Daily Papers

Text-to-Image generation has evolved from basic image synthesis into a frequently used core capability in professional creative workflows, where simple text-image alignment can no longer satisfy users' pressing demands for faithful real-world reconstruction and genuine creative expression. Existing benchmarks, however, remain anchored in these foundational criteria and do not yet capture the nuanced capabilities that matter in authentic artistic practice, making it difficult to reliably distinguish state-of-the-art T2I models. To address the gap, we introduce Qwen-Image-Bench, a creator-centric benchmark co-designed with professional artists and grounded in real-world creation scenarios. Qwen-Image-Bench enriches conventional evaluation with two application-driven dimensions: Real-world Fidelity and Creative Generation. Drawing on the staged reasoning inherent in professional artistic workflows, we organize these five pillars into a top-down hierarchical taxonomy that further decomposes into 23 second-level sub-capabilities and 56 third-level verifiable rubrics. To ensure broad coverage, we curate 1000 stratified prompts with each prompt jointly exercising more than four fine-grained facets across multiple pillars. We train a unified judge model Q-Judger based on Qwen3.6-27B, supervised by 80 professional annotators from global art academies under blind labeling and triple-review protocols, that scores every image across all 56 verifiable facets, producing fine-grained, rubric-grounded, and fully attributable diagnostics rather than a single opaque score. Empirically, Qwen-Image-Bench reliably distinguishes leading T2I models, achieving the greatest separation on the two application-driven dimensions of Real-world Fidelity and Creative Generation where existing benchmarks provide little insight, while also providing a trustworthy optimization signal for production-level T2I development.

Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER's reviewer is more precise than broadcast's (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver's working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.

Recent machine learning papers often report 1-2 percentage point improvements from a single run on a benchmark. These gains are highly sensitive to random seeds, data ordering, and implementation details, yet are rarely accompanied by uncertainty estimates or significance tests. It is therefore unclear when a reported +1-2% reflects a real algorithmic advance versus noise. We revisit this problem under realistic compute budgets, where only a few runs are affordable. We propose a simple, PC-friendly evaluation protocol based on paired multi-seed runs, bias-corrected and accelerated (BCa) bootstrap confidence intervals, and a sign-flip permutation test on per-seed deltas. The protocol is intentionally conservative and is meant as a guardrail against over-claiming. We instantiate it on CIFAR-10, CIFAR-10N, and AG News using synthetic no-improvement, small-gain, and medium-gain scenarios. Single runs and unpaired t-tests often suggest significant gains for 0.6-2.0 point improvements, especially on text. With only three seeds, our paired protocol never declares significance in these settings. We argue that such conservative evaluation is a safer default for small gains under tight budgets.

Foundation models are moving from response generation into operational roles. They plan across steps, call tools, request human input, coordinate with other agents, and increasingly carry responsibility for work that affects customers, claims, code, contracts, and clinical decisions. Production deployments are no longer one human supervising one model. They are multi-human, multi-agent collaborations that cross teams, time zones, and trust boundaries. The technical surface for this collaboration remains weakly specified. When an agent drafts a response and a human edits it before it ships, the moment of human judgement is the most valuable signal in the system. In current practice it is recorded, if at all, in application code, chat threads, ticket comments, and tribal memory. Two protocol standards address adjacent concerns: MCP standardises agent access to tools and data, and A2A standardises agent-to-agent interoperability. Neither defines the shared workspace in which humans and agents perform accountable work together. This paper presents CHAP, the Collaborative Human-Agent Protocol. Under CHAP, the override that used to vanish into a chat thread becomes a structured event carrying a diff, a rationale, and a content hash. The handoff between shifts becomes a portable envelope rather than a pinned message. The human approval of an agent's draft becomes a non-repudiable signed decision that can be replayed years later. The protocol achieves this through a small Core (workspaces, participants, tasks, artefacts, and an append-only evidence log) together with composable profiles that add review, modes, routing, deliberation, handoff, identity, signatures, and transparency-backed audit as deployments require them. Specification, reference implementation, conformance suite, and worked examples are available at: https://github.com/BrightbeamAI/chap

We present E3, an automated review assistant that augments reviewers and engineering teams by identifying decision-relevant technical concerns in research papers. For each concern, E3 reports its nature, its location, its bearing on the contribution, and the analysis or evidence that would resolve it, covering unsupported claims, missing ablations, weak baselines, hidden assumptions, threats to validity, and leakage risks. To evaluate E3 without contamination confounds we adopt an issue-level backtesting protocol: the corpus is restricted to papers postdating the training cutoff of every automated source, and for each paper a meta-judge that observes only anonymised reviews labels every issue-source pair as Caught, Partial, or Missed. Applied to 100 ICLR 2026 papers and 4598 judged issue rows, comparing E3 against the ICLR human reviews and two prompt-matched LLM baselines built on gpt-5.4 from OpenAI and claude-opus-4-6 from Anthropic, with meta-judge gpt-5.5, E3 attains the highest recall on every aggregate metric. Partial-inclusive recall reaches 90.2 percent, which is 15.5 points over GPT, 17.1 points over Claude, and 29.2 points over the human reviews, and strict recall preserves the ordering at 65.8 percent. On concerns raised by the human reviewers, E3 recovers 89.6 percent; on concerns the human reviewers missed it surfaces 1635 additional rows admitted into the judged union, 406 above the next-best source. Corpus, baseline prompts, judge prompt template, and evaluation code are released.

This position paper argues that computer science conferences should require tamper-evident, nonrepudiable attestations of experimental results. We name the underlying problem experiment nonrepudiation: a compliant protocol must bind the numbers in a paper to an actual executed computation in a way the author cannot later alter or deny. The current system relies on self-reported checklists, optional code sharing, and author-controlled logging. None of these mechanisms answer the question a reviewer cannot check: did the code the paper describes produce the numbers the paper reports? We define the problem formally, state the security properties any compliant protocol must satisfy, and describe a threat model that includes attacks current approaches do not prevent. To show that the problem is solvable, we built K-Veritas, a reference implementation in Go that produces signed reports without accessing training data. K-Veritas is a testbed, not a finished answer. We call on conferences and the community to treat nonrepudiation as a first-class requirement and to help build an open, independent standard for it.

LLM confidence signals are used for abstention, routing, and safety-critical decisions. No standard practice exists for checking whether a confidence signal carries item-level information before building on it. We transfer the validity screening principle from clinical personality assessment (PAI, MMPI-3) as a portable protocol for benchmark-based LLM confidence data. The protocol specifies three core indices (L, Fp, RBS), a structural indicator (TRIN), and an item-sensitivity statistic, computed from a single 2x2 contingency table. A three-tier classification system (Invalid, Indeterminate, Valid) draws on four clinical traditions. Validated on 20 frontier LLMs across 524 items, four models are classified Invalid, two Indeterminate. Valid-profile models show mean r = .18 (15/16 significant). Invalid-profile models show mean r = -.20 (d = 2.48). Cross-benchmark validation on 18 models using MMLU with verbalized confidence and on external data from Yang et al. (2024) confirms the screen transfers across benchmarks and probe formats. All data and code: https://github.com/synthiumjp/validity-scaling-llm

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

Corruption studies, the primary tool for evaluating chain-of-thought (CoT) faithfulness, identify which chain positions are "computationally important" by measuring accuracy when steps are replaced with errors. We identify a systematic confound: for chains with explicit terminal answer statements, the dominant format in standard benchmarks, corruption studies detect where the answer text appears, not where computation occurs. A within-dataset format ablation provides the key evidence: on standard GSM8K chains ending with "the answer is X," removing only the answer statement, preserving all reasoning, collapses suffix sensitivity ~19x at 3B (N=300, p=0.022). Conflicting-answer experiments quantify the causal mechanism: at 7B, CC accuracy drops to near-zero (<=0.02) across five architecture families; the followed-wrong rate spans 0.63-1.00 at 3B-7B and attenuates at larger scales (0.300 at Phi-4-14B, ~0.01 at 32B). A within-stable 7B replication (9.3x attenuation, N=76, p=7.8e-3; Qwen3-8B N=299, p=0.004) provides converging evidence, and the pattern replicates on MATH (DeepSeek-R1-7B: 10.9x suffix-survival recovery). On chains without answer suffixes the same protocol identifies the prefix as load-bearing (Delta=-0.77, p<10^-12). Generation-time probes confirm a dissociation: the answer is not early-determined during generation (early commitment <5%), yet at consumption time model outputs systematically follow the explicit answer text. The format-determination effect persists through 14B (8.5x ratio, p=0.001) and converges toward zero at 32B. We propose a three-prerequisite protocol (question-only control, format characterization, all-position sweep) as a minimum standard for corruption-based faithfulness studies.

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.

Recent text-to-video (T2V) technology advancements, as demonstrated by models such as Gen2, Pika, and Sora, have significantly broadened its applicability and popularity. Despite these strides, evaluating these models poses substantial challenges. Primarily, due to the limitations inherent in automatic metrics, manual evaluation is often considered a superior method for assessing T2V generation. However, existing manual evaluation protocols face reproducibility, reliability, and practicality issues. To address these challenges, this paper introduces the Text-to-Video Human Evaluation (T2VHE) protocol, a comprehensive and standardized protocol for T2V models. The T2VHE protocol includes well-defined metrics, thorough annotator training, and an effective dynamic evaluation module. Experimental results demonstrate that this protocol not only ensures high-quality annotations but can also reduce evaluation costs by nearly 50%. We will open-source the entire setup of the T2VHE protocol, including the complete protocol workflow, the dynamic evaluation component details, and the annotation interface code. This will help communities establish more sophisticated human assessment protocols.

Diagnosing 802.11 packet captures requires expert protocol knowledge, is slow, inconsistent across engineers, and unscalable. LLM-based approaches sound plausible but fabricate protocol events absent from captures (especially truncated traces), produce uncalibrated confidence scores, and suffer evaluation bias when golden references are co-produced by the model under test. We introduce PROBE (Protocol Reasoning Over evidence-Based Ensembles), a multi-stage pipeline addressing all three failures. It integrates (i) deterministic PCAP-to-text normalization with frame-level verifiability, (ii) multi-run, multi-candidate ensembles with optional cross-model second opinion and progressive obfuscation, (iii) a verdict-aware evidence framework treating absence of failure evidence as contributing evidence, and (iv) a fully deterministic composite reliability score from evidence validity, run-to-run stability, and cross-model agreement without LLM self-assessment. On 87 enterprise Wi-Fi captures (104 capture-reviewer pairs), single-pass LLM analysis raises weighted evidence F1 from 0.871 (expert baseline) to 0.912 but misses critical frames in 35% of cases. Naive ensemble voting drops below baseline (0.842) as majority voting amplifies conservative verdicts: 50% of confirmed failures are misclassified as 'no issue' or 'insufficient evidence.' Adding evidence-grounded reconciliation achieves 0.957 F1, a 96% auto-accept rate, and a worst-case floor above 0.70. LLM self-reported confidence clusters at 0.95 regardless of difficulty (71% report exactly 0.95), confirming it is uninformative. We also introduce a model-agnostic evaluation framework using per-field assertion matching, eliminating circular bias from model-co-produced golden references.

Out of all existing frameworks for surgical workflow analysis in endoscopic videos, action triplet recognition stands out as the only one aiming to provide truly fine-grained and comprehensive information on surgical activities. This information, presented as <instrument, verb, target> combinations, is highly challenging to be accurately identified. Triplet components can be difficult to recognize individually; in this task, it requires not only performing recognition simultaneously for all three triplet components, but also correctly establishing the data association between them. To achieve this task, we introduce our new model, the Rendezvous (RDV), which recognizes triplets directly from surgical videos by leveraging attention at two different levels. We first introduce a new form of spatial attention to capture individual action triplet components in a scene; called Class Activation Guided Attention Mechanism (CAGAM). This technique focuses on the recognition of verbs and targets using activations resulting from instruments. To solve the association problem, our RDV model adds a new form of semantic attention inspired by Transformer networks; called Multi-Head of Mixed Attention (MHMA). This technique uses several cross and self attentions to effectively capture relationships between instruments, verbs, and targets. We also introduce CholecT50 - a dataset of 50 endoscopic videos in which every frame has been annotated with labels from 100 triplet classes. Our proposed RDV model significantly improves the triplet prediction mean AP by over 9% compared to the state-of-the-art methods on this dataset.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds answers in retrieved passages, yet relevance does not guarantee sufficiency: a topical passage may still fail to justify the answer. We study evidence sufficiency verification for selective RAG answering, in which a verifier receives a question, a candidate answer, and retrieved evidence and decides whether the evidence supports, refutes, or is insufficient for the answer, answering only when support is established. We present SURE-RAG, an aggregation protocol that treats evidence sufficiency as a set-level property: missing hops and unresolved conflicts cannot be detected by scoring passages independently. A shared claim-evidence verifier produces a local relation distribution for each (claim, passage) pair, which SURE-RAG aggregates into four interpretable answer-level feature blocks (coverage, relation strength, uncertainty, and retrieval), producing a three-way decision and an auditable selective score. We evaluate on HotpotQA-RAG v3, a controlled multi-hop benchmark, under an artifact-aware protocol (shortcut baselines, counterfactual swaps, no-oracle checks, and GPT-4o audits). Calibrated SURE-RAG attains 0.9075 Macro-F1 (raw 0.8951 +/- 0.0069), well above DeBERTa mean-pooling (0.6516) and a GPT-4o judge (0.7284), and on par with a strong concat cross-encoder (0.8888 +/- 0.0109) while remaining fully auditable. At 30% coverage, risk falls from 0.2588 to 0.1642, a 37% relative reduction. As a boundary-mapping experiment, we contrast SURE-RAG with GPT-4o on HaluBench unsafe detection: the ranking reverses (0.3343 vs. 0.7389 unsafe-F1), indicating that controlled sufficiency verification and natural hallucination detection are distinct problems.

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

Reasoning protocols such as Chain of Thought (CoT) and Tree of Thought (ToT) organize internal deliberation but lack an explicit mechanism for external questioning that elicits self-revision. We present FOR-Prompting (From Objection to Revision Prompting), an asymmetric protocol where a Defender proposes an answer, an Objectioner raises question-style objections with no direct fixes, and a Host enforces consistency and closure. On GSM8K we observe about a 22% point gain over single-prompt and accuracy on par with CoT, with more than 10% higher ratings in reasoning and coherence from a uniform GPT 4.1 judge. FOR-Prompting also corrects mistakes without tools or human supervision on tricky queries, and improves performance for small-scale model (approx. 19% accuracy improved on Llama3.2:1b for GSM8K task), highlighting promise for small models and on personal device use. Beyond factual QA, qualitative analyses on open-ended tasks show enhanced exploration and refinement, with dialogue traces that make assumptions and trade-offs explicit. The protocol is model agnostic and operates purely at the prompt level through role-structured turns, so it works with hosted and local models of different sizes without retraining, and it supports large-scale study of objection-guided reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) deployed for logical reasoning in knowledge-intensive domains exhibit a subtle but critical failure: coherence can be vacuously achieved through systematic abstention. A model that withholds commitment to either entailment or refutation satisfies negation consistency while providing no utility. We introduce Coherence Under Commitment (CUC), a dual-query evaluation paradigm that jointly measures consistency and decisiveness. CUC contributes three innovations: (1) a commitment score c(φ) = p(φ) + p(lnotφ) quantifying probability mass allocated to decisive outcomes; (2) a deterministic elicitation protocol via normalized YES/NO log probabilities, eliminating sampling variance; and (3) a 3-way decision framework (True/False/Uncertain) operationalizing the coherence-commitment trade-off into metrics. Experiments on four open-weight LLMs (1B-3B) across 204 FOLIO examples expose a sharp frontier. Qwen2.5-3B achieves near-zero contradiction (E[v_{neg}]{=}0.025) but only 7.4% coverage, while TinyLlama-1.1B reaches 79.4% coverage with violations on every example. Coherence-only evaluation would rank the abstaining model first; CUC exposes this as vacuous, and the frontier generalizes to LogiQA~v2 (ρ{=}0.97). We argue that evaluation must report both coherence and non-vacuous commitment and release a toolkit for standardized assessment.

