suggest learned positional encodings are one contributing factor to seq2seq failure, though the degradation persists across all encoding variants, indicating multiple interacting causes. Attention pattern analysis reveals that short and long documents require fundamentally different ordering strategies, explaining why curriculum learning fails. Model specialization achieves substantial improvements on longer documents (+0.21 tau).

With the rapid progress of multimodal large language models (MLLMs), AI already performs well at literature retrieval and certain reasoning tasks, serving as a capable assistant to human researchers, yet it remains far from autonomous research. The fundamental reason is that current work on academic paper reasoning is largely confined to a search-oriented paradigm centered on pre-specified targets, with reasoning grounded in relevance retrieval, which struggles to support researcher-style full-document understanding, reasoning, and verification. To bridge this gap, we propose ScholScan, a new benchmark for academic paper reasoning. ScholScan introduces a scan-oriented task setting that asks models to read and cross-check entire papers like human researchers, scanning the document to identify consistency issues. The benchmark comprises 1,800 carefully annotated questions drawn from nine error categories across 13 natural-science domains and 715 papers, and provides detailed annotations for evidence localization and reasoning traces, together with a unified evaluation protocol. We assessed 15 models across 24 input configurations and conducted a fine-grained analysis of MLLM capabilities for all error categories. Across the board, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods yield no significant improvements, revealing systematic deficiencies of current MLLMs on scan-oriented tasks and underscoring the challenge posed by ScholScan. We expect ScholScan to be the leading and representative work of the scan-oriented task paradigm.

The peer review process is crucial for ensuring the quality and reliability of scholarly work, yet assigning suitable reviewers remains a significant challenge. Traditional manual methods are labor-intensive and often ineffective, leading to nonconstructive or biased reviews. This paper introduces the exHarmony (eHarmony but for connecting experts to manuscripts) benchmark, designed to address these challenges by re-imagining the Reviewer Assignment Problem (RAP) as a retrieval task. Utilizing the extensive data from OpenAlex, we propose a novel approach that considers a host of signals from the authors, most similar experts, and the citation relations as potential indicators for a suitable reviewer for a manuscript. This approach allows us to develop a standard benchmark dataset for evaluating the reviewer assignment problem without needing explicit labels. We benchmark various methods, including traditional lexical matching, static neural embeddings, and contextualized neural embeddings, and introduce evaluation metrics that assess both relevance and diversity in the context of RAP. Our results indicate that while traditional methods perform reasonably well, contextualized embeddings trained on scholarly literature show the best performance. The findings underscore the importance of further research to enhance the diversity and effectiveness of reviewer assignments.

Analyzing the pattern of semantic variation in long real-world texts such as books or transcripts is interesting from the stylistic, cognitive, and linguistic perspectives. It is also useful for applications such as text segmentation, document summarization, and detection of semantic novelty. The recent emergence of several vector-space methods for sentence embedding has made such analysis feasible. However, this raises the issue of how consistent and meaningful the semantic representations produced by various methods are in themselves. In this paper, we compare several recent sentence embedding methods via time-series of semantic similarity between successive sentences and matrices of pairwise sentence similarity for multiple books of literature. In contrast to previous work using target tasks and curated datasets to compare sentence embedding methods, our approach provides an evaluation of the methods 'in the wild'. We find that most of the sentence embedding methods considered do infer highly correlated patterns of semantic similarity in a given document, but show interesting differences.

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

Pairwise human preference prediction is central to evaluating code-generation systems, where quality often depends on task-specific trade-offs beyond functional correctness. While rubric-based LLM judges improve interpretability by decomposing evaluation into explicit criteria, most existing pipelines remain pointwise: they score each response independently and derive preferences by comparing aggregated scores. We show that this design is poorly matched to pairwise code preference prediction and can underperform a strong monolithic judge. We propose CriterAlign, a criterion-centric framework that adapts rubric-based judging to pairwise preference evaluation through direct criterion-level pairwise judgments, tie-driven criterion refinement, swap-consistency filtering, and final pairwise synthesis. We further introduce Human-Preference-Aligned Guidance (HPAG), synthesized offline from training examples by extracting recurring rationale gaps between human preferences and monolithic judge predictions, and injected into the criterion generator, criterion judge, and final judge. On BigCodeReward, CriterAlign improves a Qwen2.5-VL-32B monolithic judge from 60.4% to 66.3% accuracy, with ablations confirming the contributions of pairwise criterion design and HPAG.

Existing text scoring methods require a large corpus, struggle with short texts, or require hand-labeled data. We develop a text scoring framework that leverages generative large language models (LLMs) to (1) set texts against the backdrop of information from the near-totality of the web and digitized media, and (2) effectively transform pairwise text comparisons from a reasoning problem to a pattern recognition task. Our approach, concept-guided chain-of-thought (CGCoT), utilizes a chain of researcher-designed prompts with an LLM to generate a concept-specific breakdown for each text, akin to guidance provided to human coders. We then pairwise compare breakdowns using an LLM and aggregate answers into a score using a probability model. We apply this approach to better understand speech reflecting aversion to specific political parties on Twitter, a topic that has commanded increasing interest because of its potential contributions to democratic backsliding. We achieve stronger correlations with human judgments than widely used unsupervised text scoring methods like Wordfish. In a supervised setting, besides a small pilot dataset to develop CGCoT prompts, our measures require no additional hand-labeled data and produce predictions on par with RoBERTa-Large fine-tuned on thousands of hand-labeled tweets. This project showcases the potential of combining human expertise and LLMs for scoring tasks.

