Daily Papers

Geospatial foundation models (GeoFMs) offer transformative potential for environmental monitoring, yet adoption among ecologists is uneven. Most evaluations are model-centric, focusing on architecture and benchmark accuracy, which overlooks whether the systems are usable by their intended audiences. To address this gap, we first conducted a pilot expert elicitation survey with ecology and conservation scientists that helped us identify misalignments between current GeoFM development priorities and their needs. Informed by these findings and based on HCI theory, we created a seven-dimension evaluation covering Access & Deployment, Interaction & Customization, Trust & Transparency, Community & Support, Scientific Permanence, Multilingual Support, and Offline Usability. Then, two raters applied this rubric to 89 GeoFMs. We found distinct accessibility gaps where nearly a third provide no support to practitioners beyond their source code. Dimensions along which ratings were highly consistent function as field-level diagnostics, revealing where there is room for improvement for current GeoFMs.

Object permanence and solidity are hallmarks of human cognitive priors. Recent studies show that video generation models, a paradigmatic class of current world models, have begun to show emerged reasoning abilities, making them ideal candidates for building human-like physical intelligence. Do video models have emerged object permanence in them? If not, could we train them with a core-cognition inspired dataset? We introduce WROP (World Reasoning with Object Permanence), a data infrastructure of 150 hand-designed cognitive science inspired tasks, divided into six cognitive categories. We build Blender generators that randomize speed, lighting, camera angle, and other nuisance parameters while preserving each task's cognitive structure, yielding 10,000+ samples per task. We release a 1.5M-sample training corpus and a 300-question exam. On this exam we evaluate 14 video models: 3 reference-to-video, 7 edit, and 4 continuation, among which PWM-WROP, our 16B world model. In a blind pairwise Elo study, PWM-WROP ranks first among continuation models and third overall, behind only a statistical tie between two reference-to-video models. We release the data, exam, model answers, scores, weights, and PWM, our native-PyTorch training stack on AWS Trainium2.

Continual learning treats degradation on previously seen data as evidence of failure, a convention inherited from settings with a stationary prediction target, where a correct label remains correct indefinitely. World models do not satisfy this condition. Their prediction target is the environment, which changes, so knowledge that was accurate when acquired may later become false, and discarding it is required behavior rather than a defect. Non-stationary ground truth is well studied in the concept drift literature and in the temporal factuality of language models, but has not been formulated for world models, which are distinctive in that they also encode knowledge that must never be revised. We argue that continual world models require retention stratified by invariance timescale, separating invariants such as physics and object permanence, which must never be revised, from instance-level facts that should be revised as soon as the environment changes. Standard forgetting metrics cannot distinguish a world model that has correctly revised outdated knowledge from one that has suffered catastrophic forgetting, and consequently rank a frozen model highest, while existing physical-reasoning benchmarks evaluate only frozen checkpoints. We propose differential retention, which reports invariant regression testing across the adaptation stream jointly with revision latency, without aggregation.

We consider a biological population whose environment varies periodically in time, exhibiting two very different "seasons" : one is favorable and the other one is unfavorable. For monotone differential models with concave nonlinearities, we address the following question: the system's period being fixed, under what conditions does there exist a critical duration for the unfavorable season? By "critical duration" we mean that above some threshold, the population cannot sustain and extincts, while below this threshold, the system converges to a unique periodic and positive solution. We term this a "sharp seasonal threshold property" (SSTP, for short). Building upon a previous result, we obtain sufficient conditions for SSTP in any dimension and apply our criterion to a two-dimensional model featuring juvenile and adult populations of insects.

Understanding the creation, evolution, and dissemination of scientific knowledge is crucial for bridging diverse subject areas and addressing complex global challenges such as pandemics, climate change, and ethical AI. Scientometrics, the quantitative and qualitative study of scientific literature, provides valuable insights into these processes. We introduce Scito2M, a longitudinal scientometric dataset with over two million academic publications, providing comprehensive contents information and citation graphs to support cross-disciplinary analyses. Using Scito2M, we conduct a temporal study spanning over 30 years to explore key questions in scientometrics: the evolution of academic terminology, citation patterns, and interdisciplinary knowledge exchange. Our findings reveal critical insights, such as disparities in epistemic cultures, knowledge production modes, and citation practices. For example, rapidly developing, application-driven fields like LLMs exhibit significantly shorter citation age (2.48 years) compared to traditional theoretical disciplines like oral history (9.71 years).