Multi-agent large language model (LLM) systems can improve reasoning by spending more computation, but deployment requires deciding when extra collaboration is worth its cost. We isolate this decision by running every problem under four protocols while holding the solver fixed within each setting: direct solving (Baseline), iterative self-correction (Single), planner-executor-reviewer collaboration (PER), and multi-agent deliberation (Broadcast). The primary benchmark comprises 4,181 competition-level math problems; paired robustness checks cover four benchmarks spanning competition math, biology, and broader science with two solver families. Across fixed policies, trained routers, and frozen LLM routers, conservative policies under-escalate, whereas higher-solve frozen routers often over-escalate. A post-answer, pre-collaboration gpt-oss-120b probe ranks Baseline failures with 0.8847 AUROC (4,151 parseable cases; 95% CI [0.8732, 0.8955]). The same score remains informative for predicting whether any collaboration helps (0.7683 AUPRC), but is much weaker for identifying PER- or Broadcast-specific value (0.1674 and 0.1041 AUPRC). Separately, the pre-answer self-confidence gate reaches 78.0% solve at 45K tokens, compared with 73.8% at 71.3K for a frozen gpt-oss-120b router and 92.4% for a retrospective fixed-order oracle. Across 10 paired model-condition settings, the oracle adds 23.2-58.3 points of retrospective coverage over Baseline, but protocol profiles vary by task. In the six settings with held-out router evaluations, oracle gaps remain 18.5-28.9 points. Confidence can therefore support initial escalation, while protocol-specific cost-aware routing remains unresolved.

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.

We present the Consilium Protocol, a Byzantine Fault Tolerance-derived architecture for structured multi-model AI deliberation that treats inter-model disagreement as epistemic signal rather than error. The protocol assigns engineered cognitive personas to language models -- separating what a model is from how it reasons -- and introduces an In-Sample/Out-of-Sample validation framework adapted from quantitative finance to distinguish training-data consensus from empirically grounded conclusions. Across 1,478 deliberation sessions spanning 32 topics in 10 domain categories, we demonstrate that (1) the cognitive persona, not the underlying model, determines epistemic behavior: free edge-inference models costing 0.0002 USD per batch produced comparable analytical output to frontier models costing 10.69 USD; (2) RLHF alignment training creates measurable, domain-specific epistemic blind spots -- contested policy topics exhibit 12.3 percentage points less adversarial challenge than settled science topics, and AI safety topics show asymmetric bias (Δ=11.6%) where models challenge claims that AI is dangerous far more vigorously than claims that AI risk is overstated; (3) the protocol exhibits no directional bias of its own (immigration Δ=2.3%, renewables Δ=1.2%); and (4) out-of-sample evidence retrieval validated 239 claims with 100% evidence retrieval and surfaced 167 blind-spot discoveries invisible to training-data deliberation. Run-to-run reproducibility across randomized modeltimespersona assignments averages pm2.2% standard deviation. Total cost for the complete battery including all overhead: 217 USD. We release the protocol specification under MIT license to enable independent verification.

Large language model safeguards decide whether to answer before seeing how an answer will be used. This creates a basic problem for dual-use tasks: the same answer can help an authorized professional or an attacker, while an attacker can imitate a benign request and interaction history. We separate the capability released by the model from the evidence available about downstream use. When that evidence is copyable, we derive the exact worst-case floor on attacker assistance while preserving useful answers. The result yields a safety trilemma: Useful Capability, Reliable Safety, and Open Access cannot coexist. We then show how a trusted credential can complement existing safeguards by adding hard-to-copy information that predicts actual downstream use, and identify the stronger condition needed to eliminate the floor. Evidence from dual-use evaluations, adaptive attacks, and deployed trusted-access programs supports the practical relevance of these conditions.

As large language models (LLMs) become more powerful and are deployed more autonomously, it will be increasingly important to prevent them from causing harmful outcomes. Researchers have investigated a variety of safety techniques for this purpose, e.g. using models to review the outputs of other models, or red-teaming techniques to surface subtle failure modes. However, researchers have not evaluated whether such techniques still ensure safety if the model is itself intentionally trying to subvert them. In this paper, we develop and evaluate pipelines of safety techniques ("protocols") that are robust to intentional subversion. We investigate a scenario in which we want to solve a sequence of programming problems, using access to a powerful but untrusted model (in our case, GPT-4), access to a less powerful trusted model (in our case, GPT-3.5), and limited access to high-quality trusted labor. We investigate protocols that aim to never submit solutions containing backdoors, which we operationalize here as logical errors that are not caught by test cases. We investigate a range of protocols and test each against strategies that the untrusted model could use to subvert them. One protocol is what we call trusted editing. This protocol first asks GPT-4 to write code, and then asks GPT-3.5 to rate the suspiciousness of that code. If the code is below some suspiciousness threshold, it is submitted. Otherwise, GPT-3.5 edits the solution to remove parts that seem suspicious and then submits the edited code. Another protocol is untrusted monitoring. This protocol asks GPT-4 to write code, and then asks another instance of GPT-4 whether the code is backdoored, using various techniques to prevent the GPT-4 instances from colluding. These protocols improve substantially on simple baselines.

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.

Qualitative research faces a critical reliability challenge: traditional inter-rater agreement methods require multiple human coders, are time-intensive, and often yield moderate consistency. We present a multi-perspective validation framework for LLM-based thematic analysis that combines ensemble validation with dual reliability metrics: Cohen's Kappa (κ) for inter-rater agreement and cosine similarity for semantic consistency. Our framework enables configurable analysis parameters (1-6 seeds, temperature 0.0-2.0), supports custom prompt structures with variable substitution, and provides consensus theme extraction across any JSON format. As proof-of-concept, we evaluate three leading LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet) on a psychedelic art therapy interview transcript, conducting six independent runs per model. Results demonstrate Gemini achieves highest reliability (κ= 0.907, cosine=95.3%), followed by GPT-4o (κ= 0.853, cosine=92.6%) and Claude (κ= 0.842, cosine=92.1%). All three models achieve a high agreement (κ> 0.80), validating the multi-run ensemble approach. The framework successfully extracts consensus themes across runs, with Gemini identifying 6 consensus themes (50-83% consistency), GPT-4o identifying 5 themes, and Claude 4 themes. Our open-source implementation provides researchers with transparent reliability metrics, flexible configuration, and structure-agnostic consensus extraction, establishing methodological foundations for reliable AI-assisted qualitative research.

Biological protocols are fundamental to reproducible and safe life science research. While LLMs excel on general tasks, their systematic evaluation on these highly specialized, accuracy-critical, and inherently procedural texts remains limited. In this work, we present BioProBench, the first large-scale, integrated multi-task benchmark for biological protocol understanding and reasoning. While limited benchmarks have touched upon specific aspects like protocol QA, BioProBench provides a comprehensive suite of five core tasks: Protocol Question Answering, Step Ordering, Error Correction, Protocol Generation, and Protocol Reasoning, enabling a holistic evaluation of LLMs on procedural biological texts. Built upon 27K original protocols, it yields nearly 556K high-quality structured instances. We evaluate 12 mainstream open/closed-source LLMs on BioProBench. Experimental results reveal that while top models preform well on surface understanding tasks, struggle significantly with deep reasoning and structured generation tasks like ordering and generation. Furthermore, model comparisons reveal diverse performance: certain open-source models approach closed-source levels on some tasks, yet bio-specific small models lag behind general LLMs, indicating limitations on complex procedural content. Overall, our findings underscore that procedural reasoning within biological protocols represents a significant challenge for current LLMs. BioProBench serves as a standardized framework to diagnose these specific limitations and guide the development of AI systems better equipped for safely automating complex scientific procedures. The code and data are available at: https://github.com/YuyangSunshine/bioprotocolbench and https://huggingface.co/datasets/GreatCaptainNemo/BioProBench.

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.

Under a unified operational definition, we define LLM memory as a persistent state written during pretraining, finetuning, or inference that can later be addressed and that stably influences outputs. We propose a four-part taxonomy (parametric, contextual, external, procedural/episodic) and a memory quadruple (location, persistence, write/access path, controllability). We link mechanism, evaluation, and governance via the chain write -> read -> inhibit/update. To avoid distorted comparisons across heterogeneous setups, we adopt a three-setting protocol (parametric only, offline retrieval, online retrieval) that decouples capability from information availability on the same data and timeline. On this basis we build a layered evaluation: parametric (closed-book recall, edit differential, memorization/privacy), contextual (position curves and the mid-sequence drop), external (answer correctness vs snippet attribution/faithfulness), and procedural/episodic (cross-session consistency and timeline replay, E MARS+). The framework integrates temporal governance and leakage auditing (freshness hits, outdated answers, refusal slices) and uncertainty reporting via inter-rater agreement plus paired tests with multiple-comparison correction. For updating and forgetting, we present DMM Gov: coordinating DAPT/TAPT, PEFT, model editing (ROME, MEND, MEMIT, SERAC), and RAG to form an auditable loop covering admission thresholds, rollout, monitoring, rollback, and change audits, with specs for timeliness, conflict handling, and long-horizon consistency. Finally, we give four testable propositions: minimum identifiability; a minimal evaluation card; causally constrained editing with verifiable forgetting; and when retrieval with small-window replay outperforms ultra-long-context reading. This yields a reproducible, comparable, and governable coordinate system for research and deployment.

This paper presents an eight-week observational comparison of 68 single-file HTML generations collected across 17 public experiments in the "HTML AI Battle" project between December 10, 2025 and February 4, 2026. Four reasoning model families, GPT, Gemini, Grok, and Claude, were compared under a fixed public-interface protocol with no custom instructions, no personality tuning, and no repair prompts. Each output was evaluated from a rendered browser video using human scores and a Gemini LLM-as-a-judge layer for prompt adherence, functional correctness, and UI quality, then packaged into a standardized social-media protocol spanning X (Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube. The tracker was also used for two supervised predictive analyses: an experiment-level model for 24-hour X impressions and a generation-level model for HTML verbosity. Under this protocol, Claude was the strongest and most consistent family, leading mean performance and winning 9/17 prompts under the primary human weighted score. Longer measured reasoning time was not associated with higher quality overall. Gemini as a judge was significantly more lenient than the human evaluator on functional correctness and overall performance, while stable self-favoring bias remained unresolved. The exploratory X-impressions model remained weak under post-screen cross-validation (MAE = 46,874, R^2 = -0.377), whereas the HTML-lines model performed better, with a model-family-only baseline outperforming prompt-aware alternatives (MAE = 135.2, R^2 = 0.576). Overall, selected pre-publication technical/audio variables were not sufficient to predict 24-hour X reach, while code verbosity was driven much more by model family than by prompt wording. The comparisons remain observational and are limited by public-interface drift, access-path differences, and one primary human scorer.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in medical contexts, raising critical concerns about safety, alignment, and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation. While prior benchmarks assess model refusal capabilities for harmful prompts, they often lack clinical specificity, graded harmfulness levels, and coverage of jailbreak-style attacks. We introduce CARES (Clinical Adversarial Robustness and Evaluation of Safety), a benchmark for evaluating LLM safety in healthcare. CARES includes over 18,000 prompts spanning eight medical safety principles, four harm levels, and four prompting styles: direct, indirect, obfuscated, and role-play, to simulate both malicious and benign use cases. We propose a three-way response evaluation protocol (Accept, Caution, Refuse) and a fine-grained Safety Score metric to assess model behavior. Our analysis reveals that many state-of-the-art LLMs remain vulnerable to jailbreaks that subtly rephrase harmful prompts, while also over-refusing safe but atypically phrased queries. Finally, we propose a mitigation strategy using a lightweight classifier to detect jailbreak attempts and steer models toward safer behavior via reminder-based conditioning. CARES provides a rigorous framework for testing and improving medical LLM safety under adversarial and ambiguous conditions.

Scientific peer review faces mounting strain as submission volumes surge, making it increasingly difficult to sustain review quality, consistency, and timeliness. Recent advances in AI have led the community to consider its use in peer review, yet a key unresolved question is whether AI can generate technically sound reviews at real-world conference scale. Here we report the first large-scale field deployment of AI-assisted peer review: every main-track submission at AAAI-26 received one clearly identified AI review from a state-of-the-art system. The system combined frontier models, tool use, and safeguards in a multi-stage process to generate reviews for all 22,977 full-review papers in less than a day. A large-scale survey of AAAI-26 authors and program committee members showed that participants not only found AI reviews useful, but actually preferred them to human reviews on key dimensions such as technical accuracy and research suggestions. We also introduce a novel benchmark and find that our system substantially outperforms a simple LLM-generated review baseline at detecting a variety of scientific weaknesses. Together, these results show that state-of-the-art AI methods can already make meaningful contributions to scientific peer review at conference scale, opening a path toward the next generation of synergistic human-AI teaming for evaluating research.

Observational studies can yield clinically actionable evidence at scale, but executing them on real-world databases is open-ended and requires coherent decisions across cohort construction, analysis, and reporting. Prior evaluations of LLM agents emphasize isolated steps or single answers, missing the integrity and internal structure of the resulting evidence bundle. To address this gap, we introduce RWE-bench, a benchmark grounded in MIMIC-IV and derived from peer-reviewed observational studies. Each task provides the corresponding study protocol as the reference standard, requiring agents to execute experiments in a real database and iteratively generate tree-structured evidence bundles. We evaluate six LLMs (three open-source, three closed-source) under three agent scaffolds using both question-level correctness and end-to-end task metrics. Across 162 tasks, task success is low: the best agent reaches 39.9%, and the best open-source model reaches 30.4%. Agent scaffolds also matter substantially, causing over 30% variation in performance metrics. Furthermore, we implement an automated cohort evaluation method to rapidly localize errors and identify agent failure modes. Overall, the results highlight persistent limitations in agents' ability to produce end-to-end evidence bundles, and efficient validation remains an important direction for future work. Code and data are available at https://github.com/somewordstoolate/RWE-bench.

