Daily Papers

Stylistic personalization - making LLMs write in a specific individual's style, rather than merely adapting to task preferences - lacks evaluation grounded in authorship science. We show that grounding evaluation in authorship verification theory transforms what benchmarks can measure. Drawing on three measurement traditions - LUAR, a trained authorship verification model; an LLM-as-judge with decoupled trait matching; and classical function-word stylometrics - we evaluate four inference-time personalization methods across 50 authors and 1,000 generations. The theory-grounded metric, LUAR, provides what ad hoc alternatives cannot: calibrated baselines, with a human ceiling of 0.756 and a cross-author floor of 0.626, that give scores absolute meaning. All methods score below this floor, from 0.484 to 0.508, exposing an authorship gap invisible to uncalibrated metrics. The three metrics produce near-zero pairwise correlations, with absolute r less than 0.07, confirming that without theoretical grounding, metric choice determines conclusions: an LLM judge declares a clear winner while LUAR finds no meaningful differentiation. These findings demonstrate the theory-benchmark cycle in action: authorship theory exposes evaluation failures that ad hoc benchmarks miss.

High-quality text generation capability of recent Large Language Models (LLMs) causes concerns about their misuse (e.g., in massive generation/spread of disinformation). Machine-generated text (MGT) detection is important to cope with such threats. However, it is susceptible to authorship obfuscation (AO) methods, such as paraphrasing, which can cause MGTs to evade detection. So far, this was evaluated only in monolingual settings. Thus, the susceptibility of recently proposed multilingual detectors is still unknown. We fill this gap by comprehensively benchmarking the performance of 10 well-known AO methods, attacking 37 MGT detection methods against MGTs in 11 languages (i.e., 10 times 37 times 11 = 4,070 combinations). We also evaluate the effect of data augmentation on adversarial robustness using obfuscated texts. The results indicate that all tested AO methods can cause evasion of automated detection in all tested languages, where homoglyph attacks are especially successful. However, some of the AO methods severely damaged the text, making it no longer readable or easily recognizable by humans (e.g., changed language, weird characters).

Authorship attribution models fine-tuned with the same pretrained encoder, data, and loss can differ four-fold in performance depending only on their scoring mechanism. We use mechanistic interpretability tools to explain this gap. Stylistic features such as word length, punctuation density, and function-word frequency are equally available at every layer in every model, including in an off-the-shelf control encoder, hence the gap not coming from representation quality. Instead, causal intervention shows that the scorer determines where the encoder consolidates authorship signal. Mean pooling forces consolidation by early to mid layers, while late interaction defers it to later layers. We further derive this difference from the gradient structure of each scorer, and training dynamics reveal distinct learning trajectories that follow from that difference.

One of the main drivers of the recent advances in authorship verification is the PAN large-scale authorship dataset. Despite generating significant progress in the field, inconsistent performance differences between the closed and open test sets have been reported. To this end, we improve the experimental setup by proposing five new public splits over the PAN dataset, specifically designed to isolate and identify biases related to the text topic and to the author's writing style. We evaluate several BERT-like baselines on these splits, showing that such models are competitive with authorship verification state-of-the-art methods. Furthermore, using explainable AI, we find that these baselines are biased towards named entities. We show that models trained without the named entities obtain better results and generalize better when tested on DarkReddit, our new dataset for authorship verification.

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

Accurate attribution of authorship is crucial for maintaining the integrity of digital content, improving forensic investigations, and mitigating the risks of misinformation and plagiarism. Addressing the imperative need for proper authorship attribution is essential to uphold the credibility and accountability of authentic authorship. The rapid advancements of Large Language Models (LLMs) have blurred the lines between human and machine authorship, posing significant challenges for traditional methods. We presents a comprehensive literature review that examines the latest research on authorship attribution in the era of LLMs. This survey systematically explores the landscape of this field by categorizing four representative problems: (1) Human-written Text Attribution; (2) LLM-generated Text Detection; (3) LLM-generated Text Attribution; and (4) Human-LLM Co-authored Text Attribution. We also discuss the challenges related to ensuring the generalization and explainability of authorship attribution methods. Generalization requires the ability to generalize across various domains, while explainability emphasizes providing transparent and understandable insights into the decisions made by these models. By evaluating the strengths and limitations of existing methods and benchmarks, we identify key open problems and future research directions in this field. This literature review serves a roadmap for researchers and practitioners interested in understanding the state of the art in this rapidly evolving field. Additional resources and a curated list of papers are available and regularly updated at https://llm-authorship.github.io

Authorship ethics is a central topic of discussion in research ethics fora. There are various guidelines for authorship (i.e., naming and order). It is not easy to decide the authorship in the presence of varying authorship guidelines. This paper gives an overview of research on authorship practices and issues. It presents a review of 16 empirical research papers published between 2014 -- 2020. The objective is to learn how various research disciplines handle authorship. What are the authorship practices in various research disciplines, and what are the issues associated with these practices?