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

Human aging is marked by a steady rise in the risk of dying with age-a process demographers call senescence. Over the past century, life expectancy has risen dramatically, but is this because we are aging slower, or simply starting it later? Vaupel hypothesizes that the pace at which individuals age may be constant, with gains in longevity coming from the delayed onset of senescence rather than its slowing down. We test this idea using a new framework that decomposes the pace of senescence into three components: a biological baseline, a long-term trend, and the cumulative impact of period shocks. Applying this to cohort mortality data above age 80 from 12 countries, we find that once period shocks are accounted for, there is no statistical evidence of a long-term trend, consistent with Vaupel's hypothesis. Analyses using lower starting ages yield the same qualitative conclusion. Rather than indicating a change in the process that drives senescence, these variations are consistent with echoes of shared historical events. These results suggest that while longevity has shifted, the rhythm of human aging may be conserved.

Autonomous scientific agents now increasingly propose ideas, write code, run experiments, analyze results, and even draft papers. Observe and audit those agents are necessary but logging every model call is not enough, scientists also need to inspect the artifacts and claims that the systems produced and their relations. This is driven by the fact that failures in scientific agent systems are often distributed across several objects. A manuscript claim may cite the wrong evidence, a search process may select a degenerate candidate, a laboratory novelty claim may depend on an unstated rule, or a multi-agent plan may change without a visible trigger. Existing tracing, experiment tracking, and archival provenance tools are valuable, but their native objects do not make these scientific audit relations first-class. We argue that autonomous scientific systems should emit portable, claim-aware artifact lineage as a minimum audit layer. We propose a compact observability profile organized around individuals, operators, fitness records, lineage, archives, runs, streams, and steering commands. In this profile, scientific claims are ordinary individuals with explicit evidence bindings and verification records. The profile is intended as a semantic layer that complements current telemetry and provenance standards. Execution details can remain in OpenTelemetry. Final packages can export to PROV-O or RO-Crate standards.

Scientific research often seeks to understand the causal structure underlying high-level variables in a system. For example, climate scientists study how phenomena, such as El Niño, affect other climate processes at remote locations across the globe. However, scientists typically collect low-level measurements, such as geographically distributed temperature readings. From these, one needs to learn both a mapping to causally-relevant latent variables, such as a high-level representation of the El Niño phenomenon and other processes, as well as the causal model over them. The challenge is that this task, called causal representation learning, is highly underdetermined from observational data alone, requiring other constraints during learning to resolve the indeterminacies. In this work, we consider a temporal model with a sparsity assumption, namely single-parent decoding: each observed low-level variable is only affected by a single latent variable. Such an assumption is reasonable in many scientific applications that require finding groups of low-level variables, such as extracting regions from geographically gridded measurement data in climate research or capturing brain regions from neural activity data. We demonstrate the identifiability of the resulting model and propose a differentiable method, Causal Discovery with Single-parent Decoding (CDSD), that simultaneously learns the underlying latents and a causal graph over them. We assess the validity of our theoretical results using simulated data and showcase the practical validity of our method in an application to real-world data from the climate science field.

A growing literature argues that progress in human longevity is slowing, and that this slowdown may signal an approaching biological limit to lifespan. The argument rests on visible flattening of cumulative life expectancy records, evaluated through linear regressions or through comparisons of average gains across decades. These summaries, however, provide only weak evidence for slowing improvements, because they cannot distinguish a true from an apparent slowdown. An apparent slowdown may arise due to periods of low variance around unchanged mean annual gains. Applying a Bayesian change-point framework to annual gains, both at the best-practice frontier and separately for each record-holding country, we find no evidence that the expected annual gain has changed across nearly two centuries, but strong evidence that its variance has moved through distinct historical regimes, with progress most regular in recent decades. The recent flattening is consistent with a low-variance regime and provides little evidence for a decline in the underlying mean pace of improvement. Claims that the best-practice frontier signals a biological ceiling should therefore not rest on the recent bend in the cumulative record alone. The frontier is better read as an empirical benchmark, the highest country-specific survival achieved under observed historical conditions.