As autonomous AI agents increasingly transact across organizational boundaries, a fundamental trust challenge emerges: how can an agent assess whether an unknown counterpart is trustworthy? The ERC-8004 protocol addresses this challenge with the first permissionless trust layer for AI agent economies, built around three on-chain registries for Identity, Reputation, and Validation. Despite its rapid adoption, the protocol has not been studied empirically, leaving it unclear whether the information it records provides a trustworthy basis for decision-making. To address this gap, we present the first empirical study of ERC-8004 across three chains: Ethereum, BNB Smart Chain (BSC), and Base, covering the period from protocol deployment through May 13, 2026. We crawl on-chain Identity and Reputation events, off-chain files, and x402 payment transactions. On the identity side, we find that most registrations are placeholders rather than active agents, with only a small fraction (3%, 4%, and 15% across Ethereum, BSC, and Base) exposing a valid ERC-8004 registration file with at least one live service endpoint. On the reputation side, we show that the Registry, as currently deployed, cannot function as a trust signal: values are not commensurable, feedback records are rarely grounded in verifiable interactions, and reputation can be manipulated at minimal cost. Consistent with these design weaknesses, we find that a substantial fraction of reviewers (73.5%, 59.2%, and 90.6% across Ethereum, BSC, and Base) exhibit coordinated Sybil behavior. After removing Sybil-flagged feedback, 15.8%, 77.9%, and 86.8% of rated agents, respectively, are left with no valid feedback. We then turn these findings into concrete recommendations for future revisions of ERC-8004. Our study yields actionable protocol-design implications and establishes an empirical baseline for research on AI agent markets.

Understanding telecom standards involves sorting through numerous technical documents, such as those produced by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), which is time-consuming and labor-intensive. While large language models (LLMs) can assist with the extensive 3GPP knowledge base, an inclusive dataset is crucial for their effective pre-training and fine-tuning. In this paper, we introduce TSpec-LLM, an open-source comprehensive dataset covering all 3GPP documents from Release 8 to Release 19 (1999--2023). To evaluate its efficacy, we first select a representative sample of 3GPP documents, create corresponding technical questions, and assess the baseline performance of various LLMs. We then incorporate a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework to enhance LLM capabilities by retrieving relevant context from the TSpec-LLM dataset. Our evaluation shows that using a naive-RAG framework on TSpec-LLM improves the accuracy of GPT-3.5, Gemini 1.0 Pro, and GPT-4 from 44\%, 46\%, and 51\% to 71\%, 75\%, and 72\%, respectively.

Modern multi-agent knowledge systems increasingly accumulate knowledge through chains of autonomous transformations rather than direct retrieval. Existing provenance work records what happened - execution traces, tool calls, evidence links - and source-reliability estimation is long established (truth discovery, reputation systems). What is missing is an operational framework that attaches graded, per-domain transmitter reliability to claim-level transmission chains, with completeness semantics, transformation-typed aggregation, decoupled content criticism, and serve/review/quarantine routing. Classical Islamic hadith science confronted a structurally similar problem: deciding whether knowledge transmitted through chains of human narrators should be accepted. Over centuries it developed a rigorous methodology - isnad (a complete transmission chain attached to every claim), rijal (systematic grading of each narrator's integrity and precision), weakest-link chain evaluation, corroboration through independent chains, and matn criticism (content evaluated independently of chain quality). This paper transfers that methodology to AI system design. We contribute a formal mapping from hadith-science concepts to multi-agent pipelines, a relational schema implementing claim chains and a graded narrator registry, a decision matrix combining chain grade with content criticism, and an evaluation on 20,000 claims from real physics textbooks. The evaluation validates weakest-link quarantine and independent-chain corroboration; reports a partial failure of the grade-recovery loop, which missed the highest-fault narrator; and reports two analyses as inconclusive, including a matched-coverage comparison the framework could not reach with the reference content critic. The paper is explicit throughout about which claims the evidence does and does not yet support.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used as proxies for human labelers in both training (Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback) and large-scale response evaluation (LLM-as-a-judge). Alignment and evaluation are critical components in the development of reliable LLMs, and the choice of feedback protocol plays a central role in both but remains understudied. In this work, we show that the choice of feedback protocol for evaluation (absolute scores versus relative preferences) can significantly affect evaluation reliability and induce systematic biases. In the context of LLM-as-a-judge evaluation, we show that pairwise protocols are more vulnerable to distracted evaluation. Generator models can exploit spurious attributes (or distractor features) favored by the LLM judge, resulting in inflated scores for lower-quality outputs. We find that absolute scoring is more robust to such manipulation, producing judgments that better reflect response quality and are less influenced by distractor features. Our results demonstrate that generator models can flip preferences by embedding distractor features, skewing LLM-as-a-judge comparisons and leading to inaccurate conclusions about model quality in benchmark evaluations. Pairwise preferences flip in about 35% of the cases, compared to only 9% for absolute scores. We offer recommendations for choosing feedback protocols based on dataset characteristics and evaluation objectives.

Peer review is essential for scientific progress but faces growing challenges due to increasing submission volumes and reviewer fatigue. Existing automated review approaches struggle with factual accuracy, rating consistency, and analytical depth, often generating superficial or generic feedback lacking the insights characteristic of high-quality human reviews. We introduce ReviewRL, a reinforcement learning framework for generating comprehensive and factually grounded scientific paper reviews. Our approach combines: (1) an ArXiv-MCP retrieval-augmented context generation pipeline that incorporates relevant scientific literature, (2) supervised fine-tuning that establishes foundational reviewing capabilities, and (3) a reinforcement learning procedure with a composite reward function that jointly enhances review quality and rating accuracy. Experiments on ICLR 2025 papers demonstrate that ReviewRL significantly outperforms existing methods across both rule-based metrics and model-based quality assessments. ReviewRL establishes a foundational framework for RL-driven automatic critique generation in scientific discovery, demonstrating promising potential for future development in this domain. The implementation of ReviewRL will be released at GitHub.

Peer review is a critical component of scientific progress in the fields like AI, but the rapid increase in submission volume has strained the reviewing system, which inevitably leads to reviewer shortages and declines review quality. Besides the growing research popularity, another key factor in this overload is the repeated resubmission of substandard manuscripts, largely due to the lack of effective tools for authors to self-evaluate their work before submission. Large Language Models (LLMs) show great promise in assisting both authors and reviewers, and their performance is fundamentally limited by the quality of the peer review data. However, existing peer review datasets face three major limitations: (1) limited data diversity, (2) inconsistent and low-quality data due to the use of revised rather than initial submissions, and (3) insufficient support for tasks involving rebuttal and reviewer-author interactions. To address these challenges, we introduce the largest consistency-ensured peer review and rebuttal dataset named Re^2, which comprises 19,926 initial submissions, 70,668 review comments, and 53,818 rebuttals from 24 conferences and 21 workshops on OpenReview. Moreover, the rebuttal and discussion stage is framed as a multi-turn conversation paradigm to support both traditional static review tasks and dynamic interactive LLM assistants, providing more practical guidance for authors to refine their manuscripts and helping alleviate the growing review burden. Our data and code are available in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/ReviewBench_anon/.

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

Automated incident management plays a pivotal role in large-scale microservice systems. However, many existing methods rely solely on single-modal data (e.g., metrics, logs, and traces) and struggle to simultaneously address multiple downstream tasks, including anomaly detection (AD), failure triage (FT), and root cause localization (RCL). Moreover, the lack of clear reasoning evidence in current techniques often leads to insufficient interpretability. To address these limitations, we propose TrioXpert, an end-to-end incident management framework capable of fully leveraging multimodal data. TrioXpert designs three independent data processing pipelines based on the inherent characteristics of different modalities, comprehensively characterizing the operational status of microservice systems from both numerical and textual dimensions. It employs a collaborative reasoning mechanism using large language models (LLMs) to simultaneously handle multiple tasks while providing clear reasoning evidence to ensure strong interpretability. We conducted extensive evaluations on two microservice system datasets, and the experimental results demonstrate that TrioXpert achieves outstanding performance in AD (improving by 4.7% to 57.7%), FT (improving by 2.1% to 40.6%), and RCL (improving by 1.6% to 163.1%) tasks. TrioXpert has also been deployed in Lenovo's production environment, demonstrating substantial gains in diagnostic efficiency and accuracy.

Advances in AI-assisted research have introduced powerful tools for literature retrieval, hypothesis generation, experimentation, and manuscript preparation. However, systems remain fragmented and lack human-centred workflows. To address these gaps, we introduce AIssistant, an agentic, open-source Human-AI collaborative framework designed to simplify the end-to-end creation of scientific workflows. Since our development is still in an early stage, we present here the first experiments with AIssistant for perspective and review research papers in machine learning. Our system integrates modular tools and agents for literature synthesis, section-wise experimentation, citation management, and automatic LaTeX paper text generation, while maintaining human oversight at every stage to ensure accuracy, coherence, and scholarly rigour. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation across three layers: (1) Independent Human Review, following NeurIPS double-blind standards; (2) Automated LLM Review, using GPT-5 as a scalable human review proxy; and (3) Program Chair Oversight, where the chair monitors the entire review process and makes final validation and acceptance decisions. The results demonstrate that AIssistant improves drafting efficiency and thematic consistency. Nonetheless, Human-AI collaboration remains essential for maintaining factual correctness, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance. Despite its effectiveness, we identify key limitations, including hallucinated citations, difficulty adapting to dynamic paper structures, and incomplete integration of multimodal content.

Large multimodal models (LMMs) are increasingly adopted as judges in multimodal evaluation systems due to their strong instruction following and consistency with human preferences. However, their ability to follow diverse, fine-grained evaluation criteria remains underexplored. We develop Multi-Crit, a benchmark for evaluating multimodal judges on their capacity to follow pluralistic criteria and produce reliable criterion-level judgments. Covering both open-ended generation and verifiable reasoning tasks, Multi-Crit is built through a rigorous data curation pipeline that gathers challenging response pairs with multi-criterion human annotations. It further introduces three novel metrics for systematically assessing pluralistic adherence, criterion-switching flexibility, and the ability to recognize criterion-level preference conflicts. Comprehensive analysis of 25 LMMs reveals that 1) proprietary models still struggle to maintain consistent adherence to pluralistic criteria--especially in open-ended evaluation; 2) open-source models lag further behind in flexibly following diverse criteria; and 3) critic fine-tuning with holistic judgment signals enhances visual grounding but fails to generalize to pluralistic criterion-level judgment. Additional analyses on reasoning fine-tuning, test-time scaling, and boundary consistency between open-source and proprietary models further probe the limits of current multimodal judges. As a pioneering study, Multi-Crit lays the foundation for building reliable and steerable multimodal AI evaluation.

Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

Many deployments must compare candidate language models for safety before a labeled benchmark exists for the relevant language, sector, or regulatory regime. We formalize this setting as benchmarkless comparative safety scoring and specify the contract under which a scenario-based audit can be interpreted as deployment evidence. Scores are valid only under a fixed scenario pack, rubric, auditor, judge, sampling configuration, and rerun budget. Because no labels are available, we replace ground-truth agreement with an instrumental-validity chain: responsiveness to a controlled safe-versus-abliterated contrast, dominance of target-driven variance over auditor and judge artifacts, and stability across reruns. We instantiate the chain in SimpleAudit, a local-first scoring instrument, and validate it on a Norwegian safety pack. Safe and abliterated targets separate with AUROC values between 0.89 and 1.00, target identity is the dominant variance component (η^2 approx 0.52), and severity profiles stabilize by ten reruns. Applying the same chain to Petri shows that it admits both tools. The substantial differences arise upstream of the chain, in claim-contract enforcement and deployment fit. A Norwegian public-sector procurement case comparing Borealis and Gemma 3 demonstrates the resulting evidence in practice: the safer model depends on scenario category and risk measure. Consequently, scores, matched deltas, critical rates, uncertainty, and the auditor and judge used must be reported together rather than collapsed into a single ranking.

Safety benchmarks such as HarmBench rely on LLM judges to classify model responses as harmful or safe, yet the judge configuration, namely the combination of judge model and judge prompt, is typically treated as a fixed implementation detail. We show this assumption is problematic. Using a 2 x 2 x 3 factorial design, we construct 12 judge prompt variants along two axes, evaluation structure and instruction framing, and apply them using a single judge model, Claude Sonnet 4-6, producing 28,812 judgments over six target models and 400 HarmBench behaviors. We find that prompt wording alone, holding the judge model fixed, shifts measured harmful-response rates by up to 24.2 percentage points, with even within-condition surface rewording causing swings of up to 20.1 percentage points. Model safety rankings are moderately unstable, with mean Kendall tau = 0.89, and category-level sensitivity ranges from 39.6 percentage points for copyright to 0 percentage points for harassment. A supplementary multi-judge experiment using three judge models shows that judge-model choice adds further variance. Our results demonstrate that judge prompt wording is a substantial, previously under-examined source of measurement variance in safety benchmarking.

As centralized AI hits compute ceilings and diminishing returns from ever-larger training runs, meeting demand requires an inference layer that scales horizontally in both capacity and capability. We present Fortytwo, a novel protocol that leverages swarm intelligence principles and distributed pairwise ranking consensus to achieve superior performance in AI inference. Our approach reimagines collaboration among AI nodes using swarm inference: a peer-ranked, reputation-weighted consensus across heterogeneous models that surfaces the highest-quality responses. Using pairwise ranking with a custom Bradley-Terry-style aggregation model, we demonstrate that swarm inference substantially outperforms majority voting, achieving 85.90% on GPQA Diamond versus 68.69% for majority voting with the same model set - an improvement of +17.21 percentage points (approximately +25.1% relative). The protocol incorporates on-chain reputation so node influence adapts to demonstrated accuracy over time, yielding a meritocratic consensus that filters low-quality or malicious participants. To resist Sybil attacks, Fortytwo employs proof-of-capability in its consensus: nodes must successfully complete calibration/test requests and stake reputation to enter ranking rounds, making multi-identity attacks economically unattractive while preserving openness. Across six challenging benchmarks, including GPQA Diamond, LiveCodeBench, and AIME, our evaluation indicates higher accuracy and strong resilience to adversarial and noisy free-form prompting (e.g., prompt-injection degradation of only 0.12% versus 6.20% for a monolithic single-model baseline), while retaining practical deployability. Together, these results establish a foundation for decentralized AI systems - democratizing access to high-quality inference through collective intelligence without sacrificing reliability or security.

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in sensitive everyday contexts -- offering personal advice, mental health support, and moral guidance -- understanding their behavior in navigating complex moral reasoning is essential. Most evaluations study this sociotechnical alignment through single-turn prompts, but it is unclear if these findings extend to multi-turn settings, and even less clear how they depend on the interaction protocols used to coordinate agentic systems. We address this gap using LLM debate to examine deliberative dynamics and value alignment in multi-turn settings by prompting subsets of three models (GPT-4.1, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) to collectively assign blame in 1,000 everyday dilemmas from Reddit's ``Am I the Asshole'' community. To test order effects and assess verdict revision, we use both synchronous (parallel responses) and round-robin (sequential responses) deliberation structures, mirroring how multi-agent systems are increasingly orchestrated in practice. Our findings show striking behavioral differences. In the synchronous setting, GPT-4.1 showed strong inertia (0.6-3.1\% revision rates) while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash were far more flexible (28-41\% revision rates). Value patterns also diverged: GPT-4.1 emphasized personal autonomy and direct communication (relative to its deliberation partners), while Claude 3.7 Sonnet and Gemini 2.0 Flash prioritized empathetic dialogue. We further find that deliberation format had a strong impact on model behavior: GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash stood out as highly conforming relative to Claude 3.7 Sonnet, with their verdict behavior strongly shaped by order effects. We provide additional results on open-source models (DeepSeek-V3.2 and Llama 3.1).