Authorship attribution is the problem of identifying the most plausible author of an anonymous text from a set of candidate authors. Researchers have investigated same-topic and cross-topic scenarios of authorship attribution, which differ according to whether new, unseen topics are used in the testing phase. However, neither scenario allows us to explain whether errors are caused by a failure to capture authorship writing style or by a topic shift. Motivated by this, we propose the topic confusion task where we switch the author-topic configuration between the training and testing sets. This setup allows us to distinguish two types of errors: those caused by the topic shift and those caused by the features' inability to capture the writing styles. We show that stylometric features with part-of-speech tags are the least susceptible to topic variations. We further show that combining them with other features leads to significantly lower topic confusion and higher attribution accuracy. Finally, we show that pretrained language models such as BERT and RoBERTa perform poorly on this task and are surpassed by simple features such as word-level n-grams.

Bibliometric and usage-based analyses and tools highlight the value of information about scholarship contained within the network of authors, articles and usage data. Less progress has been made on populating and using the author side of this network than the article side, in part because of the difficulty of unambiguously identifying authors. I briefly review a sample of author identifier schemes, and consider use in scholarly repositories. I then describe preliminary work at arXiv to implement public author identifiers, services based on them, and plans to make this information useful beyond the boundaries of arXiv.

Authorship identification has proven unsettlingly effective in inferring the identity of the author of an unsigned document, even when sensitive personal information has been carefully omitted. In the digital era, individuals leave a lasting digital footprint through their written content, whether it is posted on social media, stored on their employer's computers, or located elsewhere. When individuals need to communicate publicly yet wish to remain anonymous, there is little available to protect them from unwanted authorship identification. This unprecedented threat to privacy is evident in scenarios such as whistle-blowing. Proposed defenses against authorship identification attacks primarily aim to obfuscate one's writing style, thereby making it unlinkable to their pre-existing writing, while concurrently preserving the original meaning and grammatical integrity. The presented work offers a comprehensive review of the advancements in this research area spanning over the past two decades and beyond. It emphasizes the methodological frameworks of modification and generation-based strategies devised to evade authorship identification attacks, highlighting joint efforts from the differential privacy community. Limitations of current research are discussed, with a spotlight on open challenges and potential research avenues.

Authorship identification ascertains the authorship of texts whose origins remain undisclosed. That authorship identification techniques work as reliably as they do has been attributed to the fact that authorial style is properly captured and represented. Although modern authorship identification methods have evolved significantly over the years and have proven effective in distinguishing authorial styles, the generalization of stylistic features across domains has not been systematically reviewed. The presented work addresses the challenge of enhancing the generalization of stylistic representations in authorship identification, particularly when there are discrepancies between training and testing samples. A comprehensive review of empirical studies was conducted, focusing on various stylistic features and their effectiveness in representing an author's style. The influencing factors such as topic, genre, and register on writing style were also explored, along with strategies to mitigate their impact. While some stylistic features, like character n-grams and function words, have proven to be robust and discriminative, others, such as content words, can introduce biases and hinder cross-domain generalization. Representations learned using deep learning models, especially those incorporating character n-grams and syntactic information, show promise in enhancing representation generalization. The findings underscore the importance of selecting appropriate stylistic features for authorship identification, especially in cross-domain scenarios. The recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of various linguistic features paves the way for more accurate authorship identification in diverse contexts.

No two authors write alike. Personal flourishes invoked in written narratives, from lexicon to rhetorical devices, imply a particular author--what literary theorists label the implied or virtual author; distinct from the real author or narrator of a text. Early large language models trained on unfiltered training sets drawn from a variety of discordant sources yielded incoherent personalities, problematic for conversational tasks but proving useful for sampling literature from multiple perspectives. Successes in alignment research in recent years have allowed researchers to impose subjectively consistent personae on language models via instruction tuning and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), but whether aligned models retain the ability to model an arbitrary virtual author has received little scrutiny. By studying 4,374 stories sampled from three OpenAI language models, we show successive versions of GPT-3 suffer from increasing degrees of "mode collapse" whereby overfitting the model during alignment constrains it from generalizing over authorship: models suffering from mode collapse become unable to assume a multiplicity of perspectives. Our method and results are significant for researchers seeking to employ language models in sociological simulations.