Large Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used to evaluate outputs of other models, for image-to-text (I2T) tasks such as visual question answering, and text-to-image (T2I) generation tasks. Despite this growing reliance, the reliability of these Evaluator VLMs remains under explored. In this work, we systematically evaluate the reliability of Evaluator VLMs across both I2T and T2I tasks. We introduce targeted perturbations that degrade output quality along key error dimensions, including object hallucinations, spatial reasoning, factual grounding, and visual fidelity. These perturbations test whether Evaluator VLMs can reliably account for these quality degrading errors in their evaluations. Using a comprehensive benchmark of over 4000 perturbed instances spanning 40 perturbation dimensions, we evaluate 4 prominent VLMs using single-answer scoring, pairwise comparison, and reference-guided paradigms. Our findings reveal that current VLM evaluators exhibit substantial blind spots: they often fail to detect perturbed outputs - in some cases exceeding 50%, struggle particularly with fine-grained compositional and spatial errors, and are often insensitive to hallucinated content that contradicts the input image. Pairwise comparison proves more reliable, though failure rates persist. These results highlight the unreliable nature of current Evaluator VLMs and urge caution in their deployment for benchmarking and development decisions. Code and data have been made publicly available.

The rapid adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) has spurred interest in automated peer review; however, progress is currently stifled by benchmarks that treat reviewing primarily as a rating prediction task. We argue that the utility of a review lies in its textual justification--its arguments, questions, and critique--rather than a scalar score. To address this, we introduce Beyond Rating, a holistic evaluation framework that assesses AI reviewers across five dimensions: Content Faithfulness, Argumentative Alignment, Focus Consistency, Question Constructiveness, and AI-Likelihood. Notably, we propose a Max-Recall strategy to accommodate valid expert disagreement and introduce a curated dataset of paper with high-confidence reviews, rigorously filtered to remove procedural noise. Extensive experiments demonstrate that while traditional n-gram metrics fail to reflect human preferences, our proposed text-centric metrics--particularly the recall of weakness arguments--correlate strongly with rating accuracy. These findings establish that aligning AI critique focus with human experts is a prerequisite for reliable automated scoring, offering a robust standard for future research.

AI Scientists have shown promising progress across multiple stages of the research pipeline, among which automatic scientific paper writing remains a formidable challenge. The Introduction writing is especially challenging, which demands not only linguistic fluency, but logical soundness and verifiable faithfulness. Most AI-assisted methods treat the task as text generation instead of reasoning and structuring, leading to severe drawbacks, e.g., hallucinating citations. To address this, we first formulate the Content-Conditional Introduction Generation (CCIG) task, which requires grounding the Introduction in the paper's core evidence. We then propose LECTOR, a novel Logic-Expression Co-Reinforcement Learning framework that can strictly follow the scientist's logic, add high-quality citations and keep structured expressions. LECTOR first constructs a logic-reasoning graph from the paper's main body to serve as a verifiable logical blueprint. Subsequently, it employs a Logic-Expression Co-Rewarding mechanism to jointly optimize for both the graph's structural fidelity and the final narrative's quality. We conduct a dataset from Nature Communications papers to assess our method. Extensive experiments show consistent improvements in both logic fidelity and Introduction generation quality metrics, e.g., Graph Quality (+26.7%), Citation Quality (+8.6%), and Paper Consistency (+3.3%). Code and data are available at https://github.com/Xiao-Youth/LECTOR.

This report evaluates PDF-to-Markdown conversion using recent Vision-Language Models (VLMs) on challenging French documents. Document parsing is a critical step for Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines, where transcription and layout errors propagate to downstream retrieval and grounding. Existing benchmarks often emphasize English or Chinese and can over-penalize benign formatting and linearization choices (e.g., line breaks, list segmentation, alternative table renderings) that are largely irrelevant for downstream use. We introduce a French-focused benchmark of difficult pages selected via model-disagreement sampling from a corpus of 60{,}000 documents, covering handwritten forms, complex layouts, dense tables, and graphics-rich pages. Evaluation is performed with unit-test-style checks that target concrete failure modes (text presence, reading order, and local table constraints) combined with category-specific normalization designed to discount presentation-only variance. Across 15 models, we observe substantially higher robustness for the strongest proprietary models on handwriting and forms, while several open-weights systems remain competitive on standard printed layouts.

Understanding and reasoning on the web-scale scientific literature is a crucial touchstone for large language model (LLM) based agents designed to support complex knowledge-intensive tasks. However, existing works are mainly restricted to tool-free tasks within isolated papers, largely due to the lack of a benchmark for cross-paper reasoning and multi-tool orchestration in real research scenarios. In this work, we propose PaperArena, an evaluation benchmark for agents to address real-world research questions that typically require integrating information across multiple papers with the assistance of external tools. Given a research question, agents should integrate diverse formats across multiple papers through reasoning and interacting with appropriate tools, thereby producing a well-grounded answer. To support standardized evaluation, we provide a modular and extensible platform for agent execution, offering tools such as multimodal parsing, context retrieval, and programmatic computation. Experimental results reveal that even the most advanced LLM powering a well-established agent system achieves merely 38.78% average accuracy. On the hard subset, accuracy drops to only 18.47%, highlighting great potential for improvement. We also present several empirical findings, including that all agents tested exhibit inefficient tool usage, often invoking more tools than necessary to solve a task. We invite the community to adopt PaperArena to develop and evaluate more capable agents for scientific discovery. Our code and data are available https://github.com/Melmaphother/PaperArena.

Synthesizing unstructured research materials into manuscripts is an essential yet under-explored challenge in AI-driven scientific discovery. Existing autonomous writers are rigidly coupled to specific experimental pipelines, and produce superficial literature reviews. We introduce PaperOrchestra, a multi-agent framework for automated AI research paper writing. It flexibly transforms unconstrained pre-writing materials into submission-ready LaTeX manuscripts, including comprehensive literature synthesis and generated visuals, such as plots and conceptual diagrams. To evaluate performance, we present PaperWritingBench, the first standardized benchmark of reverse-engineered raw materials from 200 top-tier AI conference papers, alongside a comprehensive suite of automated evaluators. In side-by-side human evaluations, PaperOrchestra significantly outperforms autonomous baselines, achieving an absolute win rate margin of 50%-68% in literature review quality, and 14%-38% in overall manuscript quality.