Scientific discovery is not only answer generation but revision of the representational regime in which evidence, artifacts, operations, and verifiers are typed. We develop a category-theoretic account of agentic discovery for materials science. In a fixed regime b with schema category S_b, the system state is a copresheaf I_t: S_b -> Set, and provenance is the category of elements \int_{S_b} I_t. Fixed-regime operation is an update on such states, endofunctorial only when provenance-preserving refinements are specified and preserved. Discovery is instead a verified regime transition u: S_b -> S_b': old artifacts are preserved, transported by the left Kan extension Lan_u I_t, and compared with the post-transition state to identify residual content beyond functorial transport. This separates retrieval, search, and discovery without subjective novelty. We instantiate the framework in two systems. In Builder/Breaker, a protein-mechanics world model is revised under a Minimum Description Length gate; the accepted law expresses within-chain flexibility as all-mode elastic compliance conditioned by slow collective-mode participation, or mode-conditioned compliance. In CategoryScienceClaw, typed skills, artifacts, open needs, workflow mutation, gates, stress tests, and public discourse become a proof-carrying knowledge-computation graph. A fiber-network example records candidate models, rejected alternatives, an AIC gate, perturbation tests, and an accepted orientation-tensor anisotropic stiffness surrogate over an isotropic fiber-count descriptor. Together, the cases show how category theory can be both a mathematical language for discovery and an engineering specification for self-revising AI discovery systems.

Can AI systems trained on the scientific record up to a fixed point in time forecast the scientific advances that follow? Such a capability could help researchers identify collaborators and impactful research directions, and anticipate which problems and methods will become central next. We introduce PreScience -- a scientific forecasting benchmark that decomposes the research process into four interdependent generative tasks: collaborator prediction, prior work selection, contribution generation, and impact prediction. PreScience is a carefully curated dataset of 98K recent AI-related research papers, featuring disambiguated author identities, temporally aligned scholarly metadata, and a structured graph of companion author publication histories and citations spanning 502K total papers. We develop baselines and evaluations for each task, including LACERScore, a novel LLM-based measure of contribution similarity that outperforms previous metrics and approximates inter-annotator agreement. We find substantial headroom remains in each task -- e.g. in contribution generation, frontier LLMs achieve only moderate similarity to the ground-truth (GPT-5, averages 5.6 on a 1-10 scale). When composed into a 12-month end-to-end simulation of scientific production, the resulting synthetic corpus is systematically less diverse and less novel than human-authored research from the same period.

Understanding the changing structure of science over time is essential to elucidating how science evolves. We develop diachronic embeddings of scholarly periodicals to quantify "semantic changes" of periodicals across decades, allowing us to track the evolution of research topics and identify rapidly developing fields. By mapping periodicals within a physical-life-health triangle, we reveal an evolving interdisciplinary science landscape, finding an overall trend toward specialization for most periodicals but increasing interdisciplinarity for bioscience periodicals. Analyzing a periodical's trajectory within this triangle over time allows us to visualize how its research focus shifts. Furthermore, by monitoring the formation of local clusters of periodicals, we can identify emerging research topics such as AIDS research and nanotechnology in the 1980s. Our work offers novel quantification in the science of science and provides a quantitative lens to examine the evolution of science, which may facilitate future investigations into the emergence and development of research fields.

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.