Source code segment authorship identification is the task of identifying the author of a source code segment through supervised learning. It has vast importance in plagiarism detection, digital forensics, and several other law enforcement issues. However, when a source code segment is written by multiple authors, typical author identification methods no longer work. Here, an author identification technique, capable of predicting the authorship of source code segments, even in the case of multiple authors, has been proposed which uses a stacking ensemble classifier. This proposed technique is built upon several deep neural networks, random forests and support vector machine classifiers. It has been shown that for identifying the author group, a single classification technique is no longer sufficient and using a deep neural network-based stacking ensemble method can enhance the accuracy significantly. The performance of the proposed technique has been compared with some existing methods which only deal with the source code segments written precisely by a single author. Despite the harder task of authorship identification for source code segments written by multiple authors, our proposed technique has achieved promising results evidenced by the identification accuracy, compared to the related works which only deal with code segments written by a single author.

Authorship attribution aims to identify the origin or author of a document. Traditional approaches have heavily relied on manual features and fail to capture long-range correlations, limiting their effectiveness. Recent advancements leverage text embeddings from pre-trained language models, which require significant fine-tuning on labeled data, posing challenges in data dependency and limited interpretability. Large Language Models (LLMs), with their deep reasoning capabilities and ability to maintain long-range textual associations, offer a promising alternative. This study explores the potential of pre-trained LLMs in one-shot authorship attribution, specifically utilizing Bayesian approaches and probability outputs of LLMs. Our methodology calculates the probability that a text entails previous writings of an author, reflecting a more nuanced understanding of authorship. By utilizing only pre-trained models such as Llama-3-70B, our results on the IMDb and blog datasets show an impressive 85\% accuracy in one-shot authorship classification across ten authors. Our findings set new baselines for one-shot authorship analysis using LLMs and expand the application scope of these models in forensic linguistics. This work also includes extensive ablation studies to validate our approach.

Thousands of new scientific papers are published each month. Such information overload complicates researcher efforts to stay current with the state-of-the-art as well as to verify and correctly attribute claims. We pose the following research question: Given a text excerpt referencing a paper, could an LM act as a research assistant to correctly identify the referenced paper? We advance efforts to answer this question by building a benchmark that evaluates the abilities of LMs in citation attribution. Our benchmark, CiteME, consists of text excerpts from recent machine learning papers, each referencing a single other paper. CiteME use reveals a large gap between frontier LMs and human performance, with LMs achieving only 4.2-18.5% accuracy and humans 69.7%. We close this gap by introducing CiteAgent, an autonomous system built on the GPT-4o LM that can also search and read papers, which achieves an accuracy of 35.3\% on CiteME. Overall, CiteME serves as a challenging testbed for open-ended claim attribution, driving the research community towards a future where any claim made by an LM can be automatically verified and discarded if found to be incorrect.

Authorship style transfer involves altering the style of text to match the style of some target author whilst preserving the semantic meaning of the original text. Existing approaches to unsupervised authorship style transfer like STRAP have largely focused on style transfer for target authors with many examples of their writing style through books, speeches, or other published works (Krishna et al., 2020). Due to this high-resource training data requirement (often greater than 100,000 words), these approaches are often only useful for style transfer to the style of published authors, politicians, or other well-known figures and authorship styles. In this paper, we attempt to perform low-resource authorship style transfer, a more challenging class of authorship style transfer where only a limited amount of text in the target author's style may exist. In our experiments, we specifically choose source and target authors from Reddit to perform style transfer over their Reddit posts, limiting ourselves to just 16 posts (on average approx 500 words) of the target author's style. We then propose a method for automatic evaluation on the low-resource authorship style transfer task utilizing authorship and style representation embeddings (Rivera-Soto et al., 2021; Wegmann et al., 2022). We evaluate our style transferred outputs with the proposed automatic evaluation method and find that our method, STYLL, is able to outperform STRAP and a comprehensive set of baselines.