Selecting high-quality pre-training data is important for creating capable language models, but existing methods rely on simple heuristics. We introduce QuRating, a method for selecting pre-training data that captures the abstract qualities of texts which humans intuitively perceive. In this paper, we investigate four qualities - writing style, required expertise, facts & trivia, and educational value. We find that LLMs are able to discern these qualities and observe that they are better at making pairwise judgments of texts than at rating the quality of a text directly. We train a QuRater model to learn scalar ratings from pairwise judgments, and use it to annotate a 260B training corpus with quality ratings for each of the four criteria. In our experiments, we select 30B tokens according to the different quality ratings and train 1.3B-parameter language models on the selected data. We find that it is important to balance quality and diversity, as selecting only the highest-rated documents leads to poor results. When we sample using quality ratings as logits over documents, our models achieve lower perplexity and stronger in-context learning performance than baselines. Beyond data selection, we use the quality ratings to construct a training curriculum which improves performance without changing the training dataset. We extensively analyze the quality ratings and discuss their characteristics, biases, and wider implications.

Academic citations are widely used for evaluating research and tracing knowledge flows. Such uses typically rely on raw citation counts and neglect variability in citation types. In particular, citations can vary in their fidelity as original knowledge from cited studies may be paraphrased, summarized, or reinterpreted, possibly wrongly, leading to variation in how much information changes from cited to citing paper. In this study, we introduce a computational pipeline to quantify citation fidelity at scale. Using full texts of papers, the pipeline identifies citations in citing papers and the corresponding claims in cited papers, and applies supervised models to measure fidelity at the sentence level. Analyzing a large-scale multi-disciplinary dataset of approximately 13 million citation sentence pairs, we find that citation fidelity is higher when authors cite papers that are 1) more recent and intellectually close, 2) more accessible, and 3) the first author has a lower H-index and the author team is medium-sized. Using a quasi-experiment, we establish the "telephone effect" - when citing papers have low fidelity to the original claim, future papers that cite the citing paper and the original have lower fidelity to the original. Our work reveals systematic differences in citation fidelity, underscoring the limitations of analyses that rely on citation quantity alone and the potential for distortion of evidence.

Generating a review for an academic research paper is a complex task that requires a deep understanding of the document's content and the interdependencies between its sections. It demands not only insight into technical details but also an appreciation of the paper's overall coherence and structure. Recent methods have predominantly focused on fine-tuning large language models (LLMs) to address this challenge. However, they often overlook the computational and performance limitations imposed by long input token lengths. To address this, we introduce AutoRev, an Automatic Peer Review System for Academic Research Papers. Our novel framework represents an academic document as a graph, enabling the extraction of the most critical passages that contribute significantly to the review. This graph-based approach demonstrates effectiveness for review generation and is potentially adaptable to various downstream tasks, such as question answering, summarization, and document representation. When applied to review generation, our method outperforms SOTA baselines by an average of 58.72% across all evaluation metrics. We hope that our work will stimulate further research in applying graph-based extraction techniques to other downstream tasks in NLP. We plan to make our code public upon acceptance.

Multi-agent document assessment for retrieval-augmented generation is computationally expensive, driving practitioners toward smaller, deployable models whose assessment mechanisms remain poorly understood. We conduct a controlled study of training-free interventions on 7B-9B instruction-tuned models across diverse QA benchmarks, revealing a sharp dichotomy in how models benefit from assessment. For weaker baselines, the dominant mechanism is per-document isolation. Astoundingly, assessment-free isolation matches full multi-agent assessment, demonstrating that resolving multi-document context confusion, rather than scoring quality, drives outsized gains of up to 50 percentage points. Conversely, for strong baselines where scoring quality matters, we introduce Reasoning-Score Coupling, a label-free perturbation probe that classifies scoring behavior. Integrating these findings, we propose MADARA, a model-adaptive routing architecture. Crucially, MADARA's diagnostic thresholds derived from a single pilot model generalize zero-shot to four unseen model families, providing a robust, lightweight pipeline to eliminate computational overhead.

Survey paper plays a crucial role in scientific research, especially given the rapid growth of research publications. Recently, researchers have begun using LLMs to automate survey generation for better efficiency. However, the quality gap between LLM-generated surveys and those written by human remains significant, particularly in terms of outline quality and citation accuracy. To close these gaps, we introduce SurveyForge, which first generates the outline by analyzing the logical structure of human-written outlines and referring to the retrieved domain-related articles. Subsequently, leveraging high-quality papers retrieved from memory by our scholar navigation agent, SurveyForge can automatically generate and refine the content of the generated article. Moreover, to achieve a comprehensive evaluation, we construct SurveyBench, which includes 100 human-written survey papers for win-rate comparison and assesses AI-generated survey papers across three dimensions: reference, outline, and content quality. Experiments demonstrate that SurveyForge can outperform previous works such as AutoSurvey.

Significant progress has been made in automatic text evaluation with the introduction of large language models (LLMs) as evaluators. However, current sample-wise evaluation paradigm suffers from the following issues: (1) Sensitive to prompt design; (2) Poor resistance to noise; (3) Inferior ensemble performance with static reference. Inspired by the fact that humans treat both criterion definition and inter sample comparison as references for evaluation, we propose BatchEval, a paradigm that conducts batch-wise evaluation iteratively to alleviate the above problems. We explore variants under this paradigm and confirm the optimal settings are two stage procedure with heterogeneous batch composition strategy and decimal scoring format. Comprehensive experiments across 3 LLMs on 4 text evaluation tasks demonstrate that BatchEval outperforms state-of-the-art methods by 10.5% on Pearson correlations with only 64% API cost on average. Further analyses have been conducted to verify the robustness, generalization, and working mechanism of BatchEval.

