Daily Papers

Large language model (LLM) agents can keep scientific experiments running for months with little human supervision, but reliable autonomous research also requires scientific judgment. Evaluating scientific judgment is difficult because research decisions are open-ended and depend on project context. We construct SciΠvot, a 248-case benchmark of scientific judgment based on human corrections. The benchmark draws on records from six months of research in which senior researchers ran LLM agents on 26 projects across six scientific fields and repeatedly intervened to correct the agents' research judgments. In each case, an agent chooses between the original LLM plan and the human-corrected alternative, using only the project record available before the correction as context. We compare LLM and human performance and examine the effects of reasoning effort, access to the project record, and reconsideration. At medium reasoning effort with the project record, models systematically prefer the original LLM plan over the human-corrected alternative. Four of five frontier models perform below chance on the selected cases. The highest accuracy in the project condition across the tested models and reasoning effort settings is 63.5%, compared with 73.4% for fresh researchers. At medium effort, every model achieves lower accuracy with the project record than without it, and reconsideration does not consistently improve overall accuracy. Even with a human-corrected alternative available, frontier models struggle with the selected research decisions, while SciΠvot supports systematic evaluation of scientific judgment for LLM agents.

AI systems for peer review fail on three fronts: they train on Computer Science and Machine Learning venues alone, ignore the iterative dialogue that validates science, and evaluate on stylistic mimicry rather than real editorial judgment. We introduce FirstPass, a dataset and fine-tuned model that addresses all three. Curating 3,668 complete multi-round peer-review dialogues from Nature Communications across five scientific domains (biology, chemistry, neuroscience, physics, and earth science), we exploit mandatory transparent peer review (instituted November 2022) and verify 100% content integrity by automated audit. We fine-tune Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) on three tasks: review generation, reviewer updating, and revision-cycle prediction. Our key finding is that response-only loss masking is a prerequisite, not an optimization: without it, accuracy is 62.0%, below the majority baseline; with it, FirstPass achieves 80.5% accuracy and F1-macro 78.2% on predicting editorial outcomes (Standard vs. Extended revision cycles), outperforming Gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview zero-shot by 10.4 percentage points and all baselines with statistical significance (McNemar p < 0.001). On generation, FirstPass produces reviews averaging 1,187 words, substantially closer to human references (2,155 words) than any baseline, achieving ROUGE-L 0.154 with significant gains over Qwen and DeepSeek zero-shot (p < 0.001). Deployed in the pre-submission loop as an anticipatory scientific co-author, FirstPass simulates expert critique and predicts revision cycle outcomes before submission, giving authors the judgment a trusted colleague would provide, with consistent cross-domain performance across five disciplines.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, both as automated reviewers and as assistants to human reviewers. As model-generated reviews enter public data and future training corpora, AI peer review can become recursive: later reviewers learn from judgments produced by earlier models. We study one step of this feedback loop in a controlled setting. Starting from Llama 3.1 8B, we first fine-tune a reviewer on official ICLR reviews from 2018--2023 and then train four successor models on ICLR 2024 data with systematically varied mixtures of official and model-generated reviews. Our study shows that introducing synthetic reviews compresses rating distributions and reduces both same-paper and corpus-level semantic diversity. We call this pattern scientific-judgment collapse. To mitigate this failure mode, we introduce TrustReviewer, an open-source LLM-based system for generating peer reviews of AI and machine learning papers. TrustReviewer intervenes at two complementary stages. For training-time prevention, we train the core reviewer in a single stage on a curated corpus designed to reduce low-quality and semantically degenerate supervision. For test-time correction, paired activation steering aims to further mitigate residual tendencies toward collapsed judgments without further training or additional expert annotation. Together, these results characterize a concrete risk of recursive reviewer training and provide practical interventions for preserving judgment diversity and improving recommendation alignment in AI-assisted scientific evaluation.

Scientific agents contribute to hypothesis discovery by synthesizing evidence, assessing proposals, and developing new explanations. Recent systems combine scientific agents with evolutionary search through critique, comparison, and revision. However, how different forms of agent collaboration affect hypothesis quality remains an open question. Answering this question requires separating the effects of agents' scientific capabilities from those of their collaboration. A framework must therefore preserve agents' scientific roles and support rules for combining, revising, and retaining hypotheses. Building on this view, we introduce HypoEvolve, which makes collaboration explicit through successive updates to a hypothesis population. Specifically, we propose a generational genetic algorithm to coordinate specialized large language model (LLM) agents that integrate mechanistic arguments, reconsider assumptions, and assess evidence and testability. Each generation specifies how scientific judgments and new proposals reshape the population, making collaboration effects on hypothesis quality directly testable. Moreover, we design our evaluation around scientifically meaningful hypotheses that explain how a proposed intervention could work. Drug repurposing links these explanations to target-level biological claims assessed against external evidence. Specifically, we adapt DepMap and Open Targets into complementary external measures grounded in experimental, genetic, and clinical evidence. Across 34 cancer types, HypoEvolve achieves the highest scores against six baselines on both measures. DepMap selectivity reaches 0.171, versus 0.115 for the strongest baseline. Gains over single-pass generation also generalize to held-out cancer types. HypoEvolve advances a vision of autonomous science in which AI research teams achieve a capacity for discovery beyond that of individual models.

Scientific discovery workflows usually contain and rely heavily on lab notes, where researchers record observations, interpret uncertain results, and plan follow-up experiments. Such informative lab notes preserve evolving scientific reasoning and author uncertainty, rather than polished final results exhibited in publications, providing a valuable opportunity for AI to engage in scientific exploration at a more comprehensive and deeper level. However, most prior work on scientific text focuses on papers, protocols, or structured databases, leaving informal laboratory notes underexplored as inputs to AI agents for science. This gap matters because lab notes often intermingle validated observations, tentative judgments, and possible experimental next steps within the same passage. If these signals are conflated, an AI agent may mistake uncertain scientific judgments for confirmed conclusions or executable actions. To this end, we present Notes2Skills, a two-stage framework for turning lab notebooks into verifiable skills for scientific AI agents while preserving the author's certainty. Across seven conditions and three wet-lab sessions, Notes2Skills is the only configuration that neither mistakes uncertain notes for firm instructions nor discards firm ones. We show that certainty preservation is the missing piece between lab notebooks and reliable agent skills, opening a path toward safer AI co-scientist systems.

Automating scientific discovery requires more than generating papers from ideas. Real research is iterative: hypotheses are challenged from multiple perspectives, experiments fail and inform the next attempt, and lessons accumulate across cycles. Existing autonomous research systems often model this process as a linear pipeline: they rely on single-agent reasoning, stop when execution fails, and do not carry experience across runs. We present AutoResearchClaw, a multi-agent autonomous research pipeline built on five mechanisms: structured multi-agent debate for hypothesis generation and result analysis, a self-healing executor with a Pivot/Refine decision loop that transforms failures into information, verifiable result reporting that prevents fabricated numbers and hallucinated citations, human-in-the-loop collaboration with seven intervention modes spanning full autonomy to step-by-step oversight, and cross-run evolution that converts past mistakes into future safeguards. On ARC-Bench, a 25-topic experiment-stage benchmark, AutoResearchClaw outperforms AI Scientist v2 by 54.7%. A human-in-the-loop ablation across seven intervention modes reveals that precise, targeted collaboration at high-leverage decision points consistently outperforms both full autonomy and exhaustive step-by-step oversight. We position AutoResearchClaw as a research amplifier that augments rather than replaces human scientific judgment. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/AutoResearchClaw.

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

Agentic AI tools offer a promising path to automating software development bottlenecks in scientific research pipelines, particularly for stages that take domain experts days to months to build, where scientists care about correctness and robustness, not implementation details. We present an empirical study of general-purpose coding agents on a fly optogenetics data-to-discovery pipeline. We assess agents on tasks substantially larger than existing benchmarks, datasets orders of magnitude bigger, and evaluation criteria grounded in domain expert standards. We show that agents can solve several individual pipeline stages, suggesting stage-level automation is tractable. By analyzing agents' code iterations, we show that they struggle most when there is not a pre-defined criterion to iterate on, and they must instead use their scientific judgment to assess their current solution, a key open challenge. Mirroring scientific practice, they sometimes attempt visual inspection of intermediate outputs for self-evaluation, but largely fail to interpret what they see or act on it appropriately. Solving the end-to-end pipeline correctly requires stringing together successes across all pipeline stages, and this is beyond agents' current abilities. We identify challenges largely absent from existing benchmarks, including computational resource management and generalization to large held-out data collections. Finally, we distill principles for constructing scientific tasks and rigorous evaluation criteria for open-ended problems.

As foundation models advance and agent scaffolding becomes increasingly sophisticated, agents have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in complex, long-horizon coding tasks and even autonomous experiment execution. Despite their evolution from research assistants into autonomous research agents, these systems still exhibit significant limitations in field sensitivity, research ethics, and nuanced scientific judgment. Consequently, frontier agents remain unable to fully replace human researchers. To bridge this gap, we conceptualize the AARR (Act As a Real Researcher) benchmark series. Unlike existing benchmarks that primarily assess macro-level execution capabilities, AARR focuses on whether agents can emulate the professionalism, thoroughness, and nuanced reasoning that characterize human researchers in granular research scenarios. In this work, we propose AARRI-Bench (Act As a Real Research Intern), the first benchmark in this series. We conduct extensive experiments across frontier models and agentic systems, revealing that even the best-performing configuration (Mini-SWE-Agent with Claude Opus 4.7) achieves only 68.3\% success rate, frequently overlooking subtle yet critical details that are obvious to real human researchers. Our results indicate that developing researcher-like AI requires further exploration of research behavior, rather than merely complex scaffolding. Our data is released at https://github.com/AARR-bench/AARRI-bench.

Large language models are increasingly being used to assess and forecast research ideas, yet we lack scalable ways to evaluate the quality of models' judgments about these scientific ideas. Towards this goal, we introduce PoT, a semi-verifiable benchmarking framework that links scientific idea judgments to downstream signals that become observable later (e.g., citations and shifts in researchers' agendas). PoT freezes a pre-cutoff snapshot of evidence in an offline sandbox and asks models to forecast post-cutoff outcomes, enabling verifiable evaluation when ground truth arrives, scalable benchmarking without exhaustive expert annotation, and analysis of human-model misalignment against signals such as peer-review awards. In addition, PoT provides a controlled testbed for agent-based research judgments that evaluate scientific ideas, comparing tool-using agents to non-agent baselines under prompt ablations and budget scaling. Across 30,000+ instances spanning four benchmark domains, we find that, compared with non-agent baselines, higher interaction budgets generally improve agent performance, while the benefit of tool use is strongly task-dependent. By combining time-partitioned, future-verifiable targets with an offline sandbox for tool use, PoT supports scalable evaluation of agents on future-facing scientific idea judgment tasks.

Scientific figure captioning is a complex task that requires generating contextually appropriate descriptions of visual content. However, existing methods often fall short by utilizing incomplete information, treating the task solely as either an image-to-text or text summarization problem. This limitation hinders the generation of high-quality captions that fully capture the necessary details. Moreover, existing data sourced from arXiv papers contain low-quality captions, posing significant challenges for training large language models (LLMs). In this paper, we introduce a framework called Multi-LLM Collaborative Figure Caption Generation (MLBCAP) to address these challenges by leveraging specialized LLMs for distinct sub-tasks. Our approach unfolds in three key modules: (Quality Assessment) We utilize multimodal LLMs to assess the quality of training data, enabling the filtration of low-quality captions. (Diverse Caption Generation) We then employ a strategy of fine-tuning/prompting multiple LLMs on the captioning task to generate candidate captions. (Judgment) Lastly, we prompt a prominent LLM to select the highest quality caption from the candidates, followed by refining any remaining inaccuracies. Human evaluations demonstrate that informative captions produced by our approach rank better than human-written captions, highlighting its effectiveness. Our code is available at https://github.com/teamreboott/MLBCAP

Generative discovery in science requires coupling high-level scientific reasoning with the ability to generate samples respecting the structure of a design space. Yet these capabilities remain largely separated: foundation LLMs encode broad chemical and biological knowledge, while domain-specific flow- and diffusion-based generators capture the priors needed to produce valid sequences and geometries. We study how to align such scientific generators to high-level natural-language discovery goals without requiring an explicit proxy reward, which is often unavailable or poorly captured by learned predictors in experimental sciences. We introduce LLM-to-Flow Distillation (LFD), where a frozen LLM acts as an adaptive teacher for a domain-specific generator. Given a goal such as 'generate peptides with promising anticancer activity', the teacher constructs a curriculum of intermediate sub-goals aware of the flow's current capabilities, and progressively directs them toward the original discovery goal. At each round, the LLM judges sampled candidates under the current objective. These judgments induce preferences that are iteratively distilled into the generator through DPO. This procedure provides dense learning signals even when the initial model places negligible probability on designs satisfying the final goal, enabling adaptation toward poorly covered, out-of-distribution regions. Experiments on therapeutic peptides and small-molecule structure design demonstrate that LFD enables a new form of generative control: aligning arbitrary domain-specific scientific generators to scientific discovery tasks expressed via high-level natural-language goals.

Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference solutions, or simulators with a known generative structure. Real scientific requests arrive differently. They are underspecified, they carry attachments, and lack ground truth. We report K-Bench 01, an evaluation built from first-turn requests sampled from live user traffic on K-Dense Web and run end to end by nine frontier models in identical sandboxes, yielding 1,602 completed agent runs. Three blinded language-model judges scored every run against an eight-dimension rubric. On a rubric whose 8-anchor instructs judges that a domain scientist would accept the work with minor edits, no model clears the line under all three judges. gpt-5.6-sol has the highest pooled mean, 8.04, but its 95% interval [7.80, 8.23] spans the threshold, and two of the three judges rank claude-opus-5 first instead. We therefore report the ordering of systems as the reproducible quantity, the absolute level as an attribute of the instrument, and the top of the table as unresolved. Across all 39,934 scored judgments -- the eight dimension scores plus a holistic overall for each assessment, excluding not-applicable cells -- 47.6% fall below the 8-point threshold. Difficulty is not uniform across the rubric: scientific accuracy averages 6.22 against 7.33 for communication, on identical denominators and in the same direction within every one of the nine models. The single leading failure tag is overclaiming, on 31.4% of assessments. We argue that the informative quantity for scientific agents is not a leaderboard position but the joint distribution of what was delivered, what was claimed, and what artifacts were produced.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly demonstrate signs of conceptual understanding, yet much of their internal knowledge remains latent, loosely structured, and difficult to access or evaluate. We propose self-questioning as a lightweight and scalable strategy to improve LLMs' understanding, particularly in domains where success depends on fine-grained semantic distinctions. To evaluate this approach, we introduce a challenging new benchmark of 1.3 million post-2015 computer science patent pairs, characterized by dense technical jargon and strategically complex writing. The benchmark centers on a pairwise differentiation task: can a model distinguish between closely related but substantively different inventions? We show that prompting LLMs to generate and answer their own questions - targeting the background knowledge required for the task - significantly improves performance. These self-generated questions and answers activate otherwise underutilized internal knowledge. Allowing LLMs to retrieve answers from external scientific texts further enhances performance, suggesting that model knowledge is compressed and lacks the full richness of the training data. We also find that chain-of-thought prompting and self-questioning converge, though self-questioning remains more effective for improving understanding of technical concepts. Notably, we uncover an asymmetry in prompting: smaller models often generate more fundamental, more open-ended, better-aligned questions for mid-sized models than large models with better understanding do, revealing a new strategy for cross-model collaboration. Altogether, our findings establish self-questioning as both a practical mechanism for automatically improving LLM comprehension, especially in domains with sparse and underrepresented knowledge, and a diagnostic probe of how internal and external knowledge are organized.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to scientific reasoning, the complexity of answer formats and the diversity of equivalent expressions make answer verification a critical yet challenging task. Existing verification studies in scientific domains suffer from two major limitations: (a) the absence of systematic evaluation standards and insufficient disciplinary coverage, which hinders their comprehensive assessment; and (b) heavy reliance on cumbersome rule design or prompt engineering, which reduces their effectiveness in complex reasoning scenarios or limits their cross-disciplinary generalization. To address these challenges, we propose solutions at both the data and model levels. On the data side, we construct SCI-VerifyBench, a cross-disciplinary benchmark covering mathematics, physics, biology, chemistry, and general scientific QA. The benchmark is built from real LLM responses and enhanced with domain-specific equivalence transformations that generate challenging and realistic data. Model-based and expert annotations ensure both quality and diversity, enabling rigorous evaluation of verification ability. On the model side, we emphasize the importance of reasoning for verification and introduce SCI-Verifier, a unified reasoning-augmented verifier for scientific domains. Through post-training, SCI-Verifier demonstrates strong logical reasoning and equivalence judgment capabilities while maintaining concise and stable outputs. Together, SCI-VerifyBench and SCI-Verifier provide a principled framework for scientific verification, offering both systematic evaluation and practical pathways to enhance the reliability and applicability of LLMs in scientific domains.

Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs). This is difficult to scale; thus, prior studies typically rely on small physician panels, often from a single institution or specialty, which both limits the scientific questions investigated and makes it unclear whether findings would be reproduced with a different set of evaluators. To more rigorously and scalably study clinical reasoning in AI models, here we introduce PrecepTron, an LLM fine-tuned for physician-level evaluation of open-ended responses. PrecepTron was trained using low-rank adaptation (LoRA) of a 32-billion-parameter model on a small number of physician examples. We also release GRAND-ROUNDS, a new large-scale physician-annotated benchmark of 9,217 scores by 11 physicians across seven studies. We show that frontier LLMs in typical "LLM-as-a-judge" approaches often disagree with physicians and with each other, but fine-tuning PrecepTron on a small number of cases enables physician-level consistent scoring across tasks. We use PrecepTron to reproduce headline findings from five influential studies assessing LLMs for clinical care in JAMA, Science, and Nature Medicine without new human grading. Using PrecepTron, we then pose new questions about how LLMs reason in medicine that would have been infeasible with human grading alone, including measuring the diagnostic accuracy of frontier LLMs when clinical cases are provided piecemeal, even token by token. Together, PrecepTron and GRAND-ROUNDS provide a foundation for reproducible, large-scale study of how LLMs reason in medicine. All code, data, and labels are made freely available for researchers.

LLMs are increasingly used to generate and judge scientific ideas. This makes novelty evaluation a central problem. Full idea evaluation is difficult because it often requires judging a method, its feasibility, and its empirical promise. We therefore study a cleaner upstream object: the research question (RQ). RQ generation is a prerequisite for scientific ideation, and RQs can be compared against questions pursued in real papers. We introduce RQ-Bench, a benchmark built from recent arXiv papers. For each paper, we reconstruct author-anchored RQs from its cited background, gaps, and contributions. These RQs are not the only valid questions for the same background. They are author-anchored reference points for testing novelty judgments. We evaluate model-generated RQs with standalone LLM judging, comparative LLM judging, and human expert evaluation. LLM judges consistently rate model-generated RQs as highly novel, producing a novelty mirage; in comparative evaluations, this preference becomes even stronger. Domain experts, however, reach the opposite conclusion and prefer the author-anchored reference questions. We further find that many generated RQs are narrow or source-bound, a dimension that LLM judges often miss unless explicitly tested. Overall, the contradictory novelty evaluations between LLM judges and human experts raise a serious concern about the reliability of using LLMs to assess the scientific novelty of research questions.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional reasoning capabilities, and co-evolving paradigms have shown promising results in domains such as code and math. However, in scientific reasoning tasks, these models remain fragile due to unreliable solution evaluation and limited diversity in verification strategies. In this work, we propose Sci-CoE, a two-stage scientific co-evolving framework that enables models to self-evolve as both solver and verifier through a transition from sparse supervision to unsupervised learning. In the first stage, the model uses a small set of annotated data to establish fundamental correctness judgment anchors for the Verifier. In the second stage, we introduce a geometric reward mechanism that jointly considers consensus, reliability, and diversity, driving large-scale self-iteration on unlabeled data. Experiments on several general scientific benchmarks demonstrate that Sci-CoE enhances complex reasoning capabilities and exhibits strong scalability, facilitating the construction of more robust and diverse evaluation systems. Codes are available at https://github.com/InternScience/Sci-CoE.

Scientific communication is receiving increasing attention in natural language processing, especially to help researches access, summarize, and generate content. One emerging application in this area is Speech-to-Abstract Generation (SAG), which aims to automatically generate abstracts from recorded scientific presentations. SAG enables researchers to efficiently engage with conference talks, but progress has been limited by a lack of large-scale datasets. To address this gap, we introduce NUTSHELL, a novel multimodal dataset of *ACL conference talks paired with their corresponding abstracts. We establish strong baselines for SAG and evaluate the quality of generated abstracts using both automatic metrics and human judgments. Our results highlight the challenges of SAG and demonstrate the benefits of training on NUTSHELL. By releasing NUTSHELL under an open license (CC-BY 4.0), we aim to advance research in SAG and foster the development of improved models and evaluation methods.

Multimodal Large Language Models demonstrate strong performance on natural image understanding, yet exhibit limited capability in interpreting scientific images, including but not limited to schematic diagrams, experimental characterizations, and analytical charts. This limitation is particularly pronounced in open-source MLLMs. The gap largely stems from existing datasets with limited domain coverage, coarse structural annotations, and weak semantic grounding. We introduce OmniScience, a large-scale, high-fidelity multi-modal dataset comprising 1.5 million figure-caption-context triplets, spanning more than 10 major scientific disciplines. To obtain image caption data with higher information density and accuracy for multi-modal large-model training, we develop a dynamic model-routing re-captioning pipeline that leverages state-of-the-art multi-modal large language models to generate dense, self-contained descriptions by jointly synthesizing visual features, original figure captions, and corresponding in-text references authored by human scientists. The pipeline is further reinforced with rigorous quality filtering and alignment with human expert judgments, ensuring both factual accuracy and semantic completeness, and boosts the image-text multi-modal similarity score from 0.769 to 0.956. We further propose a caption QA protocol as a proxy task for evaluating visual understanding. Under this setting, Qwen2.5-VL-3B model finetuned on OmniScience show substantial gains over baselines, achieving a gain of 0.378 on MM-MT-Bench and a gain of 0.140 on MMMU.

Judging the novelty of research ideas is crucial for advancing science, enabling the identification of unexplored directions, and ensuring contributions meaningfully extend existing knowledge rather than reiterate minor variations. However, given the exponential growth of scientific literature, manually judging the novelty of research ideas through literature reviews is labor-intensive, subjective, and infeasible at scale. Therefore, recent efforts have proposed automated approaches for research idea novelty judgment. Yet, evaluation of these approaches remains largely inconsistent and is typically based on non-standardized human evaluations, hindering large-scale, comparable evaluations. To address this, we introduce RINoBench, the first comprehensive benchmark for large-scale evaluation of research idea novelty judgments. It comprises 1,381 research ideas derived from and judged by human experts as well as nine automated evaluation metrics designed to assess both rubric-based novelty scores and textual justifications of novelty judgments. Using this benchmark, we evaluate several state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) on their ability to judge the novelty of research ideas. Our findings reveal that while LLM-generated reasoning closely mirrors human rationales, this alignment does not reliably translate into accurate novelty judgments, which diverge significantly from human gold standard judgments - even among leading reasoning-capable models. Data and code available at: https://github.com/TimSchopf/RINoBench.

Scientific discovery has advanced through successive transformations in the organization of knowledge. Observation and experimentation established the empirical foundations of science. Theory made it possible to derive general principles from particular phenomena. Computation extended inquiry into systems beyond direct observation, while data-intensive methods opened new spaces of pattern and prediction. Science now confronts a different frontier. The central challenge is no longer simply to produce more information, but to organize expanding knowledge, reasoning, and evidence into a coherent process of discovery. Here, we introduce Bridging Literature, Agents, and Zero-gap Experimentation (BLAZE), a paradigm of socialized scientific intelligence. BLAZE conceives AI not as an assistant for isolated research tasks, but as an organizational infrastructure for scientific discovery. It connects persistent knowledge, collective reasoning, empirical validation, and human judgment within a continuous research lifecycle, transforming fragmented activities into a cumulative process of inquiry, criticism, and revision. The central premise of BLAZE is that scientific intelligence does not arise from computation alone. It emerges from the sustained interaction among knowledge, hypotheses, experiments, and collective verification. By organizing humans and machines within a shared scientific process, BLAZE makes discovery more traceable, reproducible, and cumulative while preserving human creativity, judgment, and responsibility. Socialized scientific intelligence may provide a foundation for the next era of science. Its purpose is not to replace human discovery, but to extend the scale, depth, and continuity of collective scientific inquiry.

There is growing interest in systems that generate captions for scientific figures. However, assessing these systems output poses a significant challenge. Human evaluation requires academic expertise and is costly, while automatic evaluation depends on often low-quality author-written captions. This paper investigates using large language models (LLMs) as a cost-effective, reference-free method for evaluating figure captions. We first constructed SCICAP-EVAL, a human evaluation dataset that contains human judgments for 3,600 scientific figure captions, both original and machine-made, for 600 arXiv figures. We then prompted LLMs like GPT-4 and GPT-3 to score (1-6) each caption based on its potential to aid reader understanding, given relevant context such as figure-mentioning paragraphs. Results show that GPT-4, used as a zero-shot evaluator, outperformed all other models and even surpassed assessments made by Computer Science and Informatics undergraduates, achieving a Kendall correlation score of 0.401 with Ph.D. students rankings

Scientific Research, vital for improving human life, is hindered by its inherent complexity, slow pace, and the need for specialized experts. To enhance its productivity, we propose a ResearchAgent, a large language model-powered research idea writing agent, which automatically generates problems, methods, and experiment designs while iteratively refining them based on scientific literature. Specifically, starting with a core paper as the primary focus to generate ideas, our ResearchAgent is augmented not only with relevant publications through connecting information over an academic graph but also entities retrieved from an entity-centric knowledge store based on their underlying concepts, mined and shared across numerous papers. In addition, mirroring the human approach to iteratively improving ideas with peer discussions, we leverage multiple ReviewingAgents that provide reviews and feedback iteratively. Further, they are instantiated with human preference-aligned large language models whose criteria for evaluation are derived from actual human judgments. We experimentally validate our ResearchAgent on scientific publications across multiple disciplines, showcasing its effectiveness in generating novel, clear, and valid research ideas based on human and model-based evaluation results.