Expert feedback lays the foundation of rigorous research. However, the rapid growth of scholarly production and intricate knowledge specialization challenge the conventional scientific feedback mechanisms. High-quality peer reviews are increasingly difficult to obtain. Researchers who are more junior or from under-resourced settings have especially hard times getting timely feedback. With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback on research manuscripts. However, the utility of LLM-generated feedback has not been systematically studied. To address this gap, we created an automated pipeline using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers. We evaluated the quality of GPT-4's feedback through two large-scale studies. We first quantitatively compared GPT-4's generated feedback with human peer reviewer feedback in 15 Nature family journals (3,096 papers in total) and the ICLR machine learning conference (1,709 papers). The overlap in the points raised by GPT-4 and by human reviewers (average overlap 30.85% for Nature journals, 39.23% for ICLR) is comparable to the overlap between two human reviewers (average overlap 28.58% for Nature journals, 35.25% for ICLR). The overlap between GPT-4 and human reviewers is larger for the weaker papers. We then conducted a prospective user study with 308 researchers from 110 US institutions in the field of AI and computational biology to understand how researchers perceive feedback generated by our GPT-4 system on their own papers. Overall, more than half (57.4%) of the users found GPT-4 generated feedback helpful/very helpful and 82.4% found it more beneficial than feedback from at least some human reviewers. While our findings show that LLM-generated feedback can help researchers, we also identify several limitations.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support search and information retrieval, it is critical that they accurately attribute content to its original authors. In this work, we introduce AttriBench, the first fame- and demographically-balanced quote attribution benchmark dataset. Through explicitly balancing author fame and demographics, AttriBench enables controlled investigation of demographic bias in quote attribution. Using this dataset, we evaluate 11 widely used LLMs across different prompt settings and find that quote attribution remains a challenging task even for frontier models. We observe large and systematic disparities in attribution accuracy between race, gender, and intersectional groups. We further introduce and investigate suppression, a distinct failure mode in which models omit attribution entirely, even when the model has access to authorship information. We find that suppression is widespread and unevenly distributed across demographic groups, revealing systematic biases not captured by standard accuracy metrics. Our results position quote attribution as a benchmark for representational fairness in LLMs.

We show that large language models (LLMs) can be used to distinguish the writings of different authors. Specifically, an individual GPT-2 model, trained from scratch on the works of one author, will predict held-out text from that author more accurately than held-out text from other authors. We suggest that, in this way, a model trained on one author's works embodies the unique writing style of that author. We first demonstrate our approach on books written by eight different (known) authors. We also use this approach to confirm R. P. Thompson's authorship of the well-studied 15th book of the Oz series, originally attributed to F. L. Baum.

With the rapid growth of Large Language Models (LLMs), safeguarding textual content against unauthorized use is crucial. Text watermarking offers a vital solution, protecting both - LLM-generated and plain text sources. This paper presents a unified overview of different perspectives behind designing watermarking techniques, through a comprehensive survey of the research literature. Our work has two key advantages, (1) we analyze research based on the specific intentions behind different watermarking techniques, evaluation datasets used, watermarking addition, and removal methods to construct a cohesive taxonomy. (2) We highlight the gaps and open challenges in text watermarking to promote research in protecting text authorship. This extensive coverage and detailed analysis sets our work apart, offering valuable insights into the evolving landscape of text watermarking in language models.

Recently, there has been a rise in the development of powerful pre-trained natural language models, including GPT-2, Grover, and XLM. These models have shown state-of-the-art capabilities towards a variety of different NLP tasks, including question answering, content summarisation, and text generation. Alongside this, there have been many studies focused on online authorship attribution (AA). That is, the use of models to identify the authors of online texts. Given the power of natural language models in generating convincing texts, this paper examines the degree to which these language models can generate texts capable of deceiving online AA models. Experimenting with both blog and Twitter data, we utilise GPT-2 language models to generate texts using the existing posts of online users. We then examine whether these AI-based text generators are capable of mimicking authorial style to such a degree that they can deceive typical AA models. From this, we find that current AI-based text generators are able to successfully mimic authorship, showing capabilities towards this on both datasets. Our findings, in turn, highlight the current capacity of powerful natural language models to generate original online posts capable of mimicking authorial style sufficiently to deceive popular AA methods; a key finding given the proposed role of AA in real world applications such as spam-detection and forensic investigation.

Recent neural language models have taken a significant step forward in producing remarkably controllable, fluent, and grammatical text. Although studies have found that AI-generated text is not distinguishable from human-written text for crowd-sourcing workers, there still exist errors in AI-generated text which are even subtler and harder to spot. We primarily focus on the scenario in which scientific AI writing assistant is deeply involved. First, we construct a feature description framework to distinguish between AI-generated text and human-written text from syntax, semantics, and pragmatics based on the human evaluation. Then we utilize the features, i.e., writing style, coherence, consistency, and argument logistics, from the proposed framework to analyze two types of content. Finally, we adopt several publicly available methods to investigate the gap of between AI-generated scientific text and human-written scientific text by AI-generated scientific text detection models. The results suggest that while AI has the potential to generate scientific content that is as accurate as human-written content, there is still a gap in terms of depth and overall quality. The AI-generated scientific content is more likely to contain errors in factual issues. We find that there exists a "writing style" gap between AI-generated scientific text and human-written scientific text. Based on the analysis result, we summarize a series of model-agnostic and distribution-agnostic features for detection tasks in other domains. Findings in this paper contribute to guiding the optimization of AI models to produce high-quality content and addressing related ethical and security concerns.