AI reviewers can assign different judgments to manuscripts that report the same science in different wording, potentially rewarding rhetorical optimization over scientific improvement. We formulate Rhetorical Robustness as the joint requirement of stability across content-preserving rewrites and discrimination across papers. We introduce RobustReview, a controlled full-manuscript benchmark with 1,260 manuscript versions, and evaluate 30 reviewer configurations. The benchmark reveals false robustness, where low rewrite sensitivity coincides with score collapse across papers, and shows that human alignment and rhetorical robustness rank reviewers differently. Moreover, the evaluated content-focused prompting protocol does not consistently improve robustness across backbones. Motivated by these findings, we introduce SciCore, a dual-branch reviewer that averages a full-manuscript judgment with a judgment based on an extracted, structured science core. This design combines manuscript-level assessment with a content-normalized view intended to reduce rhetorical sensitivity. In our primary GPT-5.5 comparison, SciCore achieves a leading joint stability-discrimination profile among the benchmarked reviewers while maintaining competitive human alignment. These results identify rhetorical robustness as a distinct evaluation target and demonstrate the potential of science-core review to improve it.

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.

Matching submissions with suitable reviewers at scale is a growing challenge for major venues, yet existing approaches either rely on coarse proxy signals that conflate general relatedness with true suitability, or require expensive human annotations that are difficult to scale for training. We propose MERIT, a two-stage framework that bridges this gap by converting criterion-level expertise matching into scalable suitability supervision. In the first stage, we train a reviewer assessor via reinforcement learning to identify the expertise dimensions a paper requires, match them against the reviewer's prior work, and produce a suitability decision, with rewards provided by an LLM judge guided by paper-specific expertise rubrics. In the second stage, we distill the assessor's predictions into an embedding-based retriever for efficient large-scale assignment. Experiments show that our 4B reviewer assessor outperforms larger general-purpose LLMs on suitability classification, and the resulting retriever achieves state-of-the-art performance across LR-Bench and the CMU Gold dataset. Our code is available at https://github.com/Luli3220/MERIT.

We present PEAR (Pairwise Evaluation for Automatic Relative Scoring), a supervised quality estimation (QE) metric family that reframes reference-free machine translation (MT) evaluation as a graded pairwise comparison. Given a source segment and two candidate translations, PEAR predicts the direction and magnitude of their quality difference. The metrics are trained using pairwise supervision derived from differences in human judgments, with an additional regularization term that encourages sign inversion under candidate order reversal. On the WMT24 meta-evaluation benchmark, PEAR outperforms strictly matched single-candidate QE baselines trained with the same data and backbones, isolating the benefit of the proposed pairwise formulation. Despite using substantially fewer parameters than recent large metrics, PEAR surpasses far larger QE models and reference-based metrics. Our analysis further indicates that PEAR yields a less redundant evaluation signal relative to other top metrics. Finally, we show that PEAR is an effective utility function for minimum Bayes risk (MBR) decoding, reducing pairwise scoring cost at negligible impact.

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

Peer reviewing is a central component in the scientific publishing process. We present the first public dataset of scientific peer reviews available for research purposes (PeerRead v1) providing an opportunity to study this important artifact. The dataset consists of 14.7K paper drafts and the corresponding accept/reject decisions in top-tier venues including ACL, NIPS and ICLR. The dataset also includes 10.7K textual peer reviews written by experts for a subset of the papers. We describe the data collection process and report interesting observed phenomena in the peer reviews. We also propose two novel NLP tasks based on this dataset and provide simple baseline models. In the first task, we show that simple models can predict whether a paper is accepted with up to 21% error reduction compared to the majority baseline. In the second task, we predict the numerical scores of review aspects and show that simple models can outperform the mean baseline for aspects with high variance such as 'originality' and 'impact'.

Leveraging Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) to accelerate frontier scientific research is promising, yet how to rigorously evaluate such systems remains unclear. Existing benchmarks mainly focus on single-document understanding, whereas real scientific workflows require integrating evidence from multiple papers, including their text, tables, and figures. As a result, multi-modal, multi-document scientific reasoning remains underexplored and lacks systematic evaluation. To address this gap, we introduce PaperScope, a multi-modal multi-document benchmark designed for agentic deep research. PaperScope presents three advantages: (1) Structured scientific grounding. It is built on a knowledge graph of over 2,000 AI papers spanning three years, providing a structured foundation for research-oriented queries. (2) Semantically dense evidence construction. It integrates semantically related key information nodes and employs optimized random-walk article selector to sample thematically coherent paper sets, thereby ensuring adequate semantic density and task complexity. (3) Multi-task evaluation of scientific reasoning. It contains over 2,000 QA pairs across reasoning, retrieval, summarization, and problem solving, enabling evaluation of multi-step scientific reasoning. Experimental results show that even advanced systems such as OpenAI Deep Research and Tongyi Deep Research achieve limited scores on PaperScope, highlighting the difficulty of long-context retrieval and deep multi-source reasoning. PaperScope thus provides a rigorous benchmark alongside a scalable pipeline for constructing large-scale multi-modal, multi-source deep research datasets.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) as automated evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge) has revealed critical inconsistencies in current evaluation frameworks. We identify two fundamental types of inconsistencies: (1) Score-Comparison Inconsistency, where lower-rated responses outperform higher-scored ones in pairwise comparisons, and (2) Pairwise Transitivity Inconsistency, manifested through circular preference chains (A>B>C>A) and equivalence contradictions (A=B=C\neq A). We argue that these issues come from information loss in discrete rating systems and ambiguous tie judgments during pairwise evaluation. We propose TrustJudge, a probabilistic framework that addresses these limitations through two key innovations: 1) distribution-sensitive scoring that computes continuous expectations from discrete rating probabilities, preserving information entropy for more precise scoring, and 2) likelihood-aware aggregation that resolves transitivity violations using bidirectional preference probabilities or perplexity. We also formalize the theoretical limitations of current LLM-as-a-judge frameworks and demonstrate how TrustJudge's components overcome them. When evaluated with Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct as judge using our dataset, TrustJudge reduces Score-Comparison inconsistency by 8.43% (from 23.32% to 14.89%) and Pairwise Transitivity inconsistency by 10.82% (from 15.22% to 4.40%), while maintaining higher evaluation accuracy. Our work provides the first systematic analysis of evaluation framework inconsistencies in LLM-as-a-judge paradigms, offering both theoretical insights and practical solutions for reliable automated assessment. The framework demonstrates consistent improvements across various model architectures and scales, enabling more trustworthy LLM evaluation without requiring additional training or human annotations. The codes can be found at https://github.com/TrustJudge/TrustJudge.