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

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

Permutation Entropy and statistiCal Complexity Analysis for astRophYsics (PECCARY) is a computationally inexpensive, statistical method by which any time-series can be characterized as predominantly regular, complex, or stochastic. Elements of the PECCARY method have been used in a variety of physical, biological, economic, and mathematical scenarios, but have not yet gained traction in the astrophysical community. This study introduces the PECCARY technique with the specific aims to motivate its use in and optimize it for the analysis of astrophysical orbital systems. PECCARY works by decomposing a time-dependent measure, such as the x-coordinate or orbital angular momentum time-series, into ordinal patterns. Due to its unique approach and statistical nature, PECCARY is well-suited for detecting preferred and forbidden patterns (a signature of chaos), even when the chaotic behavior is short-lived or when working with a relatively short duration time-series or small sets of time-series data. A variety of examples are used to demonstrate the capabilities of PECCARY. These include mathematical examples (sine waves, varieties of noise, sums of sine waves, well-known chaotic functions), a double pendulum system, and astrophysical tracer particle simulations with potentials of varying intricacies. Since the adopted timescale used to diagnose a given time-series can affect the outcome, a method is presented to identify an ideal sampling scheme, constrained by the overall duration and the natural timescale of the system. The accompanying PECCARY Python package and its usage are discussed.

Scientific discovery requires identifying the scientific principles underlying observed phenomena to guide further investigation. As these empirical principles are often unknown in complex discovery processes, they are constructed via a hypotheses-to-principle pipeline to obtain recurring causalities from progressively accumulated observations during test-time discovery. However, constructing this knowledge requires substantial domain expertise, time, and effort, making this translation stage a bottleneck for scientific discovery. To address this limitation, we propose Principia, an LLM-based framework that constructs and continually refines scientific principles at test time. Drawing on how human researchers develop principles, Principia forms comparative causal hypotheses from related inputs and their observed outcomes, then synthesizes recurring relationships across these hypotheses into inductive principles. By applying the constructed hypotheses and inductive principles to the task, it obtains new observations, revises the hypotheses used based on these new observations, and reconstructs principles from the updated hypotheses, allowing scientific knowledge to continuously evolve throughout test-time discovery. Across benchmarks spanning molecular optimization, protein engineering, gene perturbation, and molecular property prediction, Principia outperforms baselines relying on internal knowledge, external sources, or experience summaries, while generating principles that are plausible and consistent with the scientific literature, demonstrating its effectiveness in constructing and refining task-specific hypotheses and principles at test time for scientific discovery. Our code is available at https://github.com/DongkiKim95/Principia.

Materials research advances through accumulated experience - scripts that work, protocols that are trusted, warnings attached to failed calculations or experiments, and judgement that links a new question to an old result. This experience is essential for reproducibility and knowledge transfer, yet it is usually fragmented across notebooks, repositories, job logs and individual memory, and it is rarely portable across artificial-intelligence agents. Here we argue that a lifelong AI partner for materials science can be designed around persistent memory rather than around a particular agent implementation. We introduce a self-evolving memory framework that stores scientific experience as inspectable facts and executable skills, so that observations, failure boundaries, protocols and validation checks can be retrieved, revised and migrated across models. We evaluate the idea in three computational settings that expose different layers of materials-research competence. In 49 real-world materials-tool-use questions comprising 138 executable subtasks, memory nearly doubles GPT-5.2 task success without model-parameter updates. In elemental-solid equation-of-state calculations, memory converts a wavefunction-initialization failure into a pre-execution guardrail, improving outcomes from 22/1/4 to 25/2/0 Correct/Partial/Error and avoiding 92% of repeated errors. In 13 practical material simulation workflows, remembered skills and failure facts halve the aggregate trace burden (tokens) and reduce tool calls by over a factor of two by the third round, while preserving physically meaningful outputs in band-gap, phonon, vacancy and work-function analyses. These results show that agent memory can serve as a durable scientific asset; a portable, self-improving record of materials-research experience that outlives any single model or agent stack.

The adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific writing promises efficiency but risks introducing informational entropy. While "hallucinated papers" are a known artifact, the systematic degradation of valid citation chains remains unquantified. We conducted a forensic audit of 50 recent survey papers in Artificial Intelligence (N=5,514 citations) published between September 2024 and January 2026. We utilized a hybrid verification pipeline combining DOI resolution, Crossref metadata analysis, Semantic Scholar queries, and fuzzy text matching to distinguish between formatting errors ("Sloppiness") and verifiable non-existence ("Phantoms). We detect a persistent 17.0% Phantom Rate -- citations that cannot be resolved to any digital object despite aggressive forensic recovery. Diagnostic categorization reveals three distinct failure modes: pure hallucinations (5.1%), hallucinated identifiers with valid titles (16.4%), and parsing-induced matching failures (78.5%). Longitudinal analysis reveals a flat trend (+0.07 pp/month), suggesting that high-entropy citation practices have stabilized as an endemic feature of the field. The scientific citation graph in AI survey literature exhibits "link rot" at scale. This suggests a mechanism where AI tools act as "lazy research assistants," retrieving correct titles but hallucinating metadata, thereby severing the digital chain of custody required for reproducible science.

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

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

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

Three epochs in development of chemical dynamics are presented. We try to understand the modern research programs in the light of classical works. Three eras (or waves) of chemical dynamics can be revealed in the flux of research and publications. These waves may be associated with leaders: the first is the van't Hoof wave, the second may be called the Semenov--Hinshelwood wave and the third is definitely the Aris wave. Of course, the whole building was impossible without efforts of hundreds of other researchers. Some of of them are mentioned in our brief review.

Historical weather records from Europe indicate that the Earth experienced substantial climate variability, which caused, for instance, the Little Ice Age and the global crisis in the period between the 14th and 19th centuries. However, it is still unclear how global this climate variability was because of the scarce meteorological data availability in other regions including East Asia, especially around the 17th century. In this context, Seungjeongwon Ilgi, a daily record of the Royal Secretariat of the Joseon Dynasty of Korea, is a precious source of historical meteorological records for the Korean Peninsula, as it covers 288 years of weather observations made during 1623-1910. We used the digital database of Seungjeongwon Ilgi to construct a machine-readable weather condition dataset. To this end, we extracted valid weather information from the original weather description text and compiled them into predefined weather categories. Additionally, we attempted to improve the usability of the dataset by converting the reported dates in the traditional calendar system to those in the Gregorian calendar. Finally, we outlined the promising implications of this dataset for meteorological and climatological studies, while describing the limitations of the dataset. Overall, future studies focusing on the climate and weather of the past could use this meteorological database for investigating long-term climate variability. Our datasets are publicly available at 10.5281/zenodo.8142701.

Whether the risk of death keeps climbing at extreme ages or levels off has divided researchers for a century. We show this conflict reflects a moving target. Using cohort data from twelve low-mortality populations, we find that mortality deceleration and plateau onset shift steadily later across cohorts born from the mid-19th to the early-20th century. The data support a plateau across the full cohort range, though evidence weakens for the youngest, incompletely observed cohorts. In these younger cohorts, deceleration begins near age 100, and the fitted plateau begins beyond age 108. Because past studies focused on different cohorts and fixed age ranges, they sampled different phases of the exact same shift. The mortality plateau has no fixed age: it has been rescheduled.

Bold claims about AI's role in science-from "AGI will cure all diseases" to promises of radically accelerated discovery-raise a central epistemic question: do large language models (LLMs) truly generate new knowledge, or do they merely remix memorized fragments? We propose unlearning-as-ablation as a falsifiable probe of constructive scientific discovery. The idea is to systematically remove a target result together with its forget-closure (supporting lemmas, paraphrases, and multi-hop entailments) and then evaluate whether the model can re-derive the result from only permitted axioms and tools. Success would indicate generative capability beyond recall; failure would expose current limits. Unlike prevailing motivations for unlearning-privacy, copyright, or safety-our framing repositions it as an epistemic probe for AI-for-Science. We outline a minimal pilot in mathematics and algorithms to illustrate feasibility, and sketch how the same approach could later be extended to domains such as physics or chemistry. This is a position paper: our contribution is conceptual and methodological, not empirical. We aim to stimulate discussion on how principled ablation tests could help distinguish models that reconstruct knowledge from those that merely retrieve it, and how such probes might guide the next generation of AI-for-Science benchmarks.