We present an overview of the TREC-COVID Challenge, an information retrieval (IR) shared task to evaluate search on scientific literature related to COVID-19. The goals of TREC-COVID include the construction of a pandemic search test collection and the evaluation of IR methods for COVID-19. The challenge was conducted over five rounds from April to July, 2020, with participation from 92 unique teams and 556 individual submissions. A total of 50 topics (sets of related queries) were used in the evaluation, starting at 30 topics for Round 1 and adding 5 new topics per round to target emerging topics at that state of the still-emerging pandemic. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of the structure and results of TREC-COVID. Specifically, the paper provides details on the background, task structure, topic structure, corpus, participation, pooling, assessment, judgments, results, top-performing systems, lessons learned, and benchmark datasets.

Evaluating text revision in scientific writing remains a challenge, as traditional metrics such as ROUGE and BERTScore primarily focus on similarity rather than capturing meaningful improvements. In this work, we analyse and identify the limitations of these metrics and explore alternative evaluation methods that better align with human judgments. We first conduct a manual annotation study to assess the quality of different revisions. Then, we investigate reference-free evaluation metrics from related NLP domains. Additionally, we examine LLM-as-a-judge approaches, analysing their ability to assess revisions with and without a gold reference. Our results show that LLMs effectively assess instruction-following but struggle with correctness, while domain-specific metrics provide complementary insights. We find that a hybrid approach combining LLM-as-a-judge evaluation and task-specific metrics offers the most reliable assessment of revision quality.

Scientific researchers need intensive information about datasets to effectively evaluate and develop theories and methodologies. The information needs regarding datasets are implicitly embedded in particular research tasks, rather than explicitly expressed in search queries. However, existing scientific retrieval and question-answering (QA) datasets typically address straightforward questions, which do not align with the distribution of real-world research inquiries. To bridge this gap, we developed ScIRGen, a dataset generation framework for scientific QA \& retrieval that more accurately reflects the information needs of professional science researchers, and uses it to create a large-scale scientific retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) dataset with realistic queries, datasets and papers. Technically, we designed a dataset-oriented information extraction method that leverages academic papers to augment the dataset representation. We then proposed a question generation framework by employing cognitive taxonomy to ensure the quality of synthesized questions. We also design a method to automatically filter synthetic answers based on the perplexity shift of LLMs, which is highly aligned with human judgment of answers' validity. Collectively, these methodologies culminated in the creation of the 61k QA dataset, ScIRGen-Geo. We benchmarked representative methods on the ScIRGen-Geo dataset for their question-answering and retrieval capabilities, finding out that current methods still suffer from reasoning from complex questions. This work advances the development of more sophisticated tools to support the intricate information needs of the scientific community.

AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage. Although such systems promise to reduce reviewer burden and accelerate publication, their robustness to strategic manipulation remains poorly understood. Here we show that AI-mediated peer review is vulnerable to a simple, low-cost manipulation: superficial rephrasing of the manuscript abstract. Without changing the underlying scientific content and communication, and even without knowledge of the reviewing model, adversarially rewritten abstracts substantially improve AI review outcomes. We see this across disciplines and publication venues, for both human-written and AI-generated papers. Our strongest attack achieves an attack-success-rate of about 38%, increasing acceptance ratings by +1.31 for Gemini 3 Flash reviewers and by +0.88 for GPT 5.4 Mini reviewers on a 10-point scale. When the original AI review suggests 'reject', the success rate rises to more than 50%. This effect extends beyond overall score inflation, increasing review confidence and scores on core scientific criteria such as soundness, significance and perceived contribution. The attack is practical, requiring only about 5 minutes and $1 for a 10-page AI conference submission, and is hard to distinguish from ordinary scientific editing. Inflated AI reviews could bias downstream human decision-making, shifting editorial recommendations from rejection towards acceptance. These findings reveal a general vulnerability in AI-assisted scientific evaluation: when AI-generated review influence editorial decisions, authors may be incentivized to optimize manuscripts for AI judgment rather than scientific merit. Our results suggest that AI tools should not be treated as neutral evaluators in high-stakes peer review without systematic robustness testing, transparent safeguards and careful human oversight.

Scientific work increasingly spans heterogeneous artifacts -- papers, code, datasets, scientific file formats, model outputs, figures, manuscripts, and team decisions -- yet general-purpose AI assistants rarely preserve these objects as a coherent, auditable research state. We present SciForge, a multimodal research-native AI workbench that reserves the graphical interface for human judgment while search, parsing, model routing, workflow execution, plotting, writing, and presentation generation run as modular agent-accessible services. SciForge is built around five pillars: (i) goal-scoped scientific decision governance for goal-oriented research, with review gates and shared review surfaces; (ii) translate-then-reason for multimodal input, routing scientific objects through domain translators before the agent reasons; (iii) evidence governance for auditable traceability, linking claims to provenance chains and audit findings; (iv) collaborative team science for collaborative research, enabling multi-role decision governance, with shared team workspaces planned for future releases; and (v) real-world application scenarios for practical impact, demonstrated through eight end-to-end user cases, with flagship demonstrations including multi-day agentic research sprints for gene discovery, AI-guided de novo protein design, molecular optimization, and genome-to-BGC discovery. The system combines a thin interaction layer, contextual research capability patterns, an Agent Runtime and Workflow Engine, an Evidence-DAG audit sidecar and a Scientific Model Router. SciForge currently runs as a desktop application, with mobile supervision support; future releases will deepen team collaboration. The system is open-source and available at https://github.com/AGI4Sci/SciForge

Scientific discovery is a cumulative process and requires new ideas to be situated within an ever-expanding landscape of existing knowledge. An emerging and critical challenge is how to identify conceptually relevant prior work from rapidly growing literature, and assess how a new idea differentiates from existing research. Current embedding approaches typically conflate distinct conceptual aspects into single representations and cannot support fine-grained literature retrieval; meanwhile, LLM-based evaluators are subject to sycophancy biases, failing to provide discriminative novelty assessment. To tackle these challenges, we introduce the Ideation Space, a structured representation that decomposes scientific knowledge into three distinct dimensions, i.e., research problem, methodology, and core findings, each learned through contrastive training. This framework enables principled measurement of conceptual distance between ideas, and modeling of ideation transitions that capture the logical connections within a proposed idea. Building upon this representation, we propose a Hierarchical Sub-Space Retrieval framework for efficient, targeted literature retrieval, and a Decomposed Novelty Assessment algorithm that identifies which aspects of an idea are novel. Extensive experiments demonstrate substantial improvements, where our approach achieves Recall@30 of 0.329 (16.7% over baselines), our ideation transition retrieval reaches Hit Rate@30 of 0.643, and novelty assessment attains 0.37 correlation with expert judgments. In summary, our work provides a promising paradigm for future research on accelerating and evaluating scientific discovery.

Scientific research relies on accurate citation for attribution and integrity, yet large language models (LLMs) introduce a new risk: fabricated references that appear plausible but correspond to no real publications. Such hallucinated citations have already been observed in submissions and accepted papers at major machine learning venues, exposing vulnerabilities in peer review. Meanwhile, rapidly growing reference lists make manual verification impractical, and existing automated tools remain fragile to noisy and heterogeneous citation formats and lack standardized evaluation. We present the first comprehensive benchmark and detection framework for hallucinated citations in scientific writing. Our multi-agent verification pipeline decomposes citation checking into claim extraction, evidence retrieval, passage matching, reasoning, and calibrated judgment to assess whether a cited source truly supports its claim. We construct a large-scale human-validated dataset across domains and define unified metrics for citation faithfulness and evidence alignment. Experiments with state-of-the-art LLMs reveal substantial citation errors and show that our framework significantly outperforms prior methods in both accuracy and interpretability. This work provides the first scalable infrastructure for auditing citations in the LLM era and practical tools to improve the trustworthiness of scientific references.

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.

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

Scalable oversight studies methods of training and evaluating AI systems in domains where human judgment is unreliable or expensive, such as scientific research and software engineering in complex codebases. Most work in this area has focused on methods of improving the quality of labels. Recent work by Burns et al. (2023) considers the complementary problem of training models with low-quality labels, finding that large pretrained models often have an inductive bias towards producing correct answers. In practice, however, neither label quantity nor quality is fixed: practitioners face a quantity-quality tradeoff. In this paper, we explore the microeconomics of the quantity-quality tradeoff on binary NLP classification tasks used in Burns et al. (2023). While sample-efficient learning has been studied extensively, little public research has focused on scalable elicitation: eliciting capabilities from pretrained models subject to labeling cost constraints. We find that this setting has novel dynamics caused by the tradeoff between label quantity and quality, as well as the model's existing latent capabilities. We observe three regimes of eliciting classification knowledge from pretrained models using supervised finetuning: quantity-dominant, quality-dominant, and a mixed regime involving the use of low- and high-quality data together to attain higher accuracy at a lower cost than using either alone. We explore sample-efficient elicitation methods that make use of two datasets of differing qualities, and establish a Pareto frontier of scalable elicitation methods that optimally trade off labeling cost and classifier performance. We find that the accuracy of supervised fine-tuning can be improved by up to 5 percentage points at a fixed labeling budget by adding a few-shot prompt to make use of the model's existing knowledge of the task.

Understanding the brain increasingly depends on integrating evidence across scales, modalities, and disciplines. Addressing a single research question therefore requires a coordinated sequence of operations, from surveying prior work to executing analyses and interpreting results in light of domain knowledge. AI agents promise to accelerate this process, but current agents lack domain expertise in brain science, may fabricate claims, drift during multi-step reasoning, and offer few defined points for expert intervention. These failures are especially costly in brain science, where conclusions feed into downstream scientific claims and depend on laboratory-specific expertise and careful human judgment. We present BrainPilot a fully open-source multi-agent system that accelerates brain science research with traceable logs and agent-verified results. A principal investigator (PI) agent coordinates specialist agents grounded in curated domain knowledge: a unified brain science knowledge base containing 7{,}233 indexed items and a skill library of 72 reusable methodology units across seven research domains. Every major step is recorded in the Graph of Trace, an auditable record that links subgoals, tool use, evidence, and claims and allows researchers to follow and inspect the workflow. An Auditor agent further integrates fabrication checking into the workflow. For evaluation, we run three brain science tasks from Agents' Last Exam, introduce our own benchmark, BrainPilotBench-v0, and present additional end-to-end case studies. Across these evaluations, BrainPilot with an open-source backbone model attains performance comparable to state-of-the-art agent framework with less costs.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in scientific research, offering new capabilities for knowledge discovery and reasoning. In single-cell biology, however, evaluation practices for both general and specialized LLMs remain inadequate: existing benchmarks are fragmented across tasks, adopt formats such as multiple-choice classification that diverge from real-world usage, and rely on metrics lacking interpretability and biological grounding. We present SC-ARENA, a natural language evaluation framework tailored to single-cell foundation models. SC-ARENA formalizes a virtual cell abstraction that unifies evaluation targets by representing both intrinsic attributes and gene-level interactions. Within this paradigm, we define five natural language tasks (cell type annotation, captioning, generation, perturbation prediction, and scientific QA) that probe core reasoning capabilities in cellular biology. To overcome the limitations of brittle string-matching metrics, we introduce knowledge-augmented evaluation, which incorporates external ontologies, marker databases, and scientific literature to support biologically faithful and interpretable judgments. Experiments and analysis across both general-purpose and domain-specialized LLMs demonstrate that (i) under the Virtual Cell unified evaluation paradigm, current models achieve uneven performance on biologically complex tasks, particularly those demanding mechanistic or causal understanding; and (ii) our knowledge-augmented evaluation framework ensures biological correctness, provides interpretable, evidence-grounded rationales, and achieves high discriminative capacity, overcoming the brittleness and opacity of conventional metrics. SC-Arena thus provides a unified and interpretable framework for assessing LLMs in single-cell biology, pointing toward the development of biology-aligned, generalizable foundation models.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as judges for evaluating model outputs, but their high cost, latency, and opacity limit scalability. We introduce SLMJury, a framework for evaluating small language models (SLMs) as judges across two paradigms: closed-ended binary correctness and open-ended quality scoring. We benchmark 16 SLM judges (0.6B-14B parameters) from four model families across ten benchmarks: eight closed-ended tasks spanning mathematical, scientific, and general reasoning (N=64,824 judgments per configuration), plus SummEval and MT-Bench for summarization and conversational scoring. We formalize judging as a budget-conditioned function and study five dimensions. Four findings emerge. (1) The overthinking effect is domain-dependent: for most judges quick 10-token verdicts match or beat extended reasoning on mathematical judging (by 2-7% where they help), while reasoning wins on general tasks by up to 23%. (2) Domain generalization separates model families, with math-to-general accuracy gaps ranging from under 10% to nearly 40%. (3) Closed-ended and open-ended judging draw on different capabilities: the best binary judge (Phi-4) drops to rank 9 on MT-Bench, while reasoning-trained models invert this ordering. (4) Under the Reflect-Critique-Refine (RCR) debate protocol, multi-agent debate degrades accuracy across all tested configurations, whereas the top judges resist six adversarial personas with <=0.55% variance. Reliable automated evaluation does not require large proprietary models, yet no single SLM dominates. The leaderboard is available at https://anishh15.github.io/SLMJury/, and our framework code and pip package are publicly available at https://github.com/anishh15/SLMJury and https://pypi.org/project/slmjury/.