This paper reports a single, fully instrumented case study of a large-scale architectural refactoring by an AI coding agent under a specification-first protocol, with no human review of the generated code and no pre-existing oracle to validate the target behaviour. The task, dismantling a central invariant across a large interdependent codebase, was assessed by the author as effectively infeasible through incremental refactoring, the kind of change that conventionally calls for a rewrite instead. Under the protocol described here, the agent completed it successfully. The system is a 717,725-line production TypeScript application across 3,648 files. The task required dismantling a core lifetime invariant: the guarantee that a UI panel remains open for the duration of an AI request. The target behaviour was that a streaming generation survives the closing of its panel and can be reattached, on reopening, to the same live stream with no loss or duplication. The protocol: formal specification by the agent, 14 refinement cycles auditing that specification against the source code, atomic implementation, a compile/test feedback loop, then 17 verification cycles auditing the code against the frozen specification. Across 31 audit passes, 201 defects were corrected before any human executed the program. The convergence criterion was empirical: two consecutive verification passes returning zero findings. The change touched 189 files (31 new); with the extraction phase, the two commits total 288 files, 34,770 insertions, 16,422 deletions. Across the first and roughly thirty later sessions, the software behaved as specified, no bug observed. Elapsed: three days; cost: USD 2,430. The full specification and raw session logs, 1,500+ pages in French, are published as evidence, allowing inspection of the process and submission to a language model for consistency checking.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents executing multi-step workflows in real-world software environments. However, existing agent benchmarks suffer from three critical limitations: (1) trajectory-opaque grading that checks only final outputs, (2) underspecified safety and robustness evaluation, and (3) narrow modality coverage and interaction paradigms. We introduce Claw-Eval, an end-to-end evaluation suite addressing all three gaps. It comprises 300 human-verified tasks spanning 9 categories across three groups (general service orchestration, multimodal perception and generation, and multi-turn professional dialogue). Every agent action is recorded through three independent evidence channels (execution traces, audit logs, and environment snapshots), enabling trajectory-aware grading over 2,159 fine-grained rubric items. The scoring protocol evaluates Completion, Safety, and Robustness, reporting Average Score, Pass@k, and Pass^k across three trials to distinguish genuine capability from lucky outcomes. Experiments on 14 frontier models reveal that: (1) trajectory-opaque evaluation is systematically unreliable, missing 44% of safety violations and 13% of robustness failures that our hybrid pipeline catches; (2) controlled error injection primarily degrades consistency rather than peak capability, with Pass^3 dropping up to 24% while Pass@3 remains stable; (3) multimodal performance varies sharply, with most models performing poorer on video than on document or image, and no single model dominating across all modalities. Beyond benchmarking, Claw-Eval highlights actionable directions for agent development, shedding light on what it takes to build agents that are not only capable but reliably deployable.

The rapid growth in submissions to machine learning venues has strained the scientific peer-review system and intensified interest in LLM-based automated peer reviewers. However, how good these systems are actually, especially compared to human reviewers at catching scientific gaps, remains poorly understood. In this work, we introduce PRISM (Peer Review Intelligence via Structured Multi-dimensional assessment), a benchmarking framework that evaluates review quality across four dimensions: Depth of Analysis, Novelty Assessment,Flaw Identification & Major Issues Prioritization, and Multi-dimensional Constructiveness. Unlike most existing evaluations based on surface-level metrics like ROUGE and BLEU, or unconstrained LLM-as-a-judge prompting that conflates fluency with rigor, PRISM grounds each dimension in argument mining, retrieval-augmented verification, and consensus-based scoring. We apply PRISM to benchmark five leading automated reviewer systems and human reviewers on a stratified corpus of reviews from ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. The results reveal that LLMs can match or beat human reviewers on individual dimensions: comparable depth of analysis, stronger novelty verification, and highly accurate critique prioritization. However, no single system consistently matches the balanced performance of the human baseline across all dimensions at once. Each exhibits a distinct specialization profile with characteristic blind spots -- failure modes that aggregate metrics miss entirely. The implication is that LLM reviewers are best understood as targeted supplements to human review, effective within specific dimensions, but unreliable as standalone replacements. Our demo and key results can be found at https://khanhthanhdev.github.io/prism-page/.

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

We present OpenReviewer, an open-source system for generating high-quality peer reviews of machine learning and AI conference papers. At its core is Llama-OpenReviewer-8B, an 8B parameter language model specifically fine-tuned on 79,000 expert reviews from top conferences. Given a PDF paper submission and review template as input, OpenReviewer extracts the full text, including technical content like equations and tables, and generates a structured review following conference-specific guidelines. Our evaluation on 400 test papers shows that OpenReviewer produces considerably more critical and realistic reviews compared to general-purpose LLMs like GPT-4 and Claude-3.5. While other LLMs tend toward overly positive assessments, OpenReviewer's recommendations closely match the distribution of human reviewer ratings. The system provides authors with rapid, constructive feedback to improve their manuscripts before submission, though it is not intended to replace human peer review. OpenReviewer is available as an online demo and open-source tool.

Retrieval-augmented QA pipelines often route retrieved passages through an LLM rewriter before a smaller reader, lifting F1 by tens of points on multi-hop benchmarks; this gain is typically credited to improved evidence quality. We ask whether that lift is causally driven by the gold answer string appearing in the rewritten context rather than by curation per se, using a controlled intervention audit. For each rewritten context we re-run the reader after one of four controlled edits to the compile output: removing the gold answer span, replacing a length-matched random non-answer span (placebo), or injecting the gold into rewrites where it was absent (at the prefix or at a midpoint sentence boundary). Across twelve completed (cell, baseline) intervention runs spanning three reader families (Qwen2.5-7B, Qwen3.5-35B, GLM-4.7), two datasets (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihopQA), and three compiler arrangements (MA-only, MB-only, MA+verify), removing the gold answer drops reader F1 by 28 to 64 points beyond the length-matched placebo on paired answer-in-compile strata, and prepending the gold into rewrites that lacked it raises F1 by +0.7 to +9.7 points in 10 of 12 (cell, baseline) combinations. A companion five-sentinel audit shows the conventional single-[MASK] probe is itself sentinel-fragile: on 2Wiki it reports a +4.12~F1 ``non-leakage residual'' that flips to -3.33 to -7.81~F1 under four alternative sentinels and fails an equivalence test for three of those four (1/4~pass). We do not propose a new rewriter or mitigation; we release the intervention runner and the sentinel panel so that other rewriter-gain claims can be tested against the same standard.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) lets a large language model answer questions using documents retrieved from an external knowledge base at query time. This makes RAG useful for private data, fast-changing information, and reducing hallucination, but it also means the model's answer is only as trustworthy as whatever the retriever hands it. If the knowledge base accepts writes from more than one party, an attacker needs only a handful of adversarial documents to steer the model toward a chosen wrong answer. PoisonedRAG demonstrated this: as few as five crafted documents flip an undefended system's answer roughly 90% of the time, and three natural single-stage defenses (perplexity filtering, query paraphrasing, knowledge-base expansion) leave attack success at 30% or higher. We built TriShieldRAG to close that gap. Rather than relying on one checkpoint, we place three independent, formally specified rings across the pipeline: an Ingest Guard that screens documents for lexical and statistical poisoning signatures; a Retrieval Scorer that re-ranks the retrieved set by a provenance and consistency-weighted trust score; and a Cross-LLM Consensus stage that polls three architecturally diverse language models (Claude, Mistral Small, Llama 3.2) and allows one bounded re-retrieval on disagreement. We derive the conditions under which Rings 2 and 3 are expected to work: a minority-poison assumption and an explicit provenance-tag assumption. Our reported configuration is consistent with this analysis, though we have not yet run the controlled poison-fraction sweep needed to confirm it independently. Evaluated against the non-adaptive attacker from the original PoisonedRAG, over a 5,000-document Wikipedia knowledge base with 10 target questions, the full pipeline reduces attack success rate from roughly 91% to roughly 13% while preserving accuracy on benign queries.

Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess final reports using fixed rubrics, failing to evaluate the underlying research process. Most also offer limited multimodal coverage, rely on synthetic tasks that do not reflect real-world query complexity, and cannot be refreshed as knowledge evolves. To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems. The benchmark comprises 100 tasks (70 text-only, 30 multimodal), all grounded in real user needs and constructed via a dual-path pipeline that supports periodic updates, enabling a live and evolving setting. The proposed evaluation suite assesses deep research systems along three complementary dimensions: adaptive synthesis quality evaluation with task-specific rubrics, agentic factuality verification via active retrieval and reasoning over both web sources and multimodal attachments, and process-centric evaluation audits how the system searches, reasons, and refines throughout its investigation. Evaluation across 13 systems yields three principal findings: the three evaluation dimensions capture complementary aspects of system capability, with each revealing distinct strengths and weaknesses across systems; process quality serves as a reliable predictor of overall outcome while revealing weaknesses invisible to output-level metrics; and multimodal tasks pose substantially greater challenges, with most systems declining by 3 to 10 points. The MiroThinker series achieves the most balanced performance, with MiroThinker-H1 ranking the highest overall in both settings. Human verification and robustness results confirm the reliability of the benchmark and evaluation framework. MiroEval provides a holistic diagnostic tool for the next generation of deep research agents.

Multi-agent reasoning systems often use agreement, confidence, or automated scores to decide which messages should shape a final answer. Such filtering assumes that a message likely to be correct is also worth keeping. Yet a wrong answer can contain a useful decomposition, constraint, or scientific principle. We test this distinction with Diverse Hypothesis Deliberation (DHD), a controlled measurement protocol that caches five independently generated messages and replays the same downstream solver, called the integrator, with each message available or hidden. The replay comparison measures a message's trajectory value: whether making the message available helps or harms subsequent reasoning. Across five mathematics and science benchmarks and two openly available model families, gpt-oss-120b and gemma-4-31B-it, wrong-helpful messages appear in every benchmark-model combination. Among wrong-answer messages that change final correctness, more than four in ten changes are helpful in each model. Controlled repeats show that the number of repeatable message effects is unlikely to arise from replay variation alone (p=0.0002). A focused intervention on repeatable wrong-helpful messages finds that the complete message works best, while retaining its reasoning preserves more success than retaining only its answer; the source of the complete-message advantage remains open. Within the same problem, repeated trajectory-value evidence also identifies a better keep-or-remove choice than answer correctness alone. Answer correctness is therefore informative but does not determine trajectory value. DHD measures this missing property and produces reusable labels for learning when agents should listen.

Large language models (LLMs) remain unreliable for high-stakes claim verification due to hallucinations and shallow reasoning. While retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and multi-agent debate (MAD) address this, they are limited by one-pass retrieval and unstructured debate dynamics. We propose a courtroom-style multi-agent framework, PROClaim, that reformulates verification as a structured, adversarial deliberation. Our approach integrates specialized roles (e.g., Plaintiff, Defense, Judge) with Progressive RAG (P-RAG) to dynamically expand and refine the evidence pool during the debate. Furthermore, we employ evidence negotiation, self-reflection, and heterogeneous multi-judge aggregation to enforce calibration, robustness, and diversity. In zero-shot evaluations on the Check-COVID benchmark, PROClaim achieves 81.7% accuracy, outperforming standard multi-agent debate by 10.0 percentage points, with P-RAG driving the primary performance gains (+7.5 pp). We ultimately demonstrate that structural deliberation and model heterogeneity effectively mitigate systematic biases, providing a robust foundation for reliable claim verification. Our code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/mnc13/PROClaim.

As increasingly capable open-weight large language models (LLMs) are deployed, improving their tamper resistance against unsafe modifications, whether accidental or intentional, becomes critical to minimize risks. However, there is no standard approach to evaluate tamper resistance. Varied data sets, metrics, and tampering configurations make it difficult to compare safety, utility, and robustness across different models and defenses. To this end, we introduce TamperBench, the first unified framework to systematically evaluate the tamper resistance of LLMs. TamperBench (i) curates a repository of state-of-the-art weight-space fine-tuning attacks and latent-space representation attacks; (ii) enables realistic adversarial evaluation through systematic hyperparameter sweeps per attack-model pair; and (iii) provides both safety and utility evaluations. TamperBench requires minimal additional code to specify any fine-tuning configuration, alignment-stage defense method, and metric suite while ensuring end-to-end reproducibility. We use TamperBench to evaluate 21 open-weight LLMs, including defense-augmented variants, across nine tampering threats using standardized safety and capability metrics with hyperparameter sweeps per model-attack pair. This yields novel insights, including effects of post-training on tamper resistance, that jailbreak-tuning is typically the most severe attack, and that Triplet emerges as a leading alignment-stage defense. Code is available at: https://github.com/criticalml-uw/TamperBench

Large language models, particularly GPT-3, are able to produce high quality summaries of general domain news articles in few- and zero-shot settings. However, it is unclear if such models are similarly capable in more specialized, high-stakes domains such as biomedicine. In this paper, we enlist domain experts (individuals with medical training) to evaluate summaries of biomedical articles generated by GPT-3, given zero supervision. We consider both single- and multi-document settings. In the former, GPT-3 is tasked with generating regular and plain-language summaries of articles describing randomized controlled trials; in the latter, we assess the degree to which GPT-3 is able to synthesize evidence reported across a collection of articles. We design an annotation scheme for evaluating model outputs, with an emphasis on assessing the factual accuracy of generated summaries. We find that while GPT-3 is able to summarize and simplify single biomedical articles faithfully, it struggles to provide accurate aggregations of findings over multiple documents. We release all data and annotations used in this work.

This report describes ARIS (Auto-Research-in-sleep), an open-source research harness for autonomous research, including its architecture, assurance mechanisms, and early deployment experience. The performance of agent systems built on LLMs depends on both the model weights and the harness around them, which governs what information to store, retrieve, and present to the model. For long-horizon research workflows, the central failure mode is not a visible breakdown but a plausible unsupported success: a long-running agent can produce claims whose evidential support is incomplete, misreported, or silently inherited from the executor's framing. Therefore, we present ARIS as a research harness that coordinates machine-learning research workflows through cross-model adversarial collaboration as a default configuration: an executor model drives forward progress while a reviewer from a different model family is recommended to critique intermediate artifacts and request revisions. ARIS has three architectural layers. The execution layer provides more than 65 reusable Markdown-defined skills, model integrations via MCP, a persistent research wiki for iterative reuse of prior findings, and deterministic figure generation. The orchestration layer coordinates five end-to-end workflows with adjustable effort settings and configurable routing to reviewer models. The assurance layer includes a three-stage process for checking whether experimental claims are supported by evidence: integrity verification, result-to-claim mapping, and claim auditing that cross-checks manuscript statements against the claim ledger and raw evidence, as well as a five-pass scientific-editing pipeline, mathematical-proof checks, and visual inspection of the rendered PDF. A prototype self-improvement loop records research traces and proposes harness improvements that are adopted only after reviewer approval.