Language models contain ranking-based knowledge and are powerful solvers of in-context ranking tasks. For instance, they may have parametric knowledge about the ordering of countries by size or may be able to rank reviews by sentiment. Recent work focuses on pairwise, pointwise, and listwise prompting techniques to elicit a language model's ranking knowledge. However, we find that even with careful calibration and constrained decoding, prompting-based techniques may not always be self-consistent in the rankings they produce. This motivates us to explore an alternative approach that is inspired by an unsupervised probing method called Contrast-Consistent Search (CCS). The idea is to train a probing model guided by a logical constraint: a model's representation of a statement and its negation must be mapped to contrastive true-false poles consistently across multiple statements. We hypothesize that similar constraints apply to ranking tasks where all items are related via consistent pairwise or listwise comparisons. To this end, we extend the binary CCS method to Contrast-Consistent Ranking (CCR) by adapting existing ranking methods such as the Max-Margin Loss, Triplet Loss, and Ordinal Regression objective. Our results confirm that, for the same language model, CCR probing outperforms prompting and even performs on a par with prompting much larger language models.

Offline evaluation of search systems depends on test collections. These benchmarks provide the researchers with a corpus of documents, topics and relevance judgements indicating which documents are relevant for each topic. While test collections are an integral part of Information Retrieval (IR) research, their creation involves significant efforts in manual annotation. Large language models (LLMs) are gaining much attention as tools for automatic relevance assessment. Recent research has shown that LLM-based assessments yield high systems ranking correlation with human-made judgements. These correlations are helpful in large-scale experiments but less informative if we want to focus on top-performing systems. Moreover, these correlations ignore whether and how LLM-based judgements impact the statistically significant differences among systems with respect to human assessments. In this work, we look at how LLM-generated judgements preserve ranking differences among top-performing systems and also how they preserve pairwise significance evaluation as human judgements. Our results show that LLM-based judgements are unfair at ranking top-performing systems. Moreover, we observe an exceedingly high rate of false positives regarding statistical differences. Our work represents a step forward in the evaluation of the reliability of using LLMs-based judgements for IR evaluation. We hope this will serve as a basis for other researchers to develop more reliable models for automatic relevance assessment.

Automated summary quality assessment falls into two categories: reference-based and reference-free. Reference-based metrics, historically deemed more accurate due to the additional information provided by human-written references, are limited by their reliance on human input. In this paper, we hypothesize that the comparison methodologies used by some reference-based metrics to evaluate a system summary against its corresponding reference can be effectively adapted to assess it against its source document, thereby transforming these metrics into reference-free ones. Experimental results support this hypothesis. After being repurposed reference-freely, the zero-shot BERTScore using the pretrained DeBERTa-large-MNLI model of <0.5B parameters consistently outperforms its original reference-based version across various aspects on the SummEval and Newsroom datasets. It also excels in comparison to most existing reference-free metrics and closely competes with zero-shot summary evaluators based on GPT-3.5.

The advent of deep neural networks pre-trained via language modeling tasks has spurred a number of successful applications in natural language processing. This work explores one such popular model, BERT, in the context of document ranking. We propose two variants, called monoBERT and duoBERT, that formulate the ranking problem as pointwise and pairwise classification, respectively. These two models are arranged in a multi-stage ranking architecture to form an end-to-end search system. One major advantage of this design is the ability to trade off quality against latency by controlling the admission of candidates into each pipeline stage, and by doing so, we are able to find operating points that offer a good balance between these two competing metrics. On two large-scale datasets, MS MARCO and TREC CAR, experiments show that our model produces results that are either at or comparable to the state of the art. Ablation studies show the contributions of each component and characterize the latency/quality tradeoff space.

Finding relevant literature underpins the practice of evidence-based medicine. From 2014 to 2016, TREC conducted a clinical decision support track, wherein participants were tasked with finding articles relevant to clinical questions posed by physicians. In total, 87 teams have participated over the past three years, generating 395 runs. During this period, each team has trialled a variety of methods. While there was significant overlap in the methods employed by different teams, the results were varied. Due to the diversity of the platforms used, the results arising from the different techniques are not directly comparable, reducing the ability to build on previous work. By using a stable platform, we have been able to compare different document and query processing techniques, allowing us to experiment with different search parameters. We have used our system to reproduce leading teams runs, and compare the results obtained. By benchmarking our indexing and search techniques, we can statistically test a variety of hypotheses, paving the way for further research.

Most Reading Comprehension methods limit themselves to queries which can be answered using a single sentence, paragraph, or document. Enabling models to combine disjoint pieces of textual evidence would extend the scope of machine comprehension methods, but currently there exist no resources to train and test this capability. We propose a novel task to encourage the development of models for text understanding across multiple documents and to investigate the limits of existing methods. In our task, a model learns to seek and combine evidence - effectively performing multi-hop (alias multi-step) inference. We devise a methodology to produce datasets for this task, given a collection of query-answer pairs and thematically linked documents. Two datasets from different domains are induced, and we identify potential pitfalls and devise circumvention strategies. We evaluate two previously proposed competitive models and find that one can integrate information across documents. However, both models struggle to select relevant information, as providing documents guaranteed to be relevant greatly improves their performance. While the models outperform several strong baselines, their best accuracy reaches 42.9% compared to human performance at 74.0% - leaving ample room for improvement.