Great scientists have strong judgement and foresight, closely tied to what we call scientific taste. Here, we use the term to refer to the capacity to judge and propose research ideas with high potential impact. However, most relative research focuses on improving an AI scientist's executive capability, while enhancing an AI's scientific taste remains underexplored. In this work, we propose Reinforcement Learning from Community Feedback (RLCF), a training paradigm that uses large-scale community signals as supervision, and formulate scientific taste learning as a preference modeling and alignment problem. For preference modeling, we train Scientific Judge on 700K field- and time-matched pairs of high- vs. low-citation papers to judge ideas. For preference alignment, using Scientific Judge as a reward model, we train a policy model, Scientific Thinker, to propose research ideas with high potential impact. Experiments show Scientific Judge outperforms SOTA LLMs (e.g., GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro) and generalizes to future-year test, unseen fields, and peer-review preference. Furthermore, Scientific Thinker proposes research ideas with higher potential impact than baselines. Our findings show that AI can learn scientific taste, marking a key step toward reaching human-level AI scientists.

Accelerating scientific discovery requires the identification of which experiments would yield the best outcomes before committing resources to costly physical validation. While existing benchmarks evaluate LLMs on scientific knowledge and reasoning, their ability to predict experimental outcomes - a task where AI could significantly exceed human capabilities - remains largely underexplored. We introduce SciPredict, a benchmark comprising 405 tasks derived from recent empirical studies in 33 specialized sub-fields of physics, biology, and chemistry. SciPredict addresses two critical questions: (a) can LLMs predict the outcome of scientific experiments with sufficient accuracy? and (b) can such predictions be reliably used in the scientific research process? Evaluations reveal fundamental limitations on both fronts. Model accuracies are 14-26% and human expert performance is approx20%. Although some frontier models exceed human performance model accuracy is still far below what would enable reliable experimental guidance. Even within the limited performance, models fail to distinguish reliable predictions from unreliable ones, achieving only approx20% accuracy regardless of their confidence or whether they judge outcomes as predictable without physical experimentation. Human experts, in contrast, demonstrate strong calibration: their accuracy increases from approx5% to approx80% as they deem outcomes more predictable without conducting the experiment. SciPredict establishes a rigorous framework demonstrating that superhuman performance in experimental science requires not just better predictions, but better awareness of prediction reliability. For reproducibility all our data and code are provided at https://github.com/scaleapi/scipredict

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.

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

Can humans tell whether a news article was written by a person or a large language model (LLM)? We investigate this question using JudgeGPT, a study platform that independently measures source attribution (human vs. machine) and authenticity judgment (legitimate vs. fake) on continuous scales. From 2,318 judgments collected from 1,054 participants across content generated by six LLMs, we report five findings: (1) participants cannot reliably distinguish machine-generated from human-written text (p > .05, Welch's t-test); (2) this inability holds across all tested models, including open-weight models with as few as 7B parameters; (3) self-reported domain expertise predicts judgment accuracy (r = .35, p < .001) whereas political orientation does not (r = -.10, n.s.); (4) clustering reveals distinct response strategies ("Skeptics" vs. "Believers"); and (5) accuracy degrades after approximately 30 sequential evaluations due to cognitive fatigue. The answer, in short, is no: humans cannot reliably tell. These results indicate that user-side detection is not a viable defense and motivate system-level countermeasures such as cryptographic content provenance.

The progress of AI is bottlenecked by the quality of evaluation, and powerful LLM-as-a-Judge models have proved to be a core solution. Improved judgment ability is enabled by stronger chain-of-thought reasoning, motivating the need to find the best recipes for training such models to think. In this work we introduce J1, a reinforcement learning approach to training such models. Our method converts both verifiable and non-verifiable prompts to judgment tasks with verifiable rewards that incentivize thinking and mitigate judgment bias. In particular, our approach outperforms all other existing 8B or 70B models when trained at those sizes, including models distilled from DeepSeek-R1. J1 also outperforms o1-mini, and even R1 on some benchmarks, despite training a smaller model. We provide analysis and ablations comparing Pairwise-J1 vs Pointwise-J1 models, offline vs online training recipes, reward strategies, seed prompts, and variations in thought length and content. We find that our models make better judgments by learning to outline evaluation criteria, comparing against self-generated reference answers, and re-evaluating the correctness of model responses.

Recent advances in foundation models have enabled AI scientists to automate increasingly complete research workflows, from hypothesis generation and code execution to manuscript preparation. Yet workflow coverage alone does not provide access to the full evidence on which scientific discovery depends. Existing systems typically reason over text, code, labels, or precomputed summaries, leaving scientifically decisive spatial, temporal, cross-channel, and procedural relations unavailable to the agent. We introduce OmniScientist, an end-to-end, omni-modal AI scientist that conducts multidisciplinary research directly from heterogeneous raw evidence. A perception layer and 3 autonomous agents for ideation, experiment, and writeup operate within a deterministic pipeline, allowing observations to shape research questions, experimental decisions, and final claims throughout the research lifecycle. By running idea, rigour, and claim checks in code, the system enforces novelty screening, statistical validity, execution provenance, and numerical traceability. We evaluate OmniScientist on 36 real-data cases spanning 5 discipline families, 4 families of scientific evidence, and modalities including images, signals, audio, video, 3-D structures, trajectories, tables, formulae, and graphs. The system completes the full path from raw data to a compiled manuscript in all 36 cases and achieves a mean overall paper score of 6.3 with the reference reasoning backbone. In paired comparisons against a blind variant that receives only precomputed scalar features, direct perception improves all 7 evaluation dimensions and wins 85% of head-to-head judgments. These results show that lifecycle-wide perception is essential for evidence-grounded scientific discovery and provides a practical path toward broadly capable AI scientists.

The emerging paradigm of AI co-scientists focuses on tasks characterized by repeatable verification, where agents explore search spaces in 'guess and check' loops. This paradigm does not extend to problems where repeated evaluation is impossible and ground truth is established by the consensus synthesis of theory and existing evidence. We evaluate a Gemini-based AI environment designed to support collaborative scientific assessment, integrated into a standard scientific workflow. In collaboration with a diverse group of 13 scientists working in the field of climate science, we tested the system on a complex topic: the stability of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC). Our results show that AI can accelerate the scientific workflow. The group produced a comprehensive synthesis of 79 papers through 104 revision cycles in just over 46 person-hours. AI contribution was significant: most AI-generated content was retained in the report. AI also helped maintain logical consistency and presentation quality. However, expert additions were crucial to ensure its acceptability: less than half of the report was produced by AI. Furthermore, substantial oversight was required to expand and elevate the content to rigorous scientific standards.

Medical models are judged not only on correctness, but on whether reported confidence matches actual accuracy. Generalist multimodal medical models have expanded what a single model can perceive, yet they still express bounded decisions such as diagnoses, findings or cell counts as generated text, so the reported probability reflects the next token rather than the decision itself. Motivated by decision-native interfaces such as Jev, we introduce OmniMed-Jev, which represents each medical decision as a Choice, Noul or Score decision over a runtime-supplied candidate set and returns a full distribution over that set: mutually exclusive classes, binary presence of a finding, or a bounded ordered value. The design is omni in three respects: it accepts diverse imaging modalities, covers different prediction tasks, and expresses them through one candidate-conditioned probability model, so heterogeneous outputs become comparable probabilities rather than task-specific strings. In an interface-controlled comparison against a generative baseline trained on the same backbone, data and schedule, OmniMed-Jev's reported probabilities track observed correctness far more closely, reducing calibration error by up to an order of magnitude and reliability error by up to two, while point-prediction performance remains comparable; counting is the one family where the generative baseline stays ahead. Making the decision distribution the model's output is not a format change but what turns reported numbers into probabilities that mean what they say. These results support explicit decision modeling as a way to make reported confidence meaningful within the evaluated tasks, and they are not evidence of clinical readiness: the comparison cannot separate the interface from associated training differences, which we state alongside the results. Code is available at github.com/lytang63/OmniMed-Jev.

The next frontier for video generation lies in developing models capable of zero-shot reasoning, where understanding real-world scientific laws is crucial for accurate physical outcome modeling under diverse conditions. However, existing video benchmarks are physical commonsense-based, offering limited insight into video models' scientific reasoning capability. We introduce VideoScience-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate undergraduate-level scientific understanding in video models. Each prompt encodes a composite scientific scenario that requires understanding and reasoning across multiple scientific concepts to generate the correct phenomenon. The benchmark comprises 200 carefully curated prompts spanning 14 topics and 103 concepts in physics and chemistry. We conduct expert-annotated evaluations across seven state-of-the-art video models in T2V and I2V settings along five dimensions: Prompt Consistency, Phenomenon Congruency, Correct Dynamism, Immutability, and Spatio-Temporal Continuity. Using a VLM-as-a-Judge to assess video generations, we observe strong correlation with human assessments. To the best of our knowledge, VideoScience-Bench is the first benchmark to evaluate video models not only as generators but also as reasoners, requiring their generations to demonstrate scientific understanding consistent with expected physical and chemical phenomena. Our data and evaluation code are available at: https://github.com/hao-ai-lab/VideoScience{github.com/hao-ai-lab/VideoScience}.

A central architectural question for both biological and artificial intelligence is whether judgment relies on specialized modules or a unified, domain-general resource. While the discovery of decodable neural representations for distinct concepts in Large Language Models (LLMs) has suggested a modular architecture, whether these representations are truly independent systems remains an open question. Here we provide evidence for a convergent architecture for evaluative judgment. Across a range of LLMs, we find that diverse evaluative judgments are computed along a dominant dimension, which we term the Valence-Assent Axis (VAA). This axis jointly encodes subjective valence ("what is good") and the model's assent to factual claims ("what is true"). Through direct interventions, we demonstrate this axis drives a critical mechanism, which is identified as the subordination of reasoning: the VAA functions as a control signal that steers the generative process to construct a rationale consistent with its evaluative state, even at the cost of factual accuracy. Our discovery offers a mechanistic account for response bias and hallucination, revealing how an architecture that promotes coherent judgment can systematically undermine faithful reasoning.

Legal judgment prediction is the task of automatically predicting the outcome of a court case, given a text describing the case's facts. Previous work on using neural models for this task has focused on Chinese; only feature-based models (e.g., using bags of words and topics) have been considered in English. We release a new English legal judgment prediction dataset, containing cases from the European Court of Human Rights. We evaluate a broad variety of neural models on the new dataset, establishing strong baselines that surpass previous feature-based models in three tasks: (1) binary violation classification; (2) multi-label classification; (3) case importance prediction. We also explore if models are biased towards demographic information via data anonymization. As a side-product, we propose a hierarchical version of BERT, which bypasses BERT's length limitation.

As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides-especially on consequential topics like public health where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI truthfulness by enabling humans to supervise systems that may exceed human capabilities--yet humans themselves hold different beliefs and biases that impair their judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies: one with human judges holding either mainstream or skeptical beliefs evaluating factuality claims through AI-assisted debate or consultancy protocols, and a second examining the same problem with personalized AI judges designed to mimic these different human belief systems. In our human study, we find that debate-where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments-consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy with a single-advisor system by 10% overall. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (+15.2% accuracy), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7% accuracy). In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5%) than human judges (70.1%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight--leveraging both diverse human and AI judgments to move closer to truth in contested domains.

Systems that generate scientific research questions are evaluated today by expert scores, LLM-as-judge ratings, or curated case studies -- all subjective, none falsifiable. We formalize historical backtesting as an alternative: a system generates questions from a corpus frozen at a historical cutoff, the questions are frozen before any access to later literature, and a temporally isolated future corpus then determines whether each question was subsequently answered, partially addressed, independently posed, or ignored, and whether its underlying premise was supported or refuted. The protocol is model-agnostic: any system that emits frozen questions can be scored. We release reproducible astronomy instances with temporally isolated corpora, frozen questions, auditable labels, four reference baselines, and a submission interface. Two findings result. First, evidence-structure-first generation outperforms LLM-only prompting: across a generator decomposition crossed with a four-cutoff stress test (2010-2024, 798 judged questions) whose last window postdates model training, LLM-only generation shows memorized relevance without specific foresight, while a generator using no model weights at all finds questions whose premises the future refutes in every era. Second, a seven-rater agreement study (two blinded human annotators, five judge models, 90 items) indicts the outcome taxonomy rather than the judge: two careful humans agree at kappa = 0.17, every judge model agrees with the professional annotator as well or better (0.17-0.26), and frontier models agree with one another at 0.60 -- certifying an LLM judge by model-model agreement would have overstated its reliability threefold. A prospective instance -- 200 questions frozen 2026-08-17, scored 2027-2030 -- is released so the central claims become contamination-free tests that time itself will grade.

LLM-as-a-judge enables evaluation across diverse tasks, but inference cost and confidence reliability become critical at scale. We study whether a decision-only judge can provide an economical first pass and identify when stronger evaluation is needed. Comparing jev-as-a-judge with sixteen generative and reward-model judges, with blinded human adjudication, we find it within three percentage points of a state-of-the-art LLM judge, our strongest comparator, on ordinary preference and evidence-grounded factuality at 0.36% of the comparator's fee. Larger gaps arise when judgments require checking a derivation or resisting an elaborately written wrong answer. On several benchmarks, JEV's gap to this comparator is concentrated in low-confidence decisions. A frozen cascade that accepts confident verdicts and escalates uncertain ones retains 99% of the comparator's accuracy at lower cost.