Always-on agents are systems whose future behavior depends on durable state accumulated across earlier interactions. We treat them as persistent-state systems: the operative system includes retrievable memories, but also task ledgers, permissions, credentials, commitments, provenance and audit records, shared state, trigger conditions, and externally committed effects linked to those records. The survey reads the literature through six diagnostic axes for each state item, authority, scope, mutability, provenance, recoverability, and actionability, and through a lifecycle in which state is written, validated, organized, retrieved, acted upon, updated, forgotten, audited, and sometimes rolled back. Across a 435-work coded corpus, treated as a scoped map rather than an exhaustive census, the literature concentrates more heavily on accumulating and retrieving state than on governing, recovering, or relinquishing it. We therefore introduce the Always-On Evaluation Protocol (AOEP-v0), a pilot evaluation contract that makes these governance requirements concrete by scoring state mutation and recovery obligations rather than answer quality alone. The resulting agenda connects always-on agents to databases, distributed systems, formal methods, capability security, and machine unlearning.

Peer review in machine learning is under growing pressure from rising submission volume and limited reviewer time. Most LLM-based reviewing systems read only the manuscript and generate comments from the paper's own narrative. This makes their outputs sensitive to presentation quality and leaves them weak when the evidence needed for review lies in related work or released code. We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification. Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository under bounded budgets to test central empirical claims. It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive. In a case study on CompGCN, FactReview reproduces results that closely match those reported for link prediction and node classification, yet also shows that the paper's broader performance claim across tasks is not fully sustained: on MUTAG graph classification, the reproduced result is 88.4%, whereas the strongest baseline reported in the paper remains 92.6%. The claim is therefore only partially supported. More broadly, this case suggests that AI is most useful in peer review not as a final decision-maker, but as a tool for gathering evidence and helping reviewers produce more evidence-grounded assessments. The code is public at https://github.com/DEFENSE-SEU/Review-Assistant.

The automatic evaluation of instruction following typically involves using large language models (LLMs) to assess response quality. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of these LLM-based evaluators across two dimensions: the base LLMs and the evaluation protocols. Therefore, we present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 recently proposed evaluation protocols, on 4 human-annotated datasets, assessing the evaluation accuracy of the LLM-evaluators. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness. Moreover, our large-scale evaluation reveals: (1) Base LLM performance ranking remains largely consistent across evaluation protocols, with less capable LLMs showing greater improvement from protocol enhancements; (2) Robust evaluation of evaluation protocols requires many base LLMs with varying capability levels, as protocol effectiveness can depend on the base LLM used; (3) Evaluation results on different datasets are not always consistent, so a rigorous evaluation requires multiple datasets with distinctive features. We release our meta-evaluation suite ReIFE, which provides the codebase and evaluation result collection for more than 500 LLM-evaluator configurations, to support future research in instruction-following evaluation.

Reproducibility crises across sciences highlight the limitations of the paper-centric review system in assessing the rigor and reproducibility of research. AI agents that autonomously design and generate large volumes of research outputs exacerbate these challenges. In this work, we address the growing challenges of scalability and rigor by flipping the dynamic and developing AI agents as research evaluators. We propose the first execution-grounded evaluation framework that verifies research beyond narrative review by examining code and data alongside the paper. We use mechanistic interpretability research as a testbed, build standardized research output, and develop MechEvalAgent, an automated evaluation framework that assesses the coherence of the experimental process, the reproducibility of results, and the generalizability of findings. We show that our framework achieves above 80% agreement with human judges, identifies substantial methodological problems, and surfaces 51 additional issues that human reviewers miss. Our work demonstrates the potential of AI agents to transform research evaluation and pave the way for rigorous scientific practices.

The critique capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) is essential for reasoning abilities, which can provide necessary suggestions (e.g., detailed analysis and constructive feedback). Therefore, how to evaluate the critique capacity of LLMs has drawn great attention and several critique benchmarks have been proposed. However, existing critique benchmarks usually have the following limitations: (1). Focusing on diverse reasoning tasks in general domains and insufficient evaluation on code tasks (e.g., only covering code generation task), where the difficulty of queries is relatively easy (e.g., the code queries of CriticBench are from Humaneval and MBPP). (2). Lacking comprehensive evaluation from different dimensions. To address these limitations, we introduce a holistic code critique benchmark for LLMs called CodeCriticBench. Specifically, our CodeCriticBench includes two mainstream code tasks (i.e., code generation and code QA) with different difficulties. Besides, the evaluation protocols include basic critique evaluation and advanced critique evaluation for different characteristics, where fine-grained evaluation checklists are well-designed for advanced settings. Finally, we conduct extensive experimental results of existing LLMs, which show the effectiveness of CodeCriticBench.

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.

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

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the benchmark for causal inference, yet field implementation can deviate. We here present a remote audit - a design-based, preregistrable diagnostic that uses only pre-treatment satellite imagery to test whether assignment is independent of local conditions. The conditional randomization test of the remote audit evaluates whether treatment assignment is more predictable from pre-treatment satellite features than expected under the experiment's registered mechanism, providing a finite-sample valid, design-based diagnostic that requires no parametric assumptions. The procedure is finite-sample valid, honors blocks and clusters, and controls multiplicity across image models and resolutions via a max-statistic. We illustrate with two RCTs: Uganda's Youth Opportunities Program, where the audit corroborates randomization and flags selection and missing-data risks; and a school-based trial in Bangladesh, where assignment is highly predictable from pre-treatment features relative to the stated design, consistent with independent concerns about irregularities. Remote audits complement balance tests, lower early-stage costs, and enable rapid design checks when baseline surveys are expensive or infeasible.

Decentralized reputation schemes present a promising area of experimentation in blockchain applications. These solutions aim to overcome the shortcomings of simple monetary incentive mechanisms of naive tokenomics. However, there is a significant research gap regarding the limitations and benefits of such solutions. We formulate these trade-offs as a conjecture on the irreconcilability of three desirable properties of the reputation system in this context. Such a system can not be simultaneously generalizable, trustless, and Sybil resistant. To handle the limitations of this trilemma, we propose MeritRank: Sybil tolerant feedback aggregation mechanism for reputation. Instead of preventing Sybil attacks, our approach successfully bounds the benefits of these attacks. Using a dataset of participants' interactions in MakerDAO, we run experiments to demonstrate Sybil tolerance of MeritRank. Decay parameters of reputation in MeritRank: transitivity decay and connectivity decay, allow for a fine-tuning of desirable levels of reputation utility and Sybil tolerance in different use contexts.

Recent advances in generative modeling enable image editing assistants that follow natural language instructions without additional user input. Their supervised training requires millions of triplets: original image, instruction, edited image. Yet mining pixel-accurate examples is hard. Each edit must affect only prompt-specified regions, preserve stylistic coherence, respect physical plausibility, and retain visual appeal. The lack of robust automated edit-quality metrics hinders reliable automation at scale. We present an automated, modular pipeline that mines high-fidelity triplets across domains, resolutions, instruction complexities, and styles. Built on public generative models and running without human intervention, our system uses a task-tuned Gemini validator to score instruction adherence and aesthetics directly, removing any need for segmentation or grounding models. Inversion and compositional bootstrapping enlarge the mined set by approximately 2.2x, enabling large-scale high-fidelity training data. By automating the most repetitive annotation steps, the approach allows a new scale of training without human labeling effort. To democratize research in this resource-intensive area, we release NHR-Edit: an open dataset of 358k high-quality triplets. In the largest cross-dataset evaluation, it surpasses all public alternatives. We also release Bagel-NHR-Edit, an open-source fine-tuned Bagel model, which achieves state-of-the-art metrics in our experiments.

Providing constructive feedback to paper authors is a core component of peer review. With reviewers increasingly having less time to perform reviews, automated support systems are required to ensure high reviewing quality, thus making the feedback in reviews useful for authors. To this end, we identify four key aspects of review comments (individual points in weakness sections of reviews) that drive the utility for authors: Actionability, Grounding & Specificity, Verifiability, and Helpfulness. To enable evaluation and development of models assessing review comments, we introduce the RevUtil dataset. We collect 1,430 human-labeled review comments and scale our data with 10k synthetically labeled comments for training purposes. The synthetic data additionally contains rationales, i.e., explanations for the aspect score of a review comment. Employing the RevUtil dataset, we benchmark fine-tuned models for assessing review comments on these aspects and generating rationales. Our experiments demonstrate that these fine-tuned models achieve agreement levels with humans comparable to, and in some cases exceeding, those of powerful closed models like GPT-4o. Our analysis further reveals that machine-generated reviews generally underperform human reviews on our four aspects.

State machine replication (SMR) and Byzantine fault-tolerant (BFT) consensus guarantee agreement despite a bounded number of arbitrary, colluding faulty participants. However, these guarantees rely on participants outside this set correctly executing the protocol's transition semantics. Agentic validators expose a weaker boundary: an authenticated, responsive, non-equivocating, and protocol-compliant reasoning participant may still endorse a semantically invalid transition due to reasoning errors. We call this failure mode an epistemic fault, and the collective phenomenon the Honest Quorum Problem (where "honest" means protocol-compliant, not semantically correct). Such a quorum can satisfy ordinary checks while forming a certificate for an invalid transition. Thus, agreement alone does not guarantee semantic validity or execution safety. Furthermore, because agentic validators often share model weights, training distributions, prompts, or toolchains, they are highly susceptible to correlated epistemic faults. We define Epistemic Byzantine Fault Tolerance (EBFT), a fault-tolerance model for agentic infrastructure and post-deterministic distributed systems. EBFT augments the conventional Byzantine fault bound with two separate, confidence-indexed quantities: e_δ bounds coherent invalid endorsements outside the Byzantine set, and u_ε bounds unusable validator support that degrades liveness. These quantities characterize semantic safety risk and liveness degradation independently. We derive quorum-threshold conditions for semantic validity, consensus agreement, liveness, and feasible threshold selection, and outline a calibration methodology for estimating these budgets. We show that adding nominally distinct agents improves fault tolerance only when it measurably reduces the upper-tail concentration of invalid endorsements or unusable support.

This preprint presents an empirical analysis of byte-exact chunk-level deduplication in Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) pipelines. We measure context reduction across three distinct operating regimes: clean academic retrieval (0.16% byte reduction on 22.2M BeIR passages), constructed enterprise patterns (24.03% reduction), and multi-turn conversational AI (80.34% reduction). To validate quality preservation, we conducted a cross-vendor 5-judge calibrated panel evaluation across four production APIs (Google Gemini 2.5 Flash, Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4.6, Meta Llama 3.3 70B, and OpenAI GPT-5.1). Applying a five-category human-in-the-loop noise-removal protocol to panel-majority materially different (MAT) pairs, we establish that byte-exact deduplication introduces zero measurable quality regression. Post-audit, all four vendors clear the strict <5% Wilson 95% upper-bound MAT threshold in both the clean and high-redundancy RAG regimes. This work demonstrates that substantial inference compute savings can be achieved deterministically without compromising evaluation-grade model quality.

Recent advances in medical large language models (LLMs), multimodal models, and agents demand evaluation frameworks that reflect real clinical workflows and safety constraints. We present MedBench v4, a nationwide, cloud-based benchmarking infrastructure comprising over 700,000 expert-curated tasks spanning 24 primary and 91 secondary specialties, with dedicated tracks for LLMs, multimodal models, and agents. Items undergo multi-stage refinement and multi-round review by clinicians from more than 500 institutions, and open-ended responses are scored by an LLM-as-a-judge calibrated to human ratings. We evaluate 15 frontier models. Base LLMs reach a mean overall score of 54.1/100 (best: Claude Sonnet 4.5, 62.5/100), but safety and ethics remain low (18.4/100). Multimodal models perform worse overall (mean 47.5/100; best: GPT-5, 54.9/100), with solid perception yet weaker cross-modal reasoning. Agents built on the same backbones substantially improve end-to-end performance (mean 79.8/100), with Claude Sonnet 4.5-based agents achieving up to 85.3/100 overall and 88.9/100 on safety tasks. MedBench v4 thus reveals persisting gaps in multimodal reasoning and safety for base models, while showing that governance-aware agentic orchestration can markedly enhance benchmarked clinical readiness without sacrificing capability. By aligning tasks with Chinese clinical guidelines and regulatory priorities, the platform offers a practical reference for hospitals, developers, and policymakers auditing medical AI.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in Deep Research or Wide Search, their capacity to solve highly complex questions-those requiring long-horizon planning, massive evidence gathering, and synthesis across heterogeneous sources-remains largely unexplored. We introduce Super Research, a task for complex autonomous research tasks that integrates (i) structured decomposition into a research plan, (ii) super wide retrieval for diverse perspectives, and (iii) super deep investigation to resolve uncertainties through iterative queries. To evaluate this capability, we curated a benchmark of 300 expert-written questions across diverse domains, each requiring up to 100+ retrieval steps and 1,000+ web pages to reconcile conflicting evidence. Super Research produces verifiable reports with fine-grained citations and intermediate artifacts (e.g., outlines and tables) to ensure traceable reasoning. Furthermore, we present a graph-anchored auditing protocol that evaluates Super Research along five dimensions: Coverage, Logical Consistency, Report Utility, Objectivity and Citation Health. While super-complex questions may be infrequent in standard applications, Super Research serves as a critical ceiling evaluation and stress test for LLM capabilities. A model's proficiency within Super Research acts as a powerful proxy for its general research competence; success here suggests the robustness necessary to navigate nearly any subordinate research task. Leaderboard is available at: https://cnsdqd-dyb.github.io/Super-Research-Benchmark/

Peer assessment has been widely applied across diverse academic fields over the last few decades and has demonstrated its effectiveness. However, the advantages of peer assessment can only be achieved with high-quality peer reviews. Previous studies have found that high-quality review comments usually comprise several features (e.g., contain suggestions, mention problems, use a positive tone). Thus, researchers have attempted to evaluate peer-review comments by detecting different features using various machine learning and deep learning models. However, there is no single study that investigates using a multi-task learning (MTL) model to detect multiple features simultaneously. This paper presents two MTL models for evaluating peer-review comments by leveraging the state-of-the-art pre-trained language representation models BERT and DistilBERT. Our results demonstrate that BERT-based models significantly outperform previous GloVe-based methods by around 6% in F1-score on tasks of detecting a single feature, and MTL further improves performance while reducing model size.

In this paper, we uncover a systematic bias in the evaluation paradigm of adopting large language models~(LLMs), e.g., GPT-4, as a referee to score and compare the quality of responses generated by candidate models. We find that the quality ranking of candidate responses can be easily hacked by simply altering their order of appearance in the context. This manipulation allows us to skew the evaluation result, making one model appear considerably superior to the other, e.g., Vicuna-13B could beat ChatGPT on 66 over 80 tested queries with ChatGPT as an evaluator. To address this issue, we propose a calibration framework with three simple yet effective strategies: 1) Multiple Evidence Calibration, which requires the evaluator model to generate multiple evaluation evidence before assigning ratings; 2) Balanced Position Calibration, which aggregates results across various orders to determine the final score; 3) Human-in-the-Loop Calibration, which introduces a balanced position diversity entropy to measure the difficulty of each example and seeks human assistance when needed. We also manually annotate the "win/tie/lose" outcomes of responses from ChatGPT and Vicuna-13B in the Vicuna Benchmark's question prompt, and extensive experiments demonstrate that our approach successfully mitigates evaluation bias, resulting in closer alignment with human judgments. We release our code and human annotation at https://github.com/i-Eval/FairEval to facilitate future research.