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

Literature reviews are an essential component of scientific research, but they remain time-intensive and challenging to write, especially due to the recent influx of research papers. This paper explores the zero-shot abilities of recent Large Language Models (LLMs) in assisting with the writing of literature reviews based on an abstract. We decompose the task into two components: 1. Retrieving related works given a query abstract, and 2. Writing a literature review based on the retrieved results. We analyze how effective LLMs are for both components. For retrieval, we introduce a novel two-step search strategy that first uses an LLM to extract meaningful keywords from the abstract of a paper and then retrieves potentially relevant papers by querying an external knowledge base. Additionally, we study a prompting-based re-ranking mechanism with attribution and show that re-ranking doubles the normalized recall compared to naive search methods, while providing insights into the LLM's decision-making process. In the generation phase, we propose a two-step approach that first outlines a plan for the review and then executes steps in the plan to generate the actual review. To evaluate different LLM-based literature review methods, we create test sets from arXiv papers using a protocol designed for rolling use with newly released LLMs to avoid test set contamination in zero-shot evaluations. We release this evaluation protocol to promote additional research and development in this regard. Our empirical results suggest that LLMs show promising potential for writing literature reviews when the task is decomposed into smaller components of retrieval and planning. Our project page including a demonstration system and toolkit can be accessed here: https://litllm.github.io.

Authors seeking to communicate with broader audiences often share their ideas in various document formats, such as slide decks, newsletters, reports, and posters. Prior work on document generation has generally tackled the creation of each separate format to be a different task, leading to fragmented learning processes, redundancy in models and methods, and disjointed evaluation. We consider each of these documents as templatic views of the same underlying knowledge/content, and we aim to unify the generation and evaluation of these templatic views. We begin by showing that current LLMs are capable of generating various document formats with little to no supervision. Further, a simple augmentation involving a structured intermediate representation can improve performance, especially for smaller models. We then introduce a novel unified evaluation framework that can be adapted to measuring the quality of document generators for heterogeneous downstream applications. This evaluation is adaptable to a range of user defined criteria and application scenarios, obviating the need for task specific evaluation metrics. Finally, we conduct a human evaluation, which shows that people prefer 82% of the documents generated with our method, while correlating more highly with our unified evaluation framework than prior metrics in the literature.

We describe our system for LitTraceQA (GroundLM @ EMNLP 2026): given a research question, retrieve the relevant papers from a pool of 27,487, cite the page and the table or figure where the answer lives, and answer in a requested format. Our main finding is that evidence grounding is limited by retrieval, not by reading. The page selector put the annotator's page, which we call the gold page, in front of the model that locates evidence only about half the time (52.6% gold-page recall), while that model, given the page, cited the right one in 45 of the 48 locators it emitted (94%). When the page was missing it rarely said so: of 45 such cases it returned nothing 14 times, a wrong page 24 times, and a correct page 7 times, so the pipeline failed quietly almost twice as often as it failed visibly. Since the failure was that the right page was never shown, the fix is to stop choosing: each retrieved paper fits in the model's context, so we show it whole. Page ranking survives only as a fallback inside papers too long to fit, which no test-split paper was, and gold-page recall reaches 100% on the papers we can parse. Separately, questions that identify their target by position rather than content, such as "the first author of the 24th reference", are served by parsing rather than retrieval: we resolve the bibliography into an addressable list, which also supplies identifiers the evidence metric scores. The final system scores 0.762 paper F_1, 0.441 evidence F_1 and 0.920 multiple-choice accuracy on the held-out test split. Because the pipeline depends on a closed model without seed control, we release a harness that verifies the paper's central claims against committed artifacts.

Paper search is an important activity for researchers, typically involving using a query with description of a topic to find relevant papers. As research deepens, paper search requirements may become more flexible, sometimes involving specific details such as module configuration rather than being limited to coarse-grained topics. However, previous paper search systems are unable to meet these flexible-grained requirements, as these systems mainly collect paper abstracts to construct index of corpus, which lack detailed information to support retrieval by finer-grained queries. In this work, we propose PaperRegister, consisted of offline hierarchical indexing and online adaptive retrieval, transforming traditional abstract-based index into hierarchical index tree for paper search, thereby supporting queries at flexible granularity. Experiments on paper search tasks across a range of granularity demonstrate that PaperRegister achieves the state-of-the-art performance, and particularly excels in fine-grained scenarios, highlighting the good potential as an effective solution for flexible-grained paper search in real-world applications. Code for this work is in https://github.com/Li-Z-Q/PaperRegister.

This study presents a question-based knowledge encoding approach that improves retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems without requiring fine-tuning or traditional chunking. We encode textual content using generated questions that span the lexical and semantic space, creating targeted retrieval cues combined with a custom syntactic reranking method. In single-hop retrieval over 109 scientific papers, our approach achieves a Recall@3 of 0.84, outperforming traditional chunking methods by 60 percent. We also introduce "paper-cards", concise paper summaries under 300 characters, which enhance BM25 retrieval, increasing MRR@3 from 0.56 to 0.85 on simplified technical queries. For multihop tasks, our reranking method reaches an F1 score of 0.52 with LLaMA2-Chat-7B on the LongBench 2WikiMultihopQA dataset, surpassing chunking and fine-tuned baselines which score 0.328 and 0.412 respectively. This method eliminates fine-tuning requirements, reduces retrieval latency, enables intuitive question-driven knowledge access, and decreases vector storage demands by 80%, positioning it as a scalable and efficient RAG alternative.

LLM-generated reviews for scientific papers are gaining considerable traction and are even being officially piloted by major conferences. We have to assume that not only reviewers are using LLM-assistance, but also that authors use LLMs to revise their papers before submitting. In this work, we perform empirical experiments on papers from the 2025 ACL Rolling Review (ARR) to evaluate LLM reviews from both the author and the reviewer perspective. First, we identify a limited alignment of LLM reviews with human ones. In the best-case scenario, the alignment is reasonable. However, we also find that LLM-human alignment varies substantially across prompts and models. Finally, we investigate the scenario in which the author uses an iterative draft-revise workflow to improve the submission according to the LLM review. We find that this "gaming" of LLM reviews can be effective in specific scenarios, leading to a statistically significant increase of overall scores for up to 35\% of papers. We publish our code: https://github.com/uhh-hcds/reviewarcade.