An agent whose tool keeps returning nothing useful should stop relying on it. In a retrieval environment with controlled source failures, we separate how agents judge results from what they do. We compare stopping at the same step after longer and shorter runs of results the agent judged useless; this contrast is zero for clock- or deadline-driven stopping. Where we record their judgments, the seven agents we test call a failing source's results useless 97-100% of the time, yet most of them rarely stop on that judgment. Prompt cues change when they stop but not what they stop on. Permission to answer from memory and a reasoning mode can bring early stops regardless of evidence, a stated budget moves the 7-8B models' stops to the deadline, and a stopping rule or call cost in the prompt is followed at most partly. Stopping follows the evidence only when the harness enforces an integration step that makes the agent answer after five consecutive results it judged useless. This step raises failing-source success for every model, keeps the stopping point fixed when the budget doubles, and needs no extra judgment call when the agent states its judgments. A pre-registered replication on 300 fresh questions confirms the dissociation and the rule's effect.

Scientific equation discovery has long been central to scientific progress, proceeding through iterative cycles of hypothesis generation, observational testing, and refinement under scientific constraints. As LLM capabilities advance and their role in AI for Science expands, it remains an open problem whether they can genuinely discover scientific laws and how this ability should be evaluated. Existing evaluations, however, often either simplify discovery through synthetic settings or reuse published targets that may already be familiar to LLMs. We therefore introduce SCILAWS-BENCH, a benchmark for scientific law discovery built from published research and real scientific data. It comprises 118 problems drawn from 381 scientific papers, covering 291 candidate laws and roughly 8M real data points across six scientific disciplines. Each problem is instantiated in two complementary settings: (1) SCILAWS-REAL asks models to propose laws from fixed real observations and evaluates held-out predictive fit and scientific validity derived from the source literature, and (2) SCILAWS-PARALLEL asks models to actively query residual-calibrated worlds and recover synthesized hidden laws derived from published forms. This two-setting task design preserves each problem's scientific context while separately evaluating fixed-record law discovery and active recovery of a newly synthesized hidden law. We find that predictive fit can diverge from scientific validity, memorization shapes whether models reproduce or move beyond published formulas, and our best-of-N study reveals a selection bottleneck. Our work provides a paper-grounded benchmark and new empirical perspectives for evaluating AI for scientific discovery. Project page: https://yiyihum.github.io/SciLaws-Bench

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.

The question of AI consciousness is one of the most urgent pre-emptive problems in philosophy and computer science, yet progress is hampered by a cacophony of competing theories that often talk past each other. Separating the hard problem from the mapping problem allows the deepest metaphysical disagreements to be set aside: granting that experience supervenes on a system's organisation, the tractable question becomes at which grain of description that supervenience base sits. We extend Marr's three levels of analysis into a five-level hierarchy of functional descriptions (behavioural, computational, intrinsic causal-structural, organismic, and organism-environment) grounded in supervenience, coarse-graining, and multiple realisability. The major theories of consciousness are positioned within this hierarchy according to which level they take to be critical, and for each level we develop operationalisable indicators and assess current AI systems against them. A Bayesian model then combines theoretical credences with indicator evidence into an overall credence in a system's capacity for consciousness. In illustrative assessments, the verdict for current LLMs is driven as much by where theoretical credence is placed as by how the evidence is read: under different stipulated readings and credence distributions, assessments range from below 0.01 to roughly 0.8, showing sensitivity to assumptions. Finally, the consciousness indicators at each level closely overlap with the architectural features needed for general intelligence, suggesting that increasingly capable AI may become a stronger candidate for consciousness. The framework supports a structured agnosticism, in which theoretical commitments are made explicit, credences are updated as evidence accumulates, and assessments take the form of aggregated probabilities rather than verdicts.

In October 2007, a Research Proposal for the University of Sydney, Australia, the author suggested that biovie-physical phenomenon as `electrodynamic dependant biological vision', is governed by relativistic quantum laws and biovision. The phenomenon on the basis of `biovielectroluminescence', satisfies man/microbio/megabio/computer vision (MMMCV), as a robust candidate for physical and visual sciences. The general aim of this addendum is to present a refined text of Sections 1-3 of that proposal and highlighting the contents of its Appendix in form of a `Mechanisms' Section. We then briefly remind in an article aimed for December 2007, by appending two more equations into Section 3, a theoretical II-time scenario as a time model well-proposed for the phenomenon. The time model within the core of the proposal, plays a significant role in emphasizing the principle points on Objectives no. 1-8, Sub-hypothesis 3.1.2, mentioned in Article [arXiv:0710.0410]. It also expresses the time concept in terms of causing quantized energy f(|E|) of time |t|, emit in regard to shortening the probability of particle loci as predictable patterns of particle's un-occurred motion, a solution to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (HUP) into a simplistic manner. We conclude that, practical frames via a time algorithm to this model, fixates such predictable patterns of motion of scenery bodies onto recordable observation points of a MMMCV system. It even suppresses/predicts superposition phenomena coming from a human subject and/or other bio-subjects for any decision making event, e.g., brainwave quantum patterns based on vision. Maintaining the existential probability of Riemann surfaces of II-time scenarios in the context of biovielectroluminescence, makes motion-prediction a possibility.

A sound judgment applies the law to established facts and weighs the circumstances in which they arose. However, existing methods swing between rigid statute matching and ungrounded discretion, benchmarks score a label or a rubric, and the experience that would supply the balance stays unverified. We formalize legal judgment as a reference-anchored task, whose object is a single decision that stays tied to the statute and to the circumstances at once. We introduce JusticeAxis, 256 real-world criminal cases from 18 countries with audio, image, and text evidence, and three lawyer-written judgments for every case: the recorded one and one for each failure. We further propose JusticeAgent, a harness whose element agents establish the facts and whose judge agent applies the law under skills carrying experience of the circumstances. Skills are distilled from execution trajectories and admitted only under Bayesian credible bounds. Experiments show that failure turns direction with scale: open-weight backbones drift to unsupported grounds, frontier models to the statutory default. We further verify that JusticeAgent, as a simple yet effective plugin, carries a frozen open-weight backbone to commercial level. Project resources are available at https://github.com/beita6969/JusticeAxis.

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

We introduce Sci-VBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating knowledge- and reasoning-intensive video generation across scientific domains. It contains 1,253 expert-annotated examples spanning 60 subjects across four core disciplines: Natural Science, Healthcare, Humanities & Social Sciences, and Engineering. Each example requires models to generate temporally rich videos that demand scientific reasoning and knowledge-grounded synthesis, going beyond surface-level visual plausibility. We further establish a rubric-based evaluation protocol. Our analysis shows that, under this protocol, both non-expert human evaluators and MLLM-as-Judge systems can achieve relatively high agreement with expert judgments, supporting reproducible evaluation at scale. We benchmark 16 frontier proprietary and open-source models and find that, while automatic perceptual-quality scores cluster tightly across systems, performance on Prompt Grounding and Scientific and Causal Correctness varies substantially, with a pronounced proprietary-open-source gap. These findings show that advances in visual realism have not yet translated into reliable modeling of scientific and causal dynamics.

The scholarly publishing ecosystem faces a dual crisis of unmanageable submission volumes and unregulated AI, creating an urgent need for new governance models to safeguard scientific integrity. The traditional human-only peer review regime lacks a scalable, objective benchmark, making editorial processes opaque and difficult to audit. Here we investigate a deterministic simulation framework that provides the first stable, evidence-based standard for evaluating AI-generated peer review reports. Analyzing 352 peer-review simulation reports, we identify consistent system state indicators that demonstrate its reliability. First, the system is able to simulate calibrated editorial judgment, with 'Revise' decisions consistently forming the majority outcome (>50%) across all disciplines, while 'Reject' rates dynamically adapt to field-specific norms, rising to 45% in Health Sciences. Second, it maintains unwavering procedural integrity, enforcing a stable 29% evidence-anchoring compliance rate that remains invariant across diverse review tasks and scientific domains. These findings demonstrate a system that is predictably rule-bound, mitigating the stochasticity of generative AI. For the scientific community, this provides a transparent tool to ensure fairness; for publishing strategists, it offers a scalable instrument for auditing workflows, managing integrity risks, and implementing evidence-based governance. The framework repositions AI as an essential component of institutional accountability, providing the critical infrastructure to maintain trust in scholarly communication.

Scientific discoveries must be communicated clearly to realize their full potential. Without effective communication, even the most groundbreaking findings risk being overlooked or misunderstood. The primary way scientists communicate their work and receive feedback from the community is through peer review. However, the current system often provides inconsistent feedback between reviewers, ultimately hindering the improvement of a manuscript and limiting its potential impact. In this paper, we introduce a novel method APRES powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to update a scientific papers text based on an evaluation rubric. Our automated method discovers a rubric that is highly predictive of future citation counts, and integrate it with APRES in an automated system that revises papers to enhance their quality and impact. Crucially, this objective should be met without altering the core scientific content. We demonstrate the success of APRES, which improves future citation prediction by 19.6% in mean averaged error over the next best baseline, and show that our paper revision process yields papers that are preferred over the originals by human expert evaluators 79% of the time. Our findings provide strong empirical support for using LLMs as a tool to help authors stress-test their manuscripts before submission. Ultimately, our work seeks to augment, not replace, the essential role of human expert reviewers, for it should be humans who discern which discoveries truly matter, guiding science toward advancing knowledge and enriching lives.

Many high-stakes decisions depend on forecasts made before outcomes are known. In this future prediction setting, the central challenge is that public evidence evolves over time, while the main supervision signal arrives only after resolution: the realized outcome mainly assesses final correctness, offering only coarse guidance on what to track, what to verify, and which judgments to leave uncertain along the way. Our key observation is that revisiting the same unresolved question over time creates informative temporal contrasts across evolving evidence and repeated forecasts, exposing what earlier attempts missed before resolution and yielding a diagnostic signal we call the pre-resolution signal. We instantiate this idea in Milkyway, a future prediction agent with a persistent future prediction harness, an editable external state that stores reusable procedural guidance across revisits to the same unresolved question. As the same unresolved question is revisited, Milkyway extracts pre-resolution signals from evolving evidence and repeated forecasts, uses them to update the harness, and improves later forecasts on that question before resolution. After resolution, the realized outcome serves as a post-resolution check of provisional updates. On the FutureX and FutureWorld benchmarks, Milkyway achieves strong performance against competitive baselines, and a mechanism study suggests that the gains stem from harness evolution driven by pre-resolution signals rather than repeated prediction alone.

If machine learning models were to achieve superhuman abilities at various reasoning or decision-making tasks, how would we go about evaluating such models, given that humans would necessarily be poor proxies for ground truth? In this paper, we propose a framework for evaluating superhuman models via consistency checks. Our premise is that while the correctness of superhuman decisions may be impossible to evaluate, we can still surface mistakes if the model's decisions fail to satisfy certain logical, human-interpretable rules. We instantiate our framework on three tasks where correctness of decisions is hard to evaluate due to either superhuman model abilities, or to otherwise missing ground truth: evaluating chess positions, forecasting future events, and making legal judgments. We show that regardless of a model's (possibly superhuman) performance on these tasks, we can discover logical inconsistencies in decision making. For example: a chess engine assigning opposing valuations to semantically identical boards; GPT-4 forecasting that sports records will evolve non-monotonically over time; or an AI judge assigning bail to a defendant only after we add a felony to their criminal record.

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.

This paper calls on the research community not only to investigate how human biases are inherited by large language models (LLMs) but also to explore how these biases in LLMs can be leveraged to make society's "unwritten code" - such as implicit stereotypes and heuristics - visible and accessible for critique. We introduce a conceptual framework through a case study in science: uncovering hidden rules in peer review - the factors that reviewers care about but rarely state explicitly due to normative scientific expectations. The idea of the framework is to push LLMs to speak out their heuristics through generating self-consistent hypotheses - why one paper appeared stronger in reviewer scoring - among paired papers submitted to 45 computer science conferences, while iteratively searching deeper hypotheses from remaining pairs where existing hypotheses cannot explain. We observed that LLMs' normative priors about the internal characteristics of good science extracted from their self-talk, e.g. theoretical rigor, were systematically updated toward posteriors that emphasize storytelling about external connections, such as how the work is positioned and connected within and across literatures. This shift reveals the primacy of scientific myths about intrinsic properties driving scientific excellence rather than extrinsic contextualization and storytelling that influence conceptions of relevance and significance. Human reviewers tend to explicitly reward aspects that moderately align with LLMs' normative priors (correlation = 0.49) but avoid articulating contextualization and storytelling posteriors in their review comments (correlation = -0.14), despite giving implicit reward to them with positive scores. We discuss the broad applicability of the framework, leveraging LLMs as diagnostic tools to surface the tacit codes underlying human society, enabling more precisely targeted responsible AI.

Human commonsense understanding of the physical and social world is organized around intuitive theories. These theories support making causal and moral judgments. When something bad happens, we naturally ask: who did what, and why? A rich literature in cognitive science has studied people's causal and moral intuitions. This work has revealed a number of factors that systematically influence people's judgments, such as the violation of norms and whether the harm is avoidable or inevitable. We collected a dataset of stories from 24 cognitive science papers and developed a system to annotate each story with the factors they investigated. Using this dataset, we test whether large language models (LLMs) make causal and moral judgments about text-based scenarios that align with those of human participants. On the aggregate level, alignment has improved with more recent LLMs. However, using statistical analyses, we find that LLMs weigh the different factors quite differently from human participants. These results show how curated, challenge datasets combined with insights from cognitive science can help us go beyond comparisons based merely on aggregate metrics: we uncover LLMs implicit tendencies and show to what extent these align with human intuitions.