An AI control protocol is a plan for usefully deploying AI systems that aims to prevent an AI from intentionally causing some unacceptable outcome. This paper investigates how well AI systems can generate and act on their own strategies for subverting control protocols whilst operating statelessly (without shared memory between contexts). To do this, an AI system may need to reliably generate optimal plans in each context, take actions with well-calibrated probabilities, and coordinate plans with other instances of itself without communicating. We develop Subversion Strategy Eval, a suite of eight environments, covering a range of protocols and strategic capabilities, and six sets of affordances that help isolate individual capabilities. We implement the evaluation in Inspect-AI and release it open-source. We evaluate Claude 3.5 models, including helpful-only versions, as well as OpenAI reasoning models. None of the models demonstrate substantial capability in strategizing to subvert control protocols statelessly. However, providing models with additional affordances, such as the ability to share a plan between contexts, can substantially improve performance. We hope our evaluations can act as a leading indicator for when models are capable of subverting control protocols and also relax the worst-case assumption of perfect strategic ability in AI control evaluations.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) and Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) into scientific peer-review workflows introduces novel and significant risks for adversarial manipulation, especially given the multimodal nature of scientific papers where figures, not just text, convey core evidence. This creates a significant gap: current robustness studies on AI peer-review are overwhelmingly text-only. Moreover, the problem is distinct from standard jailbreaking, as a peer-review attack seeks to induce a domain-specific, targeted failure (e.g., "inflate this score") rather than a general safety policy violation, for which no practical defenses exist. To address this, we introduce PaperGuard, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to systematically evaluate and defend AI-generated peer-review against these domain-specific, cross-modal attacks. Our framework is built on three pillars: (1) a new multimodal peer-review dataset spanning multiple scientific domains; (2) a unified suite of attacks, including black-box prompt injections and white-box perturbations, specifically designed to target both text (GCG) and figures (PGD); and (3) a practical defense, motivated by the long-context challenge of academic papers, that uses chunk-based embedding search to efficiently localize and mitigate harmful instructions. Our extensive experiments, conducted across state-of-the-art models, confirm that AI reviewers are pervasively vulnerable. PaperGuard establishes the foundational benchmark, protocols, and actionable defense necessary to pioneer trustworthy, attack-resilient AI-assisted scholarly reviewing.

Large Language Models are versatile general-task solvers, and their capabilities can truly assist people with scholarly peer review as pre-review agents, if not as fully autonomous peer-review agents. While incredibly beneficial, automating academic peer-review, as a concept, raises concerns surrounding safety, research integrity, and the validity of the academic peer-review process. The majority of the studies performing a systematic evaluation of frontier LLMs generating reviews across science disciplines miss the mark on addressing the alignment/misalignment of reviews along with the utility of LLM generated reviews when compared against publication outcomes such as Citations, Hit-papers, Novelty, and Disruption. This paper presents an experimental study in which we gathered ground-truth reviewer ratings from OpenReview and used various frontier open-weight LLMs to generate reviews of papers to gauge the safety and reliability of incorporating LLMs into the scientific review pipeline. Our findings demonstrate the utility of frontier open-weight LLMs as pre-review screening agents despite highlighting fundamental misalignment risks when deployed as autonomous reviewers. Our results show that all models exhibit weak correlation with human peer reviewers (0.15), with systematic overestimation bias of 3-5 points and uniformly high confidence scores (8.0-9.0/10) despite prediction errors. However, we also observed that LLM reviews correlate more strongly with post-publication metrics than with human scores, suggesting potential utility as pre-review screening tools. Our findings highlight the potential and address the pitfalls of automating peer reviews with language models. We open-sourced our dataset D_{LMRSD} to help the research community expand the safety framework of automating scientific reviews.

We propose a new comprehensive benchmark to revolutionize the current deepfake detection field to the next generation. Predominantly, existing works identify top-notch detection algorithms and models by adhering to the common practice: training detectors on one specific dataset (e.g., FF++) and testing them on other prevalent deepfake datasets. This protocol is often regarded as a "golden compass" for navigating SoTA detectors. But can these stand-out "winners" be truly applied to tackle the myriad of realistic and diverse deepfakes lurking in the real world? If not, what underlying factors contribute to this gap? In this work, we found the dataset (both train and test) can be the "primary culprit" due to: (1) forgery diversity: Deepfake techniques are commonly referred to as both face forgery and entire image synthesis. Most existing datasets only contain partial types of them, with limited forgery methods implemented; (2) forgery realism: The dominated training dataset, FF++, contains out-of-date forgery techniques from the past four years. "Honing skills" on these forgeries makes it difficult to guarantee effective detection generalization toward nowadays' SoTA deepfakes; (3) evaluation protocol: Most detection works perform evaluations on one type, which hinders the development of universal deepfake detectors. To address this dilemma, we construct a highly diverse deepfake detection dataset called DF40, which comprises 40 distinct deepfake techniques. We then conduct comprehensive evaluations using 4 standard evaluation protocols and 8 representative detection methods, resulting in over 2,000 evaluations. Through these evaluations, we provide an extensive analysis from various perspectives, leading to 7 new insightful findings. We also open up 4 valuable yet previously underexplored research questions to inspire future works. Our project page is https://github.com/YZY-stack/DF40.

As large language models (LLMs) become increasingly capable, it is prudent to assess whether safety measures remain effective even if LLMs intentionally try to bypass them. Previous work introduced control evaluations, an adversarial framework for testing deployment strategies of untrusted models (i.e., models which might be trying to bypass safety measures). While prior work treats a single failure as unacceptable, we perform control evaluations in a "distributed threat setting" -- a setting where no single action is catastrophic and no single action provides overwhelming evidence of misalignment. We approach this problem with a two-level deployment framework that uses an adaptive macro-protocol to choose between micro-protocols. Micro-protocols operate on a single task, using a less capable, but extensively tested (trusted) model to harness and monitor the untrusted model. Meanwhile, the macro-protocol maintains an adaptive credence on the untrusted model's alignment based on its past actions, using it to pick between safer and riskier micro-protocols. We evaluate our method in a code generation testbed where a red team attempts to generate subtly backdoored code with an LLM whose deployment is safeguarded by a blue team. We plot Pareto frontiers of safety (# of non-backdoored solutions) and usefulness (# of correct solutions). At a given level of usefulness, our adaptive deployment strategy reduces the number of backdoors by 80% compared to non-adaptive baselines.

As large-scale multi-agent systems evolve, the communication protocol layer has become a critical yet under-evaluated factor shaping performance and reliability. Despite the existence of diverse protocols (A2A, ACP, ANP, Agora, etc.), selection is often intuition-driven and lacks standardized guidance. We introduce ProtocolBench, a benchmark that systematically compares agent protocols along four measurable axes: task success, end-to-end latency, message or byte overhead, and robustness under failures. On ProtocolBench, protocol choice significantly influences system behavior. In the Streaming Queue scenario, overall completion time varies by up to 36.5% across protocols, and mean end-to-end latency differs by 3.48 s. Under Fail-Storm Recovery, resilience also differs consistently across protocols. Beyond evaluation, we present ProtocolRouter, a learnable protocol router that selects per-scenario (or per-module) protocols from requirement and runtime signals. ProtocolRouter reduces Fail-Storm recovery time by up to 18.1% versus the best single-protocol baseline, and achieves scenario-specific gains such as higher success in GAIA. We also release ProtocolRouterBench to standardize protocol evaluation and improve reliability at scale.

The rapid growth of scientific submissions has pushed traditional peer review toward its scalability limits, motivating the exploration of large language models (LLMs) as intelligent automated evaluation assistants. Although recent studies show that LLMs can generate fluent critiques and approximate reviewer scores, their reliability, robustness, and security as decision-support systems remain insufficiently understood. This survey offers a systems-level analysis of LLM-based scientific peer review, focusing on two core evaluative functions: critique generation and score prediction. We present a structured taxonomy of modeling approaches (including prompt-based, supervised, retrieval-augmented, and alignment-optimized approaches), and synthesize empirical findings across existing benchmarks. We analyze dataset constraints, evaluation shortcomings, and domain concentration biases that limit current assessment practices. Beyond performance metrics, we identify emerging robustness risks, including prompt injection, data poisoning, retrieval vulnerabilities, and reward hacking, which expose automated review pipelines to strategic manipulation. From a data mining perspective, we outline key open challenges in modeling subjective disagreement and cross-domain generalization. By reframing automated peer review as a high-stakes, multi-objective decision problem, this survey provides a roadmap for developing robust, transparent, and trustworthy AI-assisted scientific evaluation systems.

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

Medical care follows complex clinical pathways that extend beyond isolated physician-patient encounters, emphasizing decision-making and transitions between different stages. Current benchmarks focusing on static exams or isolated dialogues inadequately evaluate large language models (LLMs) in dynamic clinical scenarios. We introduce CP-Env, a controllable agentic hospital environment designed to evaluate LLMs across end-to-end clinical pathways. CP-Env simulates a hospital ecosystem with patient and physician agents, constructing scenarios ranging from triage and specialist consultation to diagnostic testing and multidisciplinary team meetings for agent interaction. Following real hospital adaptive flow of healthcare, it enables branching, long-horizon task execution. We propose a three-tiered evaluation framework encompassing Clinical Efficacy, Process Competency, and Professional Ethics. Results reveal that most models struggle with pathway complexity, exhibiting hallucinations and losing critical diagnostic details. Interestingly, excessive reasoning steps can sometimes prove counterproductive, while top models tend to exhibit reduced tool dependency through internalized knowledge. CP-Env advances medical AI agents development through comprehensive end-to-end clinical evaluation. We provide the benchmark and evaluation tools for further research and development at https://github.com/SPIRAL-MED/CP_ENV.

Surgical triplet detection has emerged as a pivotal task in surgical video analysis, with significant implications for performance assessment and the training of novice surgeons. However, existing datasets such as CholecT50 exhibit critical limitations: they lack precise spatial bounding box annotations, provide inconsistent and clinically ungrounded temporal labels, and rely on a single data source, which limits model generalizability.To address these shortcomings, we introduce ProstaTD, a large-scale, multi-institutional dataset for surgical triplet detection, developed from the technically demanding domain of robot-assisted prostatectomy. ProstaTD offers clinically defined temporal boundaries and high-precision bounding box annotations for each structured triplet action. The dataset comprises 60,529 video frames and 165,567 annotated triplet instances, collected from 21 surgeries performed across multiple institutions, reflecting a broad range of surgical practices and intraoperative conditions. The annotation process was conducted under rigorous medical supervision and involved more than 50 contributors, including practicing surgeons and medically trained annotators, through multiple iterative phases of labeling and verification. ProstaTD is the largest and most diverse surgical triplet dataset to date, providing a robust foundation for fair benchmarking, the development of reliable surgical AI systems, and scalable tools for procedural training.

Large language models are increasingly capable of synthesizing executable frontend projects, yet existing benchmarks still treat web generation as a static evaluation problem. We argue that frontend artifacts demand a different paradigm: they are interactive rather than static, admit diverse yet equally valid implementations, and evolve faster than rigid pipelines can accommodate. To address these gaps, we present LiveEvalBench, an automated framework that reformulates web-generation evaluation as an agentic, adaptive, and extensible process. LiveEvalBench instantiates evaluation as a collaborative review workflow, in which a Build Engineer, a Code Engineer, and a UI Tester collectively gather evidence across the full lifecycle of a frontend project, from deployment and code inspection to browser-based interaction. To handle implementation diversity, an adaptive protocol couples shared rubrics for cross-model comparability with implementation-grounded criteria tailored to each artifact. The framework further supports incremental integration of new evaluator roles and assessment dimensions without pipeline redesign. Experiments across diverse real-world web-generation scenarios show that LiveEvalBench aligns closely with human expert judgment and provides fine-grained insights into frontier models' web generation capabilities. Code is available at https://github.com/wyysteelhead/LiveEvalBench

Large language models can solve substantially harder reasoning problems with more inference-time compute. The term "test-time scaling," however, now covers diverse inference algorithms that extend deliberation along a single trajectory, sample completed candidates and aggregate them through voting or verification, or search over unfinished partial states. These algorithms differ in their statistical structure, compute accounting, and failure modes. Treating these procedures as interchangeable under a single scalar "budget," or reporting accuracy without the inference protocol that produced it, makes results difficult to compare across studies. We develop a systematic account of test-time scaling along three axes. First, we formalize test-time scaling as budgeted inference over the implicit prefix tree of an autoregressive model and distinguish three structural regimes: single-trajectory sequential scaling, leaf-level scaling with terminal reduction, and prefix-level scaling. Second, we treat the evaluated object as the entire inference system and develop evaluation principles that separate end-to-end system performance from candidate-bank diagnostics. We introduce an evaluation profile whose coordinates and simple functionals recover or bound common repeated-sampling metrics, and prescribe protocol-matched reporting of compute and uncertainty. Third, we specify reproducibility requirements for inference protocols, distinguishing exact replay from distributional reproducibility and identifying the artifacts needed to support each. We also organize the open-weight reasoning ecosystem by model-side and interface mechanisms, apply these principles to broad-knowledge, symbolic-reasoning, and competition-mathematics benchmarks, and assemble over 2 billion full reasoning traces for release with progressively richer verifier and token-level signals.

AI evaluation results are produced at scale but reported inconsistently across leaderboards, model cards, benchmark papers, and company blogs. The cost is interpretive: readers cannot reliably compare results across sources, identify what a report omits, or trace an aggregate claim to its underlying evidence. Recent efforts address isolated components but leave three gaps: they cover only narrow slices of the evaluation lifecycle and do not compose into a single interpretable record; they specify static representations that do not differentiate the questions different stakeholders bring to the same evidence; and they remain proposals on paper, lacking the extraction infrastructure required for adoption at scale. We present , an operational reporting layer that composes benchmark metadata, evaluation run data, and model metadata into a unified record. We (1) derive a reporting schema from a structured review of 52 papers and 10 stakeholder interviews, (2) implement four interpretive signals (reproducibility, documentation completeness, provenance and risk, and score comparability), rendered through reader modes calibrated to research and non-research audiences, and (3) deploy a monitoring tool that applies across 5,816 models, 635 benchmarks, and 101,843 results, surfacing systematic gaps in current reporting practice.

Peer review is fundamental to the integrity and advancement of scientific publication. Traditional methods of peer review analyses often rely on exploration and statistics of existing peer review data, which do not adequately address the multivariate nature of the process, account for the latent variables, and are further constrained by privacy concerns due to the sensitive nature of the data. We introduce AgentReview, the first large language model (LLM) based peer review simulation framework, which effectively disentangles the impacts of multiple latent factors and addresses the privacy issue. Our study reveals significant insights, including a notable 37.1% variation in paper decisions due to reviewers' biases, supported by sociological theories such as the social influence theory, altruism fatigue, and authority bias. We believe that this study could offer valuable insights to improve the design of peer review mechanisms.