Despite the growing adoption of large language models (LLMs) in academic workflows, their capabilities remain limited when it comes to supporting high-quality scientific writing. Most existing systems are designed for general-purpose scientific text generation and fail to meet the sophisticated demands of research communication beyond surface-level polishing, such as conceptual coherence across sections. Furthermore, academic writing is inherently iterative and revision-driven, a process not well supported by direct prompting-based paradigms. To address these scenarios, we propose a human-AI collaboration framework for academic paper revision. We first introduce a comprehensive dataset of 7,040 research papers from top-tier venues annotated with over 140,000 instruction-response pairs that reflect realistic, section-level scientific revisions. Building on the dataset, we develop XtraGPT, the first suite of open-source LLMs, designed to provide context-aware, instruction-guided writing assistance, ranging from 1.5B to 14B parameters. Extensive experiments validate that XtraGPT significantly outperforms same-scale baselines and approaches the quality of proprietary systems. Both automated preference assessments and human evaluations confirm the effectiveness of our models in improving scientific drafts.

Ranking documents using Large Language Models (LLMs) by directly feeding the query and candidate documents into the prompt is an interesting and practical problem. However, there has been limited success so far, as researchers have found it difficult to outperform fine-tuned baseline rankers on benchmark datasets. We analyze pointwise and listwise ranking prompts used by existing methods and argue that off-the-shelf LLMs do not fully understand these ranking formulations, possibly due to the nature of how LLMs are trained. In this paper, we propose to significantly reduce the burden on LLMs by using a new technique called Pairwise Ranking Prompting (PRP). Our results are the first in the literature to achieve state-of-the-art ranking performance on standard benchmarks using moderate-sized open-sourced LLMs. On TREC-DL2020, PRP based on the Flan-UL2 model with 20B parameters outperforms the previous best approach in the literature, which is based on the blackbox commercial GPT-4 that has 50x (estimated) model size, by over 5% at NDCG@1. On TREC-DL2019, PRP is only inferior to the GPT-4 solution on the NDCG@5 and NDCG@10 metrics, while outperforming other existing solutions, such as InstructGPT which has 175B parameters, by over 10% for nearly all ranking metrics. Furthermore, we propose several variants of PRP to improve efficiency and show that it is possible to achieve competitive results even with linear complexity. We also discuss other benefits of PRP, such as supporting both generation and scoring LLM APIs, as well as being insensitive to input ordering.

Identifying the scientific source behind a social media claim requires matching short, informal, and often multilingual claims against large collections of scientific publications, where semantically related papers may act as challenging distractors or false negatives during training. We present our submission to CheckThat! 2026 Task 1 on multilingual scientific-source retrieval, focusing on how hard-negative mining should be adapted to multi-stage retrieval pipelines for scientific-source retrieval. We propose cluster-aware hard-negative mining strategies that exploit the semantic structure of retrieved candidate pools in order to construct more informative training negatives for dense retrieval and reranking. Our experiments show that different hard-negative structures induce different retrieval behaviors. Localized cluster negatives tend to favor precision-oriented retrieval, whereas broader non-gold semantic negatives provide stronger candidate coverage and more consistent reranking performance across languages. We further study multiple LLM-based evidence-selection formulations, including direct classification, pairwise comparison, and listwise reranking prompts, and find that constrained classification prompts provide the most reliable final document selection. The final system combines a dense retriever, a multilingual cross-encoder reranker, and a selective LLM-based disagreement resolver, ranking 6th among 37 submissions in the shared task evaluation. Overall, our results suggest that hard-negative mining should be treated as a stage-aware design problem rather than as a single retrieval optimization strategy.

AI systems have achieved remarkable success in processing text and relational data, yet visual document processing remains relatively underexplored. Whereas traditional systems require OCR transcriptions to convert these visual documents into text and metadata, recent advances in multimodal foundation models offer retrieval and generation directly from document images. This raises a key question: How do image-based systems compare to established text-based methods? We introduce IRPAPERS, a benchmark of 3,230 pages from 166 scientific papers, with both an image and an OCR transcription for each page. Using 180 needle-in-the-haystack questions, we compare image- and text-based retrieval and question answering systems. Text retrieval using Arctic 2.0 embeddings, BM25, and hybrid text search achieved 46% Recall@1, 78% Recall@5, and 91% Recall@20, while image-based retrieval reaches 43%, 78%, and 93%, respectively. The two modalities exhibit complementary failures, enabling multimodal hybrid search to outperform either alone, achieving 49% Recall@1, 81% Recall@5, and 95% Recall@20. We further evaluate efficiency-performance tradeoffs with MUVERA and assess multiple multi-vector image embedding models. Among closed-source models, Cohere Embed v4 page image embeddings outperform Voyage 3 Large text embeddings and all tested open-source models, achieving 58% Recall@1, 87% Recall@5, and 97% Recall@20. For question answering, text-based RAG systems achieved higher ground-truth alignment than image-based systems (0.82 vs. 0.71), and both benefit substantially from increased retrieval depth, with multi-document retrieval outperforming oracle single-document retrieval. We analyze the complementary limitations of unimodal text and image representations and identify question types that require one modality over the other. The IRPAPERS dataset and all experimental code are publicly available.