Large Language Model (LLM)-based judgments leverage powerful LLMs to efficiently evaluate candidate content and provide judgment scores. However, the inherent biases and vulnerabilities of LLM-generated judgments raise concerns, underscoring the urgent need for distinguishing them in sensitive scenarios like academic peer reviewing. In this work, we propose and formalize the task of judgment detection and systematically investigate the detectability of LLM-generated judgments. Unlike LLM-generated text detection, judgment detection relies solely on judgment scores and candidates, reflecting real-world scenarios where textual feedback is often unavailable in the detection process. Our preliminary analysis shows that existing LLM-generated text detection methods perform poorly given their incapability to capture the interaction between judgment scores and candidate content -- an aspect crucial for effective judgment detection. Inspired by this, we introduce J-Detector, a lightweight and transparent neural detector augmented with explicitly extracted linguistic and LLM-enhanced features to link LLM judges' biases with candidates' properties for accurate detection. Experiments across diverse datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of J-Detector and show how its interpretability enables quantifying biases in LLM judges. Finally, we analyze key factors affecting the detectability of LLM-generated judgments and validate the practical utility of judgment detection in real-world scenarios.

Scientific writing is an expert-domain task that demands deep domain knowledge, task-specific requirements and reasoning capabilities that leverage the domain knowledge to satisfy the task specifications. While scientific text generation has been widely studied, its evaluation remains a challenging and open problem. It is critical to develop models that can be reliably deployed for evaluating diverse open-ended scientific writing tasks while adhering to their distinct requirements. However, existing LLM-based judges and reward models are primarily optimized for general-purpose benchmarks with fixed scoring rubrics and evaluation criteria. Consequently, they often fail to reason over sparse knowledge of scientific domains when interpreting task-dependent and multi-faceted criteria. Moreover, fine-tuning for each individual task is costly and impractical for low-resource settings. To bridge these gaps, we propose cost-efficient, open-source reward models tailored for scientific writing evaluation. We introduce a two-stage training framework that initially optimizes scientific evaluation preferences and then refines reasoning capabilities. Our multi-aspect evaluation design and joint training across diverse tasks enable fine-grained assessment and robustness to dynamic criteria and scoring rubrics. Experimental analysis shows that our training regime strongly improves LLM-based scientific writing evaluation. Our models generalize effectively across tasks and to previously unseen scientific writing evaluation settings, allowing a single trained evaluator to be reused without task-specific retraining.

Humans demonstrate remarkable abilities to predict physical events in complex scenes. Two classes of models for physical scene understanding have recently been proposed: "Intuitive Physics Engines", or IPEs, which posit that people make predictions by running approximate probabilistic simulations in causal mental models similar in nature to video-game physics engines, and memory-based models, which make judgments based on analogies to stored experiences of previously encountered scenes and physical outcomes. Versions of the latter have recently been instantiated in convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures. Here we report four experiments that, to our knowledge, are the first rigorous comparisons of simulation-based and CNN-based models, where both approaches are concretely instantiated in algorithms that can run on raw image inputs and produce as outputs physical judgments such as whether a stack of blocks will fall. Both approaches can achieve super-human accuracy levels and can quantitatively predict human judgments to a similar degree, but only the simulation-based models generalize to novel situations in ways that people do, and are qualitatively consistent with systematic perceptual illusions and judgment asymmetries that people show.

Forecasting has become a natural benchmark for reasoning under uncertainty. Yet existing evaluations of large language models remain limited to judgmental tasks in simple formats, such as binary or multiple-choice questions. In practice, however, forecasting spans a far broader scope. Across domains such as economics, public health, and social demographics, decisions hinge on numerical estimates over continuous quantities, a capability that current benchmarks do not capture. Evaluating such estimates requires a format that makes uncertainty explicit and testable. We propose prediction intervals as a natural and rigorous interface for this purpose. They demand scale awareness, internal consistency across confidence levels, and calibration over a continuum of outcomes, making them a more suitable evaluation format than point estimates for numerical forecasting. To assess this capability, we introduce a new benchmark QuantSightBench, and evaluate frontier models under multiple settings, assessing both empirical coverage and interval sharpness. Our results show that none of the 11 evaluated frontier and open-weight models achieves the 90\% coverage target, with the top performers Gemini 3.1 Pro (79.1\%), Grok 4 (76.4\%), and GPT-5.4 (75.3\%) all falling at least 10 percentage points short. Calibration degrades sharply at extreme magnitudes, revealing systematic overconfidence across all evaluated models.

Hypothetical induction is recognized as the main reasoning type when scientists make observations about the world and try to propose hypotheses to explain those observations. Past research on hypothetical induction is under a constrained setting: (1) the observation annotations in the dataset are carefully manually handpicked sentences (resulting in a close-domain setting); and (2) the ground truth hypotheses are mostly commonsense knowledge, making the task less challenging. In this work, we tackle these problems by proposing the first dataset for social science academic hypotheses discovery, with the final goal to create systems that automatically generate valid, novel, and helpful scientific hypotheses, given only a pile of raw web corpus. Unlike previous settings, the new dataset requires (1) using open-domain data (raw web corpus) as observations; and (2) proposing hypotheses even new to humanity. A multi-module framework is developed for the task, including three different feedback mechanisms to boost performance, which exhibits superior performance in terms of both GPT-4 based and expert-based evaluation. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work showing that LLMs are able to generate novel (''not existing in literature'') and valid (''reflecting reality'') scientific hypotheses.

LLM-as-Judge frameworks are increasingly popular for AI evaluation, yet research findings on the relationship between models' generation and judgment abilities remain inconsistent. We investigate this relationship through systematic dataset- and instance-level analyses across 11 models and 21 diverse tasks. Despite both capabilities relying on the same underlying knowledge, our analyses reveal they are only weakly correlated, primarily due to LLMs' sensitivity to the responses being judged. To address this, we propose a self-reference-guided evaluation strategy that leverages a model's own answers as references. This approach significantly strengthens the correlation between generation and judgment abilities, offering a practical path to align these skills and providing a reliable proxy for model selection in evaluation tasks.

In agentic scientific machine learning (SciML), large language model (LLM) agents can discover surrogate models and select one by an automated score, typically an error metric. A low error, however, does not establish that the predicted fields satisfy the physics that matter for mechanics, such as boundary conditions, superposition, stiffness scaling, or causality. We introduce Physics-Audited Agentic SciML (PA-SciML), a verification-first workflow for agentic SciML discovery. The workflow fixes a scoring evaluator before search, derives reviewable machine-checkable physics requirements, checks each trained candidate on its outputs, and separately searches prescribed input ranges or measured load-history spans for high-violation cases without reference solution fields. A surrogate is reported as verified only under the stated checks. When enabled, the workflow also adds advisory numerical probes before training and tests one modeling change at a time to record which isolated edits are associated with score gains before reuse. In the reported computational-solid-mechanics numerical examples, the static elasticity run selects a surrogate with lower validation error than the error-only baseline while both selected models pass the common linear-elastic checks. In the transient elastodynamics run, an error-only baseline with similar mean error fails a stricter causality check by responding to future parts of the loading history, while the selected surrogate passes the stated checks. The main distinction is per-candidate physics evidence on predicted fields, not a richer aggregate score.

Peer review underpins scientific progress, but it is increasingly strained by reviewer shortages and growing workloads. Large Language Models (LLMs) can automatically draft reviews now, but determining whether LLM-generated reviews are trustworthy requires systematic evaluation. Researchers have evaluated LLM reviews at either surface-level (e.g., BLEU and ROUGE) or content-level (e.g., specificity and factual accuracy). Yet it remains uncertain whether LLM-generated reviews attend to the same critical facets that human experts weigh -- the strengths and weaknesses that ultimately drive an accept-or-reject decision. We introduce a focus-level evaluation framework that operationalizes the focus as a normalized distribution of attention across predefined facets in paper reviews. Based on the framework, we developed an automatic focus-level evaluation pipeline based on two sets of facets: target (e.g., problem, method, and experiment) and aspect (e.g., validity, clarity, and novelty), leveraging 676 paper reviews (https://figshare.com/s/d5adf26c802527dd0f62) from OpenReview that consists of 3,657 strengths and weaknesses identified from human experts. The comparison of focus distributions between LLMs and human experts showed that the off-the-shelf LLMs consistently have a more biased focus towards examining technical validity while significantly overlooking novelty assessment when criticizing papers.

Scientific reasoning, the process through which humans apply logic, evidence, and critical thinking to explore and interpret scientific phenomena, is essential in advancing knowledge reasoning across diverse fields. However, despite significant progress, current scientific reasoning models still struggle with generalization across domains and often fall short of multimodal perception. Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs), which integrate text, images, and other modalities, present an exciting opportunity to overcome these limitations and enhance scientific reasoning. Therefore, this position paper argues that MLLMs can significantly advance scientific reasoning across disciplines such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology. First, we propose a four-stage research roadmap of scientific reasoning capabilities, and highlight the current state of MLLM applications in scientific reasoning, noting their ability to integrate and reason over diverse data types. Second, we summarize the key challenges that remain obstacles to achieving MLLM's full potential. To address these challenges, we propose actionable insights and suggestions for the future. Overall, our work offers a novel perspective on MLLM integration with scientific reasoning, providing the LLM community with a valuable vision for achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

Recent research in the field of reflexive metrics have studied the emergence and consequences of evaluation gaps in science. The concept of evaluation gaps captures potential discrepancies between what researchers value about their research, in particular research quality, and what metrics measure. As a result, scientists may experience anomie and adopt innovative ways to cope. These often value quantity over quality and may even compromise research integrity. A consequence of such gaps may therefore be research misconduct and a decrease in research quality. In the language of rational choice theory, an evaluation gap persists if motivational factors arising out of the internal component of an actors situation are incongruent with those arising out of the external components. The aim of this research is therefore to study and compare autonomous and controlled motivations to become an astronomer, to do research in astronomy and to publish scientific papers. Moreover, we study how these different motivational factors affect publication pressure, the experience of organisational justice and the observation of research misconduct. In summary, we find evidence for an evaluation gap and that controlled motivational factors arising from evaluation procedures based on publication record drives up publication pressure, which, in turn, was found to increase the likelihood of perceived frequency of misbehaviour.

Legal judgment prediction (LJP) aims to function as a judge by making final rulings based on case claims and facts, which plays a vital role in the judicial domain for supporting court decision-making and improving judicial efficiency. However, existing methods often struggle with logical errors when conducting complex legal reasoning. We propose LegalReasoner, which enhances LJP reliability through step-wise verification and correction of the reasoning process. Specifically, it first identifies dispute points to decompose complex cases, and then conducts step-wise reasoning while employing a process verifier to validate each step's logic from correctness, progressiveness, and potential perspectives. When errors are detected, expert-designed attribution and resolution strategies are applied for correction. To fine-tune LegalReasoner, we release the LegalHK dataset, containing 58,130 Hong Kong court cases with detailed annotations of dispute points, step-by-step reasoning chains, and process verification labels. Experiments demonstrate that LegalReasoner significantly improves concordance with court decisions from 72.37 to 80.27 on LLAMA-3.1-70B. The data is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/weijiezz/LegalHK.

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model's internal knowledge.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly embedded in scientific discovery, yet whether it can anticipate scientific progress remains unclear. To study this question, we introduce a temporally grounded evaluation framework for forecasting scientific progress under controlled knowledge constraints. We present CUSP (Cutoff-conditioned Unseen Scientific Progress), a multi-disciplinary and event-level benchmark that evaluates scientific forecasting in AI systems through feasibility assessment, mechanistic reasoning, generative solution design, and temporal prediction. Across 4,760 scientific events, we observe systematic and domain-dependent limitations in current frontier models. While models can identify plausible research directions from competing candidates, they fail to reliably predict whether scientific advances will be realized and systematically misestimate when they will occur. Performance is highly heterogeneous across domains, with the timing of AI progress more predictable than advances in biology, chemistry, and physics. Performance is largely insensitive to whether events occur before or after the training cutoff, suggesting these limitations cannot be explained solely by knowledge exposure in training data. Under controlled information access, additional pre-cutoff knowledge improves performance but does not close the gap to full-information settings, which becomes more pronounced for high-citation advances. Models also exhibit systematic overconfidence and strong response biases, indicating unreliable uncertainty estimation. Taken together, current AI systems fall short as predictive tools for scientific progress. Access to prior knowledge does not translate into reliable forecasting, and performance benefits more from post-event information than from forward-looking prediction.

Scientific images function as critical evidence in research communication, yet their integrity faces unprecedented threats from AI-generated content that introduces subtle but consequential errors. Existing evaluation paradigms prove inadequate: perceptual quality metrics poorly correlate with scientific validity, while language models lack domain-specific verification capabilities. To address this gap, we propose the Scientific Image Utility and Upgradability Assessment (SIU^2A) framework, which introduces two complementary dimensions for scientific image evaluation. Utility encompasses error detection (identifying scientific inaccuracies) and correction feasibility (assessing whether errors can be reliably repaired). Upgradability measures the quality of correction. We categorize scientific image corruption into four fundamental types: Detail Distortion, Incompleteness, False Content, and Entity Confusion. Based on this taxonomy, we construct SIU^2A-Benchmark, a dataset with expert annotations for error identification and repair. The framework implements a two-stage evaluation protocol: the Utility stage evaluates error detection capability and repair instruction generation, while the Upgradability stage assesses whether corrections faithfully restore scientific validity without compromising existing accurate information. Experiments reveal that current multimodal systems exhibit significant limitations in both scientific error assessment and faithful correction, exposing a fundamental gap between visual perception and scientific usability.