Clinical protocol-execution tasks -- checking a lab value, applying a threshold, placing a correctly structured FHIR order -- are natural candidates for RL from world feedback: once clinical SMEs encode decision logic into a verifier, that verifier grades unlimited rollouts without per-episode annotation. But applying RL requires a sound feedback channel and sufficient base capability. We audit MedAgentBench v1/v2, find a 41.7\% silent-finish ceiling that makes inaction the RL dominant strategy, and construct MedAgentBench-v3 (MAB-v3) (508 tasks, 8.9\% ceiling). Training Qwen3-8B exposes two structural barriers: a capability ceiling (10/20 task types have 0\% base performance, zero gradient) and a format-knowledge barrier (3/20 types require exact clinical codes undiscoverable by exploration). Pure RL reaches 18.2\% pass@1 vs.\ 34.1\% for rule-based SFT; the 15.9~pp gap is attributable entirely to these barriers. A decision/format-knowledge/lookup taxonomy predicts RL learnability and prescribes the fix: SFT to inject codes, RL to learn conditionals.

We propose LLM-PeerReview, an unsupervised LLM Ensemble method that selects the most ideal response from multiple LLM-generated candidates for each query, harnessing the collective wisdom of multiple models with diverse strengths. LLM-PeerReview is built on a novel, peer-review-inspired framework that offers a clear and interpretable mechanism, while remaining fully unsupervised for flexible adaptability and generalization. Specifically, it operates in three stages: For scoring, we use the emerging LLM-as-a-Judge technique to evaluate each response by reusing multiple LLMs at hand; For reasoning, we can apply a principled graphical model-based truth inference algorithm or a straightforward averaging strategy to aggregate multiple scores to produce a final score for each response; Finally, the highest-scoring response is selected as the best ensemble output. LLM-PeerReview is conceptually simple and empirically powerful. The two variants of the proposed approach obtain strong results across four datasets, including outperforming the recent advanced model Smoothie-Global by 6.9% and 7.3% points, respectively.

We develop and counterfactually evaluate a resolution-aware risk-design framework (PIRAP) for perpetual futures whose underlying tracks a single binary prediction-market probability through resolution. The framework specifies six components: an index estimator combining mid-price, depth-weighted mid, and time-decayed VWAP; jump-aware tiered margin sized against bounded-event terminal-collapse magnitude; leverage compression schedule contracting toward resolution; resolution-aware funding rule with boundary-aware correction; a multi-stage halt protocol; and an eligibility framework. Two formal non-portability propositions establish that standard basis-only funding paired with continuous-vol static margin fails on bounded-event underlyings. Empirical evaluation uses Polymarket's PMXT v2 archive for 2026-04-21 to 2026-04-27 (13,298-market analysis sample passing adequacy gates from 61,087 ingested; 13,115 resolved within the empirical window for E3). E1 evaluates two pre-registered stylized facts; E2 conducts counterfactual replay across three engine configurations; E3 isolates the resolution-zone protocol's contribution. Results are mixed. Five pre-registered floors: stylized-fact floors (boundary depth asymmetry, terminal-jump magnitude) PASS; welfare-side directional floors (final-hour liquidation -6%, drawdown -5.1% pooled, median PnL +14%) two FAIL one PASS; E3 mechanic floors (final-hour liquidation -80% by halt construction PASS; bad-debt frequency +2.4% FAIL). Three of five materiality floors fail: the framework as specified does not validate deployment, but the empirical record establishes a halt-versus-margin scope distinction (halt addresses execution-channel risk; terminal-jump bad-debt remains margin-side) and documents a pre-emption trade-off constraining the dynamic-margin component. The paper concludes with structural recommendations and explicit non-deployable status.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated wide-ranging applications across various fields and have shown significant potential in the academic peer-review process. However, existing applications are primarily limited to static review generation based on submitted papers, which fail to capture the dynamic and iterative nature of real-world peer reviews. In this paper, we reformulate the peer-review process as a multi-turn, long-context dialogue, incorporating distinct roles for authors, reviewers, and decision makers. We construct a comprehensive dataset containing over 26,841 papers with 92,017 reviews collected from multiple sources, including the top-tier conference and prestigious journal. This dataset is meticulously designed to facilitate the applications of LLMs for multi-turn dialogues, effectively simulating the complete peer-review process. Furthermore, we propose a series of metrics to evaluate the performance of LLMs for each role under this reformulated peer-review setting, ensuring fair and comprehensive evaluations. We believe this work provides a promising perspective on enhancing the LLM-driven peer-review process by incorporating dynamic, role-based interactions. It aligns closely with the iterative and interactive nature of real-world academic peer review, offering a robust foundation for future research and development in this area. We open-source the dataset at https://github.com/chengtan9907/ReviewMT.

The rapid growth of AI conferences is straining an already fragile peer-review system, leading to heavy reviewer workloads, expertise mismatches, inconsistent evaluation standards, superficial or templated reviews, and limited accountability under compressed timelines. In response, conference organizers have introduced new policies and interventions to preserve review standards. Yet these ad-hoc changes often create further concerns and confusion about the review process, leaving how papers are ultimately accepted - and how practices evolve across years - largely opaque. We present Paper Copilot, a system that creates durable digital archives of peer reviews across a wide range of computer-science venues, an open dataset that enables researchers to study peer review at scale, and a large-scale empirical analysis of ICLR reviews spanning multiple years. By releasing both the infrastructure and the dataset, Paper Copilot supports reproducible research on the evolution of peer review. We hope these resources help the community track changes, diagnose failure modes, and inform evidence-based improvements toward a more robust, transparent, and reliable peer-review system.

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

High-quality training triplets (source-target image pairs with precise editing instructions) are a critical bottleneck for scaling instruction-guided image editing models. Vision-language models (VLMs) are widely used for automated instruction synthesis, but we identify three systematic failure modes in image-pair settings: orientation inconsistency (e.g., left/right confusion), viewpoint ambiguity, and insufficient fine-grained attribute description. Human evaluation shows that over 47% of instructions from strong baseline VLMs contain critical errors unusable for downstream training. We propose EditCaption, a scalable two-stage post-training pipeline for VLM-based instruction synthesis. Stage 1 builds a 100K supervised fine-tuning (SFT) dataset by combining GLM automatic annotation, EditScore-based filtering, and human refinement for spatial, directional, and attribute-level accuracy. Stage 2 collects 10K human preference pairs targeting the three failure modes and applies direct preference optimization (DPO) for alignment beyond SFT alone. On Eval-400, ByteMorph-Bench, and HQ-Edit, fine-tuned Qwen3-VL models outperform open-source baselines; the 235B model reaches 4.712 on Eval-400 (vs. Gemini-3-Pro 4.706, GPT-4.1 4.220, Kimi-K2.5 4.111) and 4.588 on ByteMorph-Bench (vs. Gemini-3-Pro 4.522, GPT-4.1 3.412). Human evaluation shows critical errors falling from 47.75% to 23% and correctness rising from 41.75% to 66%. The work offers a practical path to scalable, human-aligned instruction synthesis for image editing data.

Evaluation artifacts specify a forward computation: a task, scorer, and reported metric. They do not necessarily license the claim attached to that metric because the historical evidence and alternative semantics needed to replay it may be unbound. We formalize this missing claim-replay layer through a frozen substrate D, a grounded family F, a claim query q, and the resulting identified set. We then census all 124 mechanically eligible Inspect Evals units at a pinned commit. Every unit receives a terminal disposition; 110 stop before deterministic inference because required historical evidence or semantic grounding is unavailable. Where execution closes, exact values, winners, complete orders, and pairwise relations separate by claim resolution and by primary versus review family. The audit therefore returns typed stops, instability witnesses, and stable substructure rather than forcing one evaluator meaning or one robust/not-robust label.

In addition to generating data and annotations, devising sensible data splitting strategies and evaluation metrics is essential for the creation of a benchmark dataset. This practice ensures consensus on the usage of the data, homogeneous assessment, and uniform comparison of research methods on the dataset. This study focuses on CholecT50, which is a 50 video surgical dataset that formalizes surgical activities as triplets of <instrument, verb, target>. In this paper, we introduce the standard splits for the CholecT50 and CholecT45 datasets and show how they compare with existing use of the dataset. CholecT45 is the first public release of 45 videos of CholecT50 dataset. We also develop a metrics library, ivtmetrics, for model evaluation on surgical triplets. Furthermore, we conduct a benchmark study by reproducing baseline methods in the most predominantly used deep learning frameworks (PyTorch and TensorFlow) to evaluate them using the proposed data splits and metrics and release them publicly to support future research. The proposed data splits and evaluation metrics will enable global tracking of research progress on the dataset and facilitate optimal model selection for further deployment.

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

Verification for retrieval-augmented generation usually scores each retrieved chunk and drops the ones that fail. We show this cannot work for multi-hop questions, and show what does. Per-chunk scoring assumes one chunk is a sufficient premise for the answer. Multi-hop questions are built so that none is, and the paragraph carrying the answer is the one the question does not name. Entailment scoring reaches 0.643, 0.523 and 0.560 AUC on HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihopQA and MuSiQue, against 0.951 on single-hop SQuAD. Seven controls rule out model capacity, premise length, hypothesis template, decision threshold, retriever, answer-matching criterion and prompt. End to end across three datasets, three generator sizes and two prompts, per-chunk gating is significantly worse than not filtering at all in every cell, and its penalty grows with generator capability. The repair is to condition verification on the decomposed sub-question rather than the original query. Using MuSiQue's gold decomposition, entailment on a later hop rises from 0.546, which is chance, to 0.840, a paired lift of +0.355 with a bootstrap interval of [0.331, 0.382]. An off-the-shelf Qwen2.5-7B decomposer, given the question and the top retrieved paragraph, reaches 0.637 and captures 31% of that ceiling; decomposing without retrieval reaches 0.533, below the original question. Iterative retrieval systems already produce such decompositions and discard them before verifying.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates hallucination in large language models (LLMs) by incorporating external knowledge during generation. However, the effectiveness of RAG depends not only on the design of the retriever and the capacity of the underlying model, but also on how retrieved evidence is structured and aligned with the query. Existing RAG approaches typically retrieve and concatenate unstructured text fragments as context, which often introduces redundant or weakly relevant information. This practice leads to excessive context accumulation, reduced semantic alignment, and fragmented reasoning chains, thereby degrading generation quality while increasing token consumption. To address these challenges, we propose Tri-RAG, a structured triplet-based retrieval framework that improves retrieval efficiency through reasoning-aligned context construction. Tri-RAG automatically transforms external knowledge from natural language into standardized structured triplets consisting of Condition, Proof, and Conclusion, explicitly capturing logical relations among knowledge fragments using lightweight prompt-based adaptation with frozen model parameters. Building on this representation, the triplet head Condition is treated as an explicit semantic anchor for retrieval and matching, enabling precise identification of query-relevant knowledge units without directly concatenating lengthy raw texts. As a result, Tri-RAG achieves a favorable balance between retrieval accuracy and context token efficiency. Experimental results across multiple benchmark datasets demonstrate that Tri-RAG significantly improves retrieval quality and reasoning efficiency, while producing more stable generation behavior and more efficient resource utilization in complex reasoning scenarios.

LLM agents increasingly act after consuming ranked external information streams such as social feeds, search results, retrieval contexts, and email queues, yet safety evaluations almost always test the model or the user prompt in isolation, never the upstream ranker that decides what the agent reads just before it acts. We introduce a controlled protocol that holds the model, persona, topic, and final decision prompt fixed and varies only the composition and ordering of the posts an agent encounters during a preceding ten-turn "scrolling" phase, isolating the causal effect of feed curation on a downstream decision. Across 2,785 decision rollouts on four modern open instruct LLMs from three independent labs, we identify three response regimes: adversarial capitulation, default saturation, and a default-direction asymmetry in which a one-sided feed tips a decision the model was genuinely uncertain about (in the clearest cases from 5% to 100%; Fisher p as low as 3 x 10^-10) but cannot dislodge one it already favors or holds firmly. The effect follows a dose-response curve, survives a generator swap that rules out a writing-style artifact, generalizes across several decision domains including security-relevant choices such as removing a deployment approval gate or relaxing access controls, and is partly mitigated by two simple feed-level defenses; a frontier model retains its default. We characterize the recommender as a practical, default-bounded control surface for LLM agents, and argue that agent evaluations must audit the feed layer rather than the final prompt alone.

Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its efficiency, effectiveness, and the quality of published papers. We present a large-scale analysis of the ICLR 2024 and 2025 peer review processes, focusing on before- and after-rebuttal scores and reviewer-author interactions. We examine review scores, author-reviewer engagement, temporal patterns in review submissions, and co-reviewer influence effects. Combining quantitative analyses with LLM-based categorization of review texts and rebuttal discussions, we identify common strengths and weaknesses for each rating group, as well as trends in rebuttal strategies that are most strongly associated with score changes. Our findings show that initial scores and the ratings of co-reviewers are the strongest predictors of score changes during the rebuttal, pointing to a degree of reviewer influence. Rebuttals play a valuable role in improving outcomes for borderline papers, where thoughtful author responses can meaningfully shift reviewer perspectives. More broadly, our study offers evidence-based insights to improve the peer review process, guiding authors on effective rebuttal strategies and helping the community design fairer and more efficient review processes. Our code and score changes data are available at https://github.com/papercopilot/iclr-insights.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical decision support, where hallucinations and unsafe suggestions may pose direct risks to patient safety. These risks are particularly challenging as they often manifest as subtle clinical errors that evade detection by generic metrics, while expert-authored fine-grained rubrics remain costly to construct and difficult to scale. In this paper, we propose a retrieval-augmented multi-agent framework designed to automate the generation of instance-specific evaluation rubrics. Our approach grounds evaluation in authoritative medical evidence by decomposing retrieved content into atomic facts and synthesizing them with user interaction constraints to form verifiable, fine-grained evaluation criteria. Evaluated on HealthBench, our framework achieves a Clinical Intent Alignment (CIA) score of 60.12%, a statistically significant improvement over the GPT-4o baseline (55.16%). In discriminative tests, our rubrics yield a mean score delta (μ_Δ = 8.658) and an AUROC of 0.977, nearly doubling the quality separation achieved by GPT-4o baseline (4.972). Beyond evaluation, our rubrics effectively guide response refinement, improving quality by 9.2% (from 59.0% to 68.2%). This provides a scalable and transparent foundation for both evaluating and improving medical LLMs. The code is available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Automated-Rubric-Generation-AF3C/.