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

A 20-year analysis of CrossRef metadata demonstrates that global scholarly output -- encompassing publications, retractions, and preprints -- exhibits strikingly inertial growth, well-described by exponential, quadratic, and logistic models with nearly indistinguishable goodness-of-fit. Retraction dynamics, in particular, remain stable and minimally affected by the COVID-19 shock, which contributed less than 1% to total notices. Since 2004, publications doubled every 9.8 years, retractions every 11.4 years, and preprints at the fastest rate, every 5.6 years. The findings underscore a system primed for ongoing stress at unchanged structural bottlenecks. Although model forecasts diverge beyond 2024, the evidence suggests that the future trajectory of scholarly communication will be determined by persistent systemic inertia rather than episodic disruptions -- unless intentionally redirected by policy or AI-driven reform.

Using large language models to interpret experimental evidence, design discriminating experiments and formulate well-supported mechanistic explanations remains a central challenge in materials research. Here we establish PSM-Bench, an 800-question benchmark developed by perovskite researchers to evaluate scientific reasoning in perovskite photovoltaics. We also introduce OpenPerov, an expert-informed language-model framework that learns from expert-calibrated evidence records reconstructed from 4,532 articles; these records link experimental strategies, controls and observations to mechanistic interpretations. Structured-evidence adaptation outperformed conventional question-answer training, and OpenPerov Flash ranked first among 13 closed-book systems. OpenPerov Pro raised Scientific Mastery further, from 87.6 to 89.1, by revising selected passages with retrieved evidence. On questions derived from subsequent studies, both models also outscored expert-authored answers. In an experimental test of self-assembled monolayer design, OpenPerov selected a K analogue that outperformed the Na analogue preferred by experts. Devices incorporating the selected contact reached a power conversion efficiency of 27.05% and retained 96.74% of their steady-state reference efficiency after 1,000 h of dark thermal ageing at 85 ^circC. These results show that reconstructed scientific reasoning provides an effective basis for building domain models that interpret experiments and inform materials design.

With climate change-related extreme events on the rise, high dimensional Earth observation data presents a unique opportunity for forecasting and understanding impacts on ecosystems. This is, however, impeded by the complexity of processing, visualizing, modeling, and explaining this data. To showcase how this challenge can be met, here we train a convolutional long short-term memory-based architecture on the novel DeepExtremeCubes dataset. DeepExtremeCubes includes around 40,000 long-term Sentinel-2 minicubes (January 2016-October 2022) worldwide, along with labeled extreme events, meteorological data, vegetation land cover, and topography map, sampled from locations affected by extreme climate events and surrounding areas. When predicting future reflectances and vegetation impacts through kernel normalized difference vegetation index, the model achieved an R^2 score of 0.9055 in the test set. Explainable artificial intelligence was used to analyze the model's predictions during the October 2020 Central South America compound heatwave and drought event. We chose the same area exactly one year before the event as counterfactual, finding that the average temperature and surface pressure are generally the best predictors under normal conditions. In contrast, minimum anomalies of evaporation and surface latent heat flux take the lead during the event. A change of regime is also observed in the attributions before the event, which might help assess how long the event was brewing before happening. The code to replicate all experiments and figures in this paper is publicly available at https://github.com/DeepExtremes/txyXAI

A vast array of transformative technologies developed over the past decade has enabled measurement and perturbation at ever increasing scale, yet our understanding of many systems remains limited by experimental capacity. Overcoming this limitation is not simply a matter of reducing costs with existing approaches; for complex biological systems it will likely never be possible to comprehensively measure and perturb every combination of variables of interest. There is, however, a growing body of work - much of it foundational and precedent setting - that extracts a surprising amount of information from highly under sampled data. For a wide array of biological questions, especially the study of genetic interactions, approaches like these will be crucial to obtain a comprehensive understanding. Yet, there is no coherent framework that unifies these methods, provides a rigorous mathematical foundation to understand their limitations and capabilities, allows us to understand through a common lens their surprising successes, and suggests how we might crystalize the key concepts to transform experimental biology. Here, we review prior work on this topic - both the biology and the mathematical foundations of randomization and low dimensional inference - and propose a general framework to make data collection in a wide array of studies vastly more efficient using random experiments and composite experiments.