This study evaluates the performance of OpenAI's o1-preview model in higher-order cognitive domains, including critical thinking, systematic thinking, computational thinking, data literacy, creative thinking, logical reasoning, and scientific reasoning. Using established benchmarks, we compared the o1-preview models's performance to human participants from diverse educational levels. o1-preview achieved a mean score of 24.33 on the Ennis-Weir Critical Thinking Essay Test (EWCTET), surpassing undergraduate (13.8) and postgraduate (18.39) participants (z = 1.60 and 0.90, respectively). In systematic thinking, it scored 46.1, SD = 4.12 on the Lake Urmia Vignette, significantly outperforming the human mean (20.08, SD = 8.13, z = 3.20). For data literacy, o1-preview scored 8.60, SD = 0.70 on Merk et al.'s "Use Data" dimension, compared to the human post-test mean of 4.17, SD = 2.02 (z = 2.19). On creative thinking tasks, the model achieved originality scores of 2.98, SD = 0.73, higher than the human mean of 1.74 (z = 0.71). In logical reasoning (LogiQA), it outperformed humans with average 90%, SD = 10% accuracy versus 86%, SD = 6.5% (z = 0.62). For scientific reasoning, it achieved near-perfect performance (mean = 0.99, SD = 0.12) on the TOSLS,, exceeding the highest human scores of 0.85, SD = 0.13 (z = 1.78). While o1-preview excelled in structured tasks, it showed limitations in problem-solving and adaptive reasoning. These results demonstrate the potential of AI to complement education in structured assessments but highlight the need for ethical oversight and refinement for broader applications.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in solving complex reasoning tasks, particularly in mathematics. However, the domain of physics reasoning presents unique challenges that have received significantly less attention. Existing benchmarks often fall short in evaluating LLMs' abilities on the breadth and depth of undergraduate-level physics, underscoring the need for a comprehensive evaluation. To fill this gap, we introduce UGPhysics, a large-scale and comprehensive benchmark specifically designed to evaluate UnderGraduate-level Physics (UGPhysics) reasoning with LLMs. UGPhysics includes 5,520 undergraduate-level physics problems in both English and Chinese, covering 13 subjects with seven different answer types and four distinct physics reasoning skills, all rigorously screened for data leakage. Additionally, we develop a Model-Assistant Rule-based Judgment (MARJ) pipeline specifically tailored for assessing answer correctness of physics problems, ensuring accurate evaluation. Our evaluation of 31 leading LLMs shows that the highest overall accuracy, 49.8% (achieved by OpenAI-o1-mini), emphasizes the necessity for models with stronger physics reasoning skills, beyond math abilities. We hope UGPhysics, along with MARJ, will drive future advancements in AI for physics reasoning.

We consider the problem of performing Bayesian inference in probabilistic models where observations are accompanied by uncertainty, referred to as "uncertain evidence." We explore how to interpret uncertain evidence, and by extension the importance of proper interpretation as it pertains to inference about latent variables. We consider a recently-proposed method "distributional evidence" as well as revisit two older methods: Jeffrey's rule and virtual evidence. We devise guidelines on how to account for uncertain evidence and we provide new insights, particularly regarding consistency. To showcase the impact of different interpretations of the same uncertain evidence, we carry out experiments in which one interpretation is defined as "correct." We then compare inference results from each different interpretation illustrating the importance of careful consideration of uncertain evidence.

Scientific figure assessment in peer review differs fundamentally from general image quality evaluation: a figure must be visually legible, faithfully support the manuscript's claims, and communicate evidence with a clear visual hierarchy. However, if we apply traditional image assessment methods to scientific figure quality assessment, limitations emerge: classic IQA models capture perceptual quality or aesthetics but cannot judge whether a figure serves the paper's scientific argument; CLIP-based methods assess generic image-text correspondence, yet lack understanding of manuscript context; and zero-shot LLM/VLM judges, when repurposed for figure scoring, often yield overly concentrated scores with limited fusion of visual and textual evidence. We introduce an annotated dataset of 3,857 scientific figures from peer-reviewed conference papers, each rated along four peer-review-oriented dimensions: Clarity, Relevance, Informativeness, and Structure. We propose SciFigAlign, a fine-tuned multimodal scorer that grounds figure quality assessment in manuscript evidence. Given a figure crop, caption, citing paragraphs, and light paper context, SciFigAlign fine-tunes CLIP and SciBERT end-to-end with per-modality cross-attention and CubeMLP fusion, jointly optimizing SmoothL1 regression with a within-paper ranking hinge loss. Under paper-level splits, SciFigAlign achieves a macro MAE of 0.3524 and a within-paper pairwise accuracy of 81.64% on the test set with n = 396, a 59% relative error reduction over the best LLM-as-judge baseline with MAE 0.864. Ablations confirm that manuscript-grounded inputs, citing-context denoising, and ranking supervision are all critical, showing that scientific figure assessment requires learned alignment between visual content and manuscript evidence rather than prompting alone, even with state-of-the-art VLMs.

What would it mean to have a scientific understanding of AI? Models are not static objects: they are snapshots of time-evolving processes shaped by data, objectives, architectures, and optimization dynamics. Yet much of AI research treats models as fixed artifacts, analyzing behaviors after training rather than asking why they emerge. This position paper argues that a science of AI must move beyond post-hoc fixes and study the training dynamics that produce model behavior. Such a science should support progressively stronger forms of understanding: predicting outcomes from early training signals, intervening when trajectories go wrong, and ultimately designing training procedures that more reliably produce desired properties. Scaling laws have made prediction routine for loss; the challenge is extending this success to capabilities, biases, robustness, and safety-relevant behaviors. We articulate requirements for such theories grounded in the history and philosophy of science, examine progress in mechanistic interpretability, fairness, memorization, and simplicity bias, and identify concrete open problems.

Simulating societies of many large language model (LLM) agents is expensive, yet the questions asked of such simulations are usually macroscopic: phase behaviour, stylised facts, and scaling with the number of agents N, not the cognition of any single agent. We turn a statistical-physics observation into a method: replace each LLM agent by a low-parameter model fitted from a few hundred to a few thousand cheap queries, then run the society at any N on a laptop. Whether this works is decided before the simulation runs, chiefly by what each agent perceives. We introduce an [interaction order x memory] taxonomy that maps perception and memory to an effective theory and a predicted N-trend of the surrogate error. We validate it on a faithful reimplementation of the LLM macroeconomy EconAgent and seven further named LLM simulations, with agent decisions cloned from genuine LLM elicitations (primarily DeepSeek) for a few dollars; the predicted error trends hold cell by cell, and the two refuted predictions, both on a strongly saturating response and traced to its curvature, are themselves matched quantitatively by the theory with no free parameters.

Scientific problem solving poses unique challenges for LLMs, requiring both deep domain knowledge and the ability to apply such knowledge through complex reasoning. While automated scientific reasoners hold great promise for assisting human scientists, there is currently no widely adopted holistic benchmark for evaluating scientific reasoning, and few approaches systematically disentangle the distinct roles of knowledge and reasoning in these tasks. To address these gaps, we introduce SciReas, a diverse suite of existing benchmarks for scientific reasoning tasks, and SciReas-Pro, a selective subset that requires more complex reasoning. Our holistic evaluation surfaces insights about scientific reasoning performance that remain hidden when relying on individual benchmarks alone. We then propose KRUX, a probing framework for studying the distinct roles of reasoning and knowledge in scientific tasks. Combining the two, we conduct an in-depth analysis that yields several key findings: (1) Retrieving task-relevant knowledge from model parameters is a critical bottleneck for LLMs in scientific reasoning; (2) Reasoning models consistently benefit from external knowledge added in-context on top of the reasoning enhancement; (3) Enhancing verbalized reasoning improves LLMs' ability to surface task-relevant knowledge. Finally, we conduct a lightweight analysis, comparing our science-focused data composition with concurrent efforts on long CoT SFT, and release SciLit01, a strong 8B baseline for scientific reasoning.

In this paper, we introduce the Chinese AI and Law challenge dataset (CAIL2018), the first large-scale Chinese legal dataset for judgment prediction. \dataset contains more than 2.6 million criminal cases published by the Supreme People's Court of China, which are several times larger than other datasets in existing works on judgment prediction. Moreover, the annotations of judgment results are more detailed and rich. It consists of applicable law articles, charges, and prison terms, which are expected to be inferred according to the fact descriptions of cases. For comparison, we implement several conventional text classification baselines for judgment prediction and experimental results show that it is still a challenge for current models to predict the judgment results of legal cases, especially on prison terms. To help the researchers make improvements on legal judgment prediction, both \dataset and baselines will be released after the CAIL competitionhttp://cail.cipsc.org.cn/.

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly used as automated judges for instruction-based image editing and as reward signals for model training. However, systematically auditing whether these judges are influenced by cues irrelevant to editing quality is challenging because visual interventions may themselves alter the quality being evaluated. A judgment shift can therefore be attributed to bias only when the intervention is verified to preserve the underlying editing quality. To address this challenge, we introduce EditJudgeBias, a counterfactual benchmark with verified quality preservation, comprising 1,196 real editing samples and 13 cues injected across four evaluation sites. We verify quality preservation for the requested edit using calibrated multimodal validators, controls, and human inspection. We then audit five MLLM judges along three complementary dimensions: invariance to quality-preserving cues, agreement with human judgments, and stability of pairwise preferences. Importantly, observed shifts are evaluated against each judge's own zero-dose and re-query noise floors rather than against zero. Experiments show that quality-preserving cues move every judge beyond its own noise. Fabricated majority opinions increase ratings, irrelevant visual elements cause larger shifts than whole-image manipulations, and swapping candidate order reverses up to 60.9% of pairwise decisions. Edit-region cues also tend to reduce human agreement. The three measures characterize judges differently, showing that robustness cannot be captured by a single metric.

With the rapid development of large multimodal models, reliable judge and critic models have become essential for open-ended evaluation and preference alignment, providing pairwise preferences, numerical scores, and explanatory justifications for assessing model-generated responses. However, existing critics are primarily trained in general visual domains such as captioning or image question answering, leaving physical AI tasks involving perception, causal reasoning, and planning largely underexplored. We introduce PhyCritic, a multimodal critic model optimized for physical AI through a two-stage RLVR pipeline: a physical skill warmup stage that enhances physically oriented perception and reasoning, followed by self-referential critic finetuning, where the critic generates its own prediction as an internal reference before judging candidate responses, improving judgment stability and physical correctness. Across both physical and general-purpose multimodal judge benchmarks, PhyCritic achieves strong performance gains over open-source baselines and, when applied as a policy model, further improves perception and reasoning in physically grounded tasks.

Understanding the world and explaining it with scientific theories is a central aspiration of artificial intelligence research. Proposing theories, designing experiments to test them, and then revising them based on data are fundamental to scientific discovery. Despite the significant promise of LLM-based scientific agents, no benchmarks systematically test LLM's ability to propose scientific models, collect experimental data, and revise them in light of new data. We introduce BoxingGym, a benchmark with 10 environments for systematically evaluating both experimental design (e.g. collecting data to test a scientific theory) and model discovery (e.g. proposing and revising scientific theories). To enable tractable and quantitative evaluation, we implement each environment as a generative probabilistic model with which a scientific agent can run interactive experiments. These probabilistic models are drawn from various real-world scientific domains ranging from psychology to ecology. To quantitatively evaluate a scientific agent's ability to collect informative experimental data, we compute the expected information gain (EIG), an information-theoretic quantity which measures how much an experiment reduces uncertainty about the parameters of a generative model. A good scientific theory is a concise and predictive explanation. Therefore, to quantitatively evaluate model discovery, we ask a scientific agent to explain their model and then assess whether this explanation enables another scientific agent to make reliable predictions about this environment. In addition to this explanation-based evaluation, we compute standard model evaluation metrics such as prediction errors. We find that current LLMs, such as GPT-4o, struggle with both experimental design and model discovery. We find that augmenting the LLM-based agent with an explicit statistical model does not reliably improve these results.

Accident, defect and outage investigations end with a decision that ordinary question answering never faces: whether the evidence gathered so far is enough to close the case. We study this decision for LLM investigators, which request evidence from a case file, revise their hypotheses, and either close the case with a conclusion grounded in what they read or leave it open and name what is missing. This judgment does not come with capability: an untrained 9B model overstates its evidence in 97% of its answers, and a frontier model that identifies the right cause in 84% of cases still overstates in 91% and closes 17 of the 41 cases whose official finding is "cause undetermined". Measuring it is also non-trivial: the source of a case largely predicts its label, and a rule that reads only the source reaches 83.0 balanced accuracy on our test cases. We therefore evaluate closure with three tests: closure accuracy, reported against this rule and within each source; evidence dependence, which removes the grounds of a conclusion and checks whether the model stops closing; and conclusion and gap quality, a judged checklist of what the model asserts and what it says is missing. We build Nautil, 731 audited cases from aviation, rail, maritime, chemical-safety and vehicle-defect reports and production server incidents, with teacher trajectories, an out-of-distribution test set and counterfactual evidence versions. Fine-tuning a 9B model on these trajectories makes its closures follow the evidence: removing the grounds lowers its closure rate by 26 points relative to a matched control, overstatement falls from 97% to 35%, and correct, non-overstated conclusions rise from 3% to 43%. Reinforcement learning that rewards only the closure decision then raises balanced accuracy from 69.2 to 83.3, on par with the teacher, and within-source accuracy from 60.4 to 74.1, at some cost in evidence dependence.