Recent studies have demonstrated the great potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) serving as zero-shot relevance rankers. The typical approach involves making comparisons between pairs or lists of documents. Although effective, these listwise and pairwise methods are not efficient and also heavily rely on intricate prompt engineering. To tackle this problem, we introduce a novel instruction distillation method. The key idea is to distill the pairwise ranking ability of open-sourced LLMs to a simpler but more efficient pointwise ranking. Specifically, given the same LLM, we first rank documents using the effective pairwise approach with complex instructions, and then distill the teacher predictions to the pointwise approach with simpler instructions. Evaluation results on the BEIR, TREC, and ReDial datasets demonstrate that instruction distillation can improve efficiency by 10 to 100x and also enhance the ranking performance of LLMs. Furthermore, our approach surpasses the performance of existing supervised methods like monoT5 and is on par with the state-of-the-art zero-shot methods. The code to reproduce our results is available at www.github.com/sunnweiwei/RankGPT.

Is there a statistical difference between Naive Bayes and Random Forest in terms of recall, f-measure, and precision for predicting software defects? By utilizing systematic literature review and meta-analysis, we are answering this question. We conducted a systematic literature review by establishing criteria to search and choose papers, resulting in five studies. After that, using the meta-data and forest-plots of five chosen papers, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the two models. The results have shown that there is no significant statistical evidence that Naive Bayes perform differently from Random Forest in terms of recall, f-measure, and precision.

Generative reward models with parallel sampling have enabled effective test-time scaling for reasoning tasks. Current approaches employ pointwise scoring of individual solutions or pairwise comparisons. However, pointwise methods underutilize LLMs' comparative abilities, while pairwise methods scale inefficiently with larger sampling budgets. We introduce GenSelect, where the LLM uses long reasoning to select the best solution among N candidates. This leverages LLMs' comparative strengths while scaling efficiently across parallel sampling budgets. For math reasoning, we demonstrate that reasoning models, such as QwQ and DeepSeek-R1-0528, excel at GenSelect, outperforming existing scoring approaches with simple prompting.

Scientific literature review generation aims to extract and organize important information from an abundant collection of reference papers and produces corresponding reviews while lacking a clear and logical hierarchy. We observe that a high-quality catalogue-guided generation process can effectively alleviate this problem. Therefore, we present an atomic and challenging task named Hierarchical Catalogue Generation for Literature Review as the first step for review generation, which aims to produce a hierarchical catalogue of a review paper given various references. We construct a novel English Hierarchical Catalogues of Literature Reviews Dataset with 7.6k literature review catalogues and 389k reference papers. To accurately assess the model performance, we design two evaluation metrics for informativeness and similarity to ground truth from semantics and structure.Our extensive analyses verify the high quality of our dataset and the effectiveness of our evaluation metrics. We further benchmark diverse experiments on state-of-the-art summarization models like BART and large language models like ChatGPT to evaluate their capabilities. We further discuss potential directions for this task to motivate future research.

We present SciCoQA, a dataset for detecting discrepancies between scientific publications and their codebases to ensure faithful implementations. We construct SciCoQA from GitHub issues and reproducibility papers, and to scale our dataset, we propose a synthetic data generation method for constructing paper-code discrepancies. We analyze the paper-code discrepancies in detail and propose discrepancy types and categories to better understand the occurring mismatches. In total, our dataset consists of 611 paper-code discrepancies (81 real, 530 synthetic), spanning diverse computational science disciplines, including AI, Physics, Quantitative Biology, and others. Our evaluation of 21 LLMs highlights the difficulty of SciCoQA, particularly for instances involving omitted paper details, long-context inputs, and data outside the models' pre-training corpus. The best performing model in our evaluation, GPT-5, can only detect 45.7\% of real-world paper-code discrepancies.

When writing a summary, humans tend to choose content from one or two sentences and merge them into a single summary sentence. However, the mechanisms behind the selection of one or multiple source sentences remain poorly understood. Sentence fusion assumes multi-sentence input; yet sentence selection methods only work with single sentences and not combinations of them. There is thus a crucial gap between sentence selection and fusion to support summarizing by both compressing single sentences and fusing pairs. This paper attempts to bridge the gap by ranking sentence singletons and pairs together in a unified space. Our proposed framework attempts to model human methodology by selecting either a single sentence or a pair of sentences, then compressing or fusing the sentence(s) to produce a summary sentence. We conduct extensive experiments on both single- and multi-document summarization datasets and report findings on sentence selection and abstraction.

Neural sentence embedding models for dense retrieval typically rely on binary relevance labels, treating query-document pairs as either relevant or irrelevant. However, real-world relevance often exists on a continuum, and recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have made it feasible to scale the generation of fine-grained graded relevance labels. In this work, we propose BiXSE, a simple and effective pointwise training method that optimizes binary cross-entropy (BCE) over LLM-generated graded relevance scores. BiXSE interprets these scores as probabilistic targets, enabling granular supervision from a single labeled query-document pair per query. Unlike pairwise or listwise losses that require multiple annotated comparisons per query, BiXSE achieves strong performance with reduced annotation and compute costs by leveraging in-batch negatives. Extensive experiments across sentence embedding (MMTEB) and retrieval benchmarks (BEIR, TREC-DL) show that BiXSE consistently outperforms softmax-based contrastive learning (InfoNCE), and matches or exceeds strong pairwise ranking baselines when trained on LLM-supervised data. BiXSE offers a robust, scalable alternative for training dense retrieval models as graded relevance supervision becomes increasingly accessible.

Listwise rerankers based on large language models (LLM) are the zero-shot state-of-the-art. However, current works in this direction all depend on the GPT models, making it a single point of failure in scientific reproducibility. Moreover, it raises the concern that the current research findings only hold for GPT models but not LLM in general. In this work, we lift this pre-condition and build for the first time effective listwise rerankers without any form of dependency on GPT. Our passage retrieval experiments show that our best list se reranker surpasses the listwise rerankers based on GPT-3.5 by 13% and achieves 97% effectiveness of the ones built on GPT-4. Our results also show that the existing training datasets, which were expressly constructed for pointwise ranking, are insufficient for building such listwise rerankers. Instead, high-quality listwise ranking data is required and crucial, calling for further work on building human-annotated listwise data resources.