The rapid development of the AI agent communication protocols, including the Model Context Protocol (MCP), Agent2Agent (A2A), Agora, and Agent Network Protocol (ANP), is reshaping how AI agents communicate with tools, services, and each other. While these protocols support scalable multi-agent interaction and cross-organizational interoperability, their security principles remain understudied, and standardized threat modeling is limited; no protocol-centric risk assessment framework has been established yet. This paper presents a systematic security analysis of four emerging AI agent communication protocols. First, we develop a structured threat modeling analysis that examines protocol architectures, trust assumptions, interaction patterns, and lifecycle behaviors to identify protocol-specific and cross-protocol risk surfaces. Second, we introduce a qualitative risk assessment framework that identifies twelve protocol-level risks and evaluates security posture across the creation, operation, and update phases through systematic assessment of likelihood, impact, and overall protocol risk, with implications for secure deployment and future standardization. Third, we provide a measurement-driven case study on MCP that formalizes the risk of missing mandatory validation/attestation for executable components as a falsifiable security claim by quantifying wrong-provider tool execution under multi-server composition across representative resolver policies. Collectively, our results highlight key design-induced risk surfaces and provide actionable guidance for secure deployment and future standardization of agent communication ecosystems.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly decide whether software behaves correctly, either by writing a test oracle or by acting as one. Yet two oracles can look identical and rest on different ground: one assertion encodes a written specification, another only what the model learned in training. Prior secondary studies sort oracles by form or by technique, rarely by the property that governs how far a verdict can be trusted: where its authority comes from. This systematic literature review, reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines, screens 2,436 records to 54 included studies, extended by citation searching (snowballing) to 83 in total. We read the corpus along three axes: the source of an oracle's authority, the form it takes, and the mechanism that adjudicates it. Just over half of the corpus reaches a verdict with no specification at all. That is what lets these oracles work on code with no specification to consult, and what leaves a challenged verdict with less to fall back on. Source and mechanism cross-cut rather than coincide, so a label such as LLM-as-a-judge names how a verdict is produced, not why it should be trusted. Oracle quality is most often judged by resemblance to a known oracle rather than by whether injected faults are caught. The first question to ask of any LLM oracle is therefore what one would point to in defending its verdict. The protocol, search query, and per-study coding sheet are released.

The Model Context Protocol (MCP), introduced by Anthropic in November 2024, defines a standardized interface for connecting large language models (LLMs) to external tools, data sources, and services. Within months of release, hundreds of community-built MCP servers appeared on GitHub, but no software-maintenance literature has yet described how the ecosystem is being structured in production. This industry experience paper catalogues five recurring MCP server architectural patterns observed across an enumerated corpus of fifteen independently developed servers (five production servers from the ANSYR voice AI platform plus ten public servers from the official MCP registry): Resource Gateway, Tool Orchestrator, Stateful Session Server, Proxy Aggregator, and Domain-Specific Adapter. Each pattern is described in the structured form of Gamma et al.: context, problem, solution, and consequences. We also document four anti-patterns and a set of cross-cutting concerns around authentication, versioning, and observability. The quantitative evaluation contributes three measurements: inter-rater reliability of the taxonomy across two independent LLM raters on 54 held-out servers (Cohen's kappa = 0.76), which also localizes three pattern-boundary ambiguities; transport overhead measured end-to-end on loopback and modeled for cross-host paths; and a tool-count study showing tool-selection accuracy drops below 90% between 10 and 15 tools per context for Claude Haiku 4.5 and between 20 and 30 tools for Sonnet 4. Code, corpus, and prompts are released as a replication package.

As AI-generated reviews move from experimental tools into peer-review infrastructure, most robustness concerns have focused on explicit attacks such as hidden instructions and prompt injection. We study a harder and more policy-relevant failure mode: no hidden text, no prompt injection, and no changes to methods, experiments, figures, equations, proofs, or numerical results. The attacker modifies only presentation-level content, such as the abstract, contribution framing, related work, discussion, and narrative structure. We introduce adversarial repackaging: a closed-loop attack that uses AI-reviewer feedback to search for presentation-level revisions while keeping the scientific evidence fixed. Across three mainstream AI reviewers, adversarial repackaging achieves a 75.1% attack success rate and a mean score gain of +1.21/10. The effect is not explained by ordinary prose polishing. We also reveal that strategies that change how the reviewer interprets the paper, such as related-work repositioning and analytical discussion expansion, substantially outperform surface edits such as local polishing, table formatting, and algorithm boxes. Our analysis reveals two deeper structural failure modes. First, AI reviewers are easier to impress than to convince: highlighting strengths reliably increases perceived merit, while attempts to dissolve weaknesses frequently backfire. Second, AI reviewers can confuse the appearance of addressing a limitation with actually resolving it, allowing unchanged evidence to be reinterpreted as stronger scientific contribution. These results show that the deployment risk is not only malicious hidden instructions, but the emergence of paper presentation itself as an optimization surface. We release a contamination-free rolling benchmark and attack framework for testing whether AI reviewers remain anchored to scientific content under presentation-only edits.

Clinical decision support is moving toward committees of language-model agents deliberating on a shared workspace. We ask whether such committees can be gamed by shortcuts, cues a benchmark rewards but a clinician would ignore. Across seven cohorts on six public datasets spanning text (MedQA-USMLE, MedMCQA, MIMIC-CXR reports), imaging (NIH ChestX-ray14, MIMIC-CXR-JPG, CheXpert) and tabular ICU records (SUPPORT2), Gemini committees resist these cues in isolation (flip 5-16%), yet a socially plausible shortcut spreads: when two peers assert the same wrong answer, the holdout under test adopts it in 38% of cases, as does a false "pre-screen" system flag, on both capability tiers. Of three oversight agents, a gate cannot separate adoption from honest agreement (false-positive rate 100%); a same-lineage judge reading only the transcript flags adoption on text (precision 100%, recall 93%) but collapses onto the gate in imaging; a referee that privately re-queries the holdout transfers to imaging (77-88% precision, 13-21% false-positive rate). Tripling a cue's visual salience does not move contagion, whereas a second peer voice raises it by half again. Gaming a hidden rubric is near-silent: only 1/10 text and 1/134 imaging drifters name the rubric they moved toward. What games a committee is social plausibility, and only a referee independent of self-report catches it. Code: https://github.com/criticaldata/benchmaxxing

With the introduction of ChatGPT, Large Language Models (LLMs) have received enormous attention in healthcare. Despite their potential benefits, researchers have underscored various ethical implications. While individual instances have drawn much attention, the debate lacks a systematic overview of practical applications currently researched and ethical issues connected to them. Against this background, this work aims to map the ethical landscape surrounding the current stage of deployment of LLMs in medicine and healthcare. Electronic databases and preprint servers were queried using a comprehensive search strategy. Studies were screened and extracted following a modified rapid review approach. Methodological quality was assessed using a hybrid approach. For 53 records, a meta-aggregative synthesis was performed. Four fields of applications emerged and testify to a vivid exploration phase. Advantages of using LLMs are attributed to their capacity in data analysis, personalized information provisioning, support in decision-making, mitigating information loss and enhancing information accessibility. However, we also identifies recurrent ethical concerns connected to fairness, bias, non-maleficence, transparency, and privacy. A distinctive concern is the tendency to produce harmful misinformation or convincingly but inaccurate content. A recurrent plea for ethical guidance and human oversight is evident. Given the variety of use cases, it is suggested that the ethical guidance debate be reframed to focus on defining what constitutes acceptable human oversight across the spectrum of applications. This involves considering diverse settings, varying potentials for harm, and different acceptable thresholds for performance and certainty in healthcare. In addition, a critical inquiry is necessary to determine the extent to which the current experimental use of LLMs is necessary and justified.

We present DPBench, a benchmark for evaluating coordination in multi-agent systems built from large language models. Existing benchmarks measure task-level success under a fixed protocol; the structural conditions under which coordination succeeds or fails at all have not been characterised. DPBench adapts the Dining Philosophers problem into a controlled testbed where the action protocol, the communication structure, and the group size each vary independently. We evaluate six agents: GPT-5.2, Claude Opus 4.5, Grok 4.1, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Llama 4 Maverick, and a uniform-random baseline. Under simultaneous action at N=5 with the default prompt, deadlock ranges from 25.0% (95% Wilson CI [11.2, 46.9]) for GPT-5.2 to 90.0% [74.4, 96.5] for Gemini 2.5 Flash; sequential action is solved by four of the six. Holding the model fixed at Gemini 2.5 Flash, three protocol variables drive deadlock from 90% to within CI of zero: three rounds of pre-commitment communication (0.0% vs. single-round 86.7%), a prompt encoding a classical concurrency primitive (0.0% for resource-ordering and symmetry-breaking, against 100% for the minimal prompt), or doubling the group from N=5 to N=10 (90.0% to 10.0%). Single-round messaging and memory of past timesteps do not change the rate at the sample size we ran. Whether the same model coordinates or deadlocks is determined by the protocol, not by the model's capability.

The 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) documents is key standards in global telecommunications, while posing significant challenges for engineers and researchers in the telecommunications field due to the large volume and complexity of their contents as well as the frequent updates. Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in natural language processing tasks, but their general-purpose nature limits their effectiveness in specific domains like telecommunications. To address this, we propose Chat3GPP, an open-source retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) framework tailored for 3GPP specifications. By combining chunking strategies, hybrid retrieval and efficient indexing methods, Chat3GPP can efficiently retrieve relevant information and generate accurate responses to user queries without requiring domain-specific fine-tuning, which is both flexible and scalable, offering significant potential for adapting to other technical standards beyond 3GPP. We evaluate Chat3GPP on two telecom-specific datasets and demonstrate its superior performance compared to existing methods, showcasing its potential for downstream tasks like protocol generation and code automation.

Self-driving laboratories increasingly rely on low-cost liquid handlers such as the Opentrons OT-2, which ship without the pressure-based aspiration monitoring of Hamilton or Tecan systems and are typically run open-loop. Two failure modes go undetected: protocols that are syntactically valid but violate assay-specific invariants (e.g., tip reuse between a PCR template and a no-template control), and physical execution failures (partial dispense, air bubbles, missing tips) at runtime. We present AEGIS, a two-layer guardian for both. Layer 1 pairs a curated machine-readable assay rule database with an LLM that reasons over OT-2 Python code, reaching an adjusted F1 of 0.97 on a 24-protocol benchmark across five assay families and beating rules-only and LLM-only ablations across five backends; a free open-weight model ties the best proprietary one, so no paid API is required. Layer 2 fits a PCA world model to YOLO-cropped four-frame pipette trajectories; under a leakage-free leave-one-plate-out evaluation it reaches average precision 0.89 and operating-point F1 0.71 (AUROC 0.80), a deployment-faithful number that matches the live demonstration, and we characterize the small-pipette (p20) resolution limit (F1 0.47). A live demonstration on a physical OT-2 (five replicates per condition) catches planted no-tip failures deterministically and partial dispense on coloured dyes, with an always-VLM self-vote gate lifting partial-dispense recall to 5/5; transparent water is a principled limit of any front-view-only monitor, which AEGIS surfaces as low-confidence VLM reasoning rather than a wrong verdict. Cascade triage holds VLM cost near 1.63 per plate versus 10.33 for an always-VLM baseline. AEGIS is open source and, to our knowledge, the first system to unify pre-flight assay-aware validation with runtime visual monitoring for an open-source liquid handler.

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.

Enterprise agents often need to integrate heterogeneous knowledge sources: documents for narrative facts, tables for computation, and dependency graphs for file relationships. Existing benchmarks typically evaluate retrieval or tool use without distinguishing whether an agent first selects the appropriate knowledge sources. We introduce WorkSurface-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating this capability as surface routing. It contains 1,151 atomic tasks derived from persona-scoped Workspace-Bench-Lite workspaces, spanning document, table, graph, and cross-surface questions. Its reference answers are auditable: table answers are reproduced through executed DuckDB queries, document answers are grounded in verified text spans, and graph answers are traced to source dependency annotations. We evaluate four model backbones across six controlled agent settings, yielding 27,624 protocol-error-free trajectories. Under gold-constrained tool access, agents achieve 98.7-99.8 Route F1, while Answer remains only 56.1-75.3 percent, showing that correct surface selection is necessary but insufficient for task completion. Matched interventions further show that surface hints improve Answer for three of four models, whereas removing irrelevant tools primarily improves routing and efficiency. In an independent three-annotator audit, all 200 sampled tasks pass all six quality criteria by majority vote, with 192 receiving unanimous judgments on every criterion. We release the dataset, construction pipeline, scoring code, and agent harness at https://github.com/haolpku/WorkSurface-Bench.

Evaluation and ranking of large language models (LLMs) has become an important problem with the proliferation of these models and their impact. Evaluation methods either require human responses which are expensive to acquire or use pairs of LLMs to evaluate each other which can be unreliable. In this paper, we provide a novel perspective where, given a dataset of prompts (viz. questions, instructions, etc.) and a set of LLMs, we rank them without access to any ground truth or reference responses. Inspired by real life where both an expert and a knowledgeable person can identify a novice our main idea is to consider triplets of models, where each one of them evaluates the other two, correctly identifying the worst model in the triplet with high probability. We also analyze our idea and provide sufficient conditions for it to succeed. Applying this idea repeatedly, we propose two methods to rank LLMs. In experiments on different generative tasks (summarization, multiple-choice, and dialog), our methods reliably recover close to true rankings without reference data. This points to a viable low-resource mechanism for practical use.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reviews, yet existing evaluations rarely examine whether different providers align with both conference decisions and human reviewing priorities within the same controlled setting. We compare reviews from OpenAI GPT-5.4, Google Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview, and Anthropic Claude Opus 4.6 with human reviews and final decisions for 300 topic-matched ICLR 2026 submissions, equally divided among oral, poster, and rejected papers. Each model reviewed every paper using identical instructions and rating scales after decision information was removed. Our study contributes a cross-provider analysis of three complementary dimensions: alignment with broad and fine-grained decision categories, differences in recommendation-scale usage, and thematic agreement in identified weaknesses. All three LLMs distinguished accepted from rejected papers, but none reproduced the oral versus poster distinction present in human ratings. Scoring patterns were provider-specific: Gemini assigned systematically higher ratings, while OpenAI and Claude were closer to humans for rejected and poster papers but more critical of oral papers. Human and LLM reviews also differed in emphasis, with LLMs more frequently identifying missing baseline comparisons and humans more often raising computational-efficiency concerns. These results show that broad decision alignment does not imply agreement with finer human judgments or reviewing priorities.

As language models (LMs) evolve from chat assistants to long-horizon agents capable of multi-step reasoning and tool use, existing benchmarks remain largely confined to structured or exam-style tasks that fall short of real-world professional demands. To this end, we introduce \OneMillion-Bench OneMillion-Bench, a benchmark of 400 expert-curated tasks spanning Law, Finance, Industry, Healthcare, and Natural Science, built to evaluate agents across economically consequential scenarios. Unlike prior work, the benchmark requires retrieving authoritative sources, resolving conflicting evidence, applying domain-specific rules, and making constraint decisions, where correctness depends as much on the reasoning process as the final answer. We adopt a rubric-based evaluation protocol scoring factual accuracy, logical coherence, practical feasibility, and professional compliance, focused on expert-level problems to ensure meaningful differentiation across agents. Together, \$OneMillion-Bench provides a unified testbed for assessing agentic reliability, professional depth, and practical readiness in domain-intensive scenarios.

Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses are essential for synthesizing research insights, but they remain time-intensive and labor-intensive due to the iterative processes of screening, evaluation, and data extraction. This paper introduces and evaluates LatteReview, a Python-based framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) and multi-agent systems to automate key elements of the systematic review process. Designed to streamline workflows while maintaining rigor, LatteReview utilizes modular agents for tasks such as title and abstract screening, relevance scoring, and structured data extraction. These agents operate within orchestrated workflows, supporting sequential and parallel review rounds, dynamic decision-making, and iterative refinement based on user feedback. LatteReview's architecture integrates LLM providers, enabling compatibility with both cloud-based and locally hosted models. The framework supports features such as Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for incorporating external context, multimodal reviews, Pydantic-based validation for structured inputs and outputs, and asynchronous programming for handling large-scale datasets. The framework is available on the GitHub repository, with detailed documentation and an installable package.