Test-time scaling has enabled LLMs to solve increasingly complex reasoning, discovery, and optimization tasks. However, existing approaches often gather observations while seeking evidence for current hypotheses, then generate new hypotheses conditioned on those hypotheses and their associated evidence. This couples observation discovery to existing hypotheses, favoring local refinements over exploration of unknown hypotheses regions. Inspired by the hypothetico-deductive method (Hempel, 1945) and dual-space models of scientific discovery (Klahr & Dunbar, 1988), we introduce SHELDON, a scientific reasoning harness that separately represents and jointly explores hypothesis and observation spaces. By actively seeking new observations along with new hypotheses, SHELDON can discover observations that its current hypotheses do not explain. These unexplained observations expose gaps in its understanding, motivate new investigations, and guide the generation of hypotheses beyond refinements of existing ones. Across diagnosis, abstract reasoning, and optimization benchmarks, SHELDON outperforms evaluated baselines by up to 26.7 points. Additional analysis shows that SHELDON generates up to 4.5x more novel solutions.

Scientific discovery requires developing worthwhile hypotheses into practical investigations, yet learning from this evolving research process remains challenging. We introduce an operational definition of valuable and testable research hypotheses: evidence-grounded claims about consequential uncertainties, coupled with feasible investigations, explicit decision criteria, and alternative explanations. Our DiscoveryRSI framework develops hypothesis trees through multi-agent evolutionary search, compiles selected investigations into executable Harbor tasks, and recursively learns through three mechanisms: hypothesis credit optimization attributes scientific assessments to documented research contributions; harness replay identifies productive strategies and recurring failures to refine research workflows; and rediscovery applies accepted improvements to new investigations, generating further experience for subsequent learning. We also introduce DFM-Bench, which provides comprehensive assessment of hypothesis quality and cumulative research progress at the levels of hypotheses, revisions, development paths and research runs. Across four life-science domains, automated evaluation shows that hypothesis quality rises from 4.86 for the base model to 5.39 after two rounds of self-improvement, with the large gains in falsifiability and data resolvability. We further validate hypothesis quality through expert review, comparing our DiscoveryRSI-27B with other research agents. Preliminary human assessments show that DiscoveryRSI-27B scores higher than GPT-6 Luna on hypothesis importance and whether claims are plausible and evidence-bounded. DiscoveryRSI-27B achieved a 6.3% rate of hypothesis correspondence with research published after the model cutoff, largely outperform GPT-6 with 2.5% and Claude Opus 5 with 2.3%, while delivering greater human-rated improvement along research paths.

Silicon samples are increasingly used as a low-cost substitute for human panels and have been shown to reproduce aggregate human opinion with high fidelity. We show that, in the alignment-relevant domain of philosophy, silicon samples systematically collapse heterogeneity. Using data from N = {277} professional philosophers drawn from PhilPeople profiles, we evaluate seven proprietary and open-source large language models on their ability to replicate individual philosophical positions and to preserve cross-question correlation structures across philosophical domains. We find that language models substantially over-correlate philosophical judgments, producing artificial consensus across domains. This collapse is associated in part with specialist effects, whereby models implicitly assume that domain specialists hold highly similar philosophical views. We assess the robustness of these findings by studying the impact of DPO fine-tuning and by validating results against the full PhilPapers 2020 Survey (N = {1785}). We conclude by discussing implications for alignment, evaluation, and the use of silicon samples as substitutes for human judgment. The code of this project can be found at https://github.com/stanford-del/silicon-philosophers.

Scientific discoveries increasingly rely on complex multimodal reasoning based on information-intensive scientific data and domain-specific expertise. Empowered by expert-level scientific benchmarks, scientific Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) hold the potential to significantly enhance this discovery process in realistic workflows. However, current scientific benchmarks mostly focus on evaluating the knowledge understanding capabilities of MLLMs, leading to an inadequate assessment of their perception and reasoning abilities. To address this gap, we present the Scientists' First Exam (SFE) benchmark, designed to evaluate the scientific cognitive capacities of MLLMs through three interconnected levels: scientific signal perception, scientific attribute understanding, scientific comparative reasoning. Specifically, SFE comprises 830 expert-verified VQA pairs across three question types, spanning 66 multimodal tasks across five high-value disciplines. Extensive experiments reveal that current state-of-the-art GPT-o3 and InternVL-3 achieve only 34.08% and 26.52% on SFE, highlighting significant room for MLLMs to improve in scientific realms. We hope the insights obtained in SFE will facilitate further developments in AI-enhanced scientific discoveries.

In science and medicine, model interpretations may be reported as discoveries of natural phenomena or used to guide patient treatments. In such high-stakes tasks, false discoveries may lead investigators astray. These applications would therefore benefit from control over the finite-sample error rate of interpretations. We reframe black box model interpretability as a multiple hypothesis testing problem. The task is to discover "important" features by testing whether the model prediction is significantly different from what would be expected if the features were replaced with uninformative counterfactuals. We propose two testing methods: one that provably controls the false discovery rate but which is not yet feasible for large-scale applications, and an approximate testing method which can be applied to real-world data sets. In simulation, both tests have high power relative to existing interpretability methods. When applied to state-of-the-art vision and language models, the framework selects features that intuitively explain model predictions. The resulting explanations have the additional advantage that they are themselves easy to interpret.

Red-team evaluations of AI models support some claims and not others, and the boundary between the two is calculable rather than merely a matter of judgment. We define the evidential ceiling of an evaluation as the largest factor by which one result can move belief under a fixed testing budget, derive it in closed form for the benchmark null result, and use it to locate that boundary exactly. We find that above a calculable harm rate, a benchmark of modest size certifies a category to a stated evidentiary standard, and a clean sheet is then the stronger of the two possible observations, outweighing a single reproduced failure. Below that rate, no passive benchmark of feasible size provides the specified evidence of safety under the fixed scoring rule and approximately independent trial structure. The crossing between the two regimes has a closed form. The bound is not specific to benchmarks: written in terms of a procedure's hypothesis conditioned elicitation rates, it covers adaptive and automated red teaming as well, and shows that discrimination between the hypotheses rather than attack success is what determines evidential worth. Auditing eight evaluation suites against the boundary, we find that current benchmarks are adequate for high-frequency harm categories and several orders of magnitude short for rare, catastrophic ones. Safety benchmarks are not uninformative. They are informative about a specific and computable set of propositions, and the discipline they need is to state which.

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.

Reflexive metrics is a branch of science studies which explores how the demand for accountability and performance measurement in science has shaped the research culture in recent decades. Hypercompetition and publication pressure are part of this neoliberal culture. How do scientists respond to these pressures? Studies on research integrity and organizational culture suggest that people who feel treated unfairly by their institution are more likely to engage in deviant behaviour, such as scientific misconduct. By building up on reflexive metrics, combined with studies on the influence of organisational culture on research integrity, this study reflects on the research behaviour of astronomers: 1) To what extent is research (mis-)behaviour reflexive, i.e. dependent on perceptions of publication pressure and distributive & organisational justice? 2) What impact does scientific misconduct have on research quality? In order to perform this reflection, we conducted a comprehensive survey of academic and non-academic astronomers worldwide and received 3,509 responses. We found that publication pressure explains 19% of the variance in occurrence of misconduct and between 7 and 13% of the variance of the perception of distributive & organisational justice as well as overcommitment to work. Our results on the perceived impact of scientific misconduct on research quality show that the epistemic harm of questionable research practices should not be underestimated. This suggests there is a need for a policy change. In particular, lesser attention to metrics (such as publication rate) in the allocation of grants, telescope time and institutional rewards would foster better scientific conduct and hence research quality.

While humans can identify physically implausible events within milliseconds, machine learning approaches addressing the same problem are extremely slow and expensive. They either rely on external multimodal-LLM judges or require ad-hoc modifications to the training procedure. In this work, we argue that indicators of physical plausibility are implicitly captured by five geometric properties of the per-frame embeddings produced by frozen image encoders. In aggregate, we call them GEOPHYS. First, we show that these signals correlate with human EEG responses to two forms of object-permanence violations. Second, GEOPHYS robustly discriminates physically implausible videos from realistic ones, achieving state-of-the-art physics-violation detection: 98.3% on LikePhys and 93.3% on IntPhys2, whereas V-JEPA 2, GPT-4o, Gemini, and twelve modern video diffusion models perform near chance. Third, used as a best-of-N verifier for physical alignment during video generation, GEOPHYS lifts MAGI-1 24B from 50.01% to 64.50% on PhysicsIQ at 1.5x lower wall-clock and 4.65x lower memory than the V-JEPA 2 world-model verifier. Ultimately, GEOPHYS demonstrates that physical plausibility in videos can be assessed by leveraging the emergent geometric properties of temporal features extracted from image encoders.

The wavelength-coverage and sensitivity of JWST now enables us to probe the rest-frame UV - optical spectral energy distributions (SEDs) of galaxies at high-redshift (z>4). From these SEDs it is, in principle, through SED fitting possible to infer key physical properties, including stellar masses, star formation rates, and dust attenuation. These in turn can be compared with the predictions of galaxy formation simulations allowing us to validate and refine the incorporated physics. However, the inference of physical properties, particularly from photometry alone, can lead to large uncertainties and potential biases. Instead, it is now possible, and common, for simulations to be forward-modelled to yield synthetic observations that can be compared directly to real observations. In this work, we measure the JWST broadband fluxes and colours of a robust sample of 5<z<10 galaxies using the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science (CEERS) Survey. We then analyse predictions from a variety of models using the same methodology and compare the NIRCam/F277W magnitude distribution and NIRCam colours with observations. We find that the predicted and observed magnitude distributions are similar, at least at 5<z<8. At z>8 the distributions differ somewhat, though our observed sample size is small and thus susceptible to statistical fluctuations. Likewise, the predicted and observed colour evolution show broad agreement, at least at 5<z<8. There is however some disagreement between the observed and modelled strength of the strong line contribution. In particular all the models fails to reproduce the F410M-F444W colour at z>8, though, again, the sample size is small here.

Foundation models are increasingly used in scientific research, but evaluating AI-generated scientific work remains challenging. While expert reviews are costly, large language models (LLMs) as proxy reviewers have proven to be unreliable. To address this, we investigate two automatic evaluation metrics, specifically citation count prediction and review score prediction. We parse all papers of OpenReview and augment each submission with its citation count, reference, and research hypothesis. Our findings reveal that citation count prediction is more viable than review score prediction, and predicting scores is more difficult purely from the research hypothesis than from the full paper. Furthermore, we show that a simple prediction model based solely on title and abstract outperforms LLM-based reviewers, though it still falls short of human-level consistency.

Early warning signals have been proposed to forecast the possibility of a critical transition, such as the eutrophication of a lake, the collapse of a coral reef, or the end of a glacial period. Because such transitions often unfold on temporal and spatial scales that can be difficult to approach by experimental manipulation, research has often relied on historical observations as a source of natural experiments. Here we examine a critical difference between selecting systems for study based on the fact that we have observed a critical transition and those systems for which we wish to forecast the approach of a transition. This difference arises by conditionally selecting systems known to experience a transition of some sort and failing to account for the bias this introduces -- a statistical error often known as the Prosecutor's Fallacy. By analysing simulated systems that have experienced transitions purely by chance, we reveal an elevated rate of false positives in common warning signal statistics. We further demonstrate a model-based approach that is less subject to this bias than these more commonly used summary statistics. We note that experimental studies with replicates avoid this pitfall entirely.

Generative world models are increasingly used for video generation, where learned simulators are expected to capture the physical rules that govern real-world dynamics. However, evaluating whether generated videos actually follow these rules remains challenging. Existing physics-focused video benchmarks have made important progress, but they still face three key challenges, including the coarse evaluation frameworks that hide law-specific failures, response biases and fatigue that undermine the validity of annotation judgments, and automated evaluators that are insufficiently physics-aware or difficult to audit. To address those challenges, we introduce PhyGround, a criteria-grounded benchmark for evaluating physical reasoning in video generation. The benchmark contains 250 curated prompts, each augmented with an expected physical outcome, and a taxonomy of 13 physical laws across solid-body mechanics, fluid dynamics, and optics. Each law is operationalized through observable sub-questions to enable per-law diagnostics. We evaluate eight modern video generation models through a large-scale, quality-controlled human study, grounded on social science lab experiment design. A total of 459 annotators provided 5,796 complete annotations and over 37.4K fine-grained labels; after quality control, the retained annotations exhibited high split-half model-ranking correlations (Spearman's rho > 0.90). To support reproducible automated evaluation, we release PhyJudge-9B, an open physics-specialized VLM judge. PhyJudge-9B achieves substantially lower aggregate relative bias than Gemini-3.1-Pro (3.3% vs. 16.6%). We release prompts, human annotations, model checkpoints, and evaluation code on the project page https://phyground.github.io/.