The pre-training task is indispensable for the text-to-image person re-identification (T2I-ReID) task. However, there are two underlying inconsistencies between these two tasks that may impact the performance; i) Data inconsistency. A large domain gap exists between the generic images/texts used in public pre-trained models and the specific person data in the T2I-ReID task. This gap is especially severe for texts, as general textual data are usually unable to describe specific people in fine-grained detail. ii) Training inconsistency. The processes of pre-training of images and texts are independent, despite cross-modality learning being critical to T2I-ReID. To address the above issues, we present a new unified pre-training pipeline (UniPT) designed specifically for the T2I-ReID task. We first build a large-scale text-labeled person dataset "LUPerson-T", in which pseudo-textual descriptions of images are automatically generated by the CLIP paradigm using a divide-conquer-combine strategy. Benefiting from this dataset, we then utilize a simple vision-and-language pre-training framework to explicitly align the feature space of the image and text modalities during pre-training. In this way, the pre-training task and the T2I-ReID task are made consistent with each other on both data and training levels. Without the need for any bells and whistles, our UniPT achieves competitive Rank-1 accuracy of, ie, 68.50%, 60.09%, and 51.85% on CUHK-PEDES, ICFG-PEDES and RSTPReid, respectively. Both the LUPerson-T dataset and code are available at https;//github.com/ZhiyinShao-H/UniPT.

In this paper, we introduce an authorship attribution method called Authorial Language Models (ALMs) that involves identifying the most likely author of a questioned document based on the perplexity of the questioned document calculated for a set of causal language models fine-tuned on the writings of a set of candidate author. We benchmarked ALMs against state-of-art-systems using the CCAT50 dataset and the Blogs50 datasets. We find that ALMs achieves a macro-average accuracy score of 83.6% on Blogs50, outperforming all other methods, and 74.9% on CCAT50, matching the performance of the best method. To assess the performance of ALMs on shorter texts, we also conducted text ablation testing. We found that to reach a macro-average accuracy of 70%, ALMs needs 40 tokens on Blogs50 and 400 tokens on CCAT50, while to reach 60% ALMs requires 20 tokens on Blogs50 and 70 tokens on CCAT50.

Recent state-of-the-art authorship attribution methods learn authorship representations of texts in a latent, non-interpretable space, hindering their usability in real-world applications. Our work proposes a novel approach to interpreting these learned embeddings by identifying representative points in the latent space and utilizing LLMs to generate informative natural language descriptions of the writing style of each point. We evaluate the alignment of our interpretable space with the latent one and find that it achieves the best prediction agreement compared to other baselines. Additionally, we conduct a human evaluation to assess the quality of these style descriptions, validating their utility as explanations for the latent space. Finally, we investigate whether human performance on the challenging AA task improves when aided by our system's explanations, finding an average improvement of around +20% in accuracy.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in a wide range of NLP tasks. However, when it comes to authorship verification (AV) tasks, which involve determining whether two given texts share the same authorship, even advanced models like ChatGPT exhibit notable limitations. This paper introduces a novel approach, termed InstructAV, for authorship verification. This approach utilizes LLMs in conjunction with a parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) method to simultaneously improve accuracy and explainability. The distinctiveness of InstructAV lies in its ability to align classification decisions with transparent and understandable explanations, representing a significant progression in the field of authorship verification. Through comprehensive experiments conducted across various datasets, InstructAV demonstrates its state-of-the-art performance on the AV task, offering high classification accuracy coupled with enhanced explanation reliability.

The rise of unifying frameworks that enable seamless interoperability of Large Language Models (LLMs) has made LLM-LLM collaboration for open-ended tasks a possibility. Despite this, there have not been efforts to explore such collaborative writing. We take the next step beyond human-LLM collaboration to explore this multi-LLM scenario by generating the first exclusively LLM-generated collaborative stories dataset called CollabStory. We focus on single-author (N=1) to multi-author (up to N=5) scenarios, where multiple LLMs co-author stories. We generate over 32k stories using open-source instruction-tuned LLMs. Further, we take inspiration from the PAN tasks that have set the standard for human-human multi-author writing tasks and analysis. We extend their authorship-related tasks for multi-LLM settings and present baselines for LLM-LLM collaboration. We find that current baselines are not able to handle this emerging scenario. Thus, CollabStory is a resource that could help propel an understanding as well as the development of techniques to discern the use of multiple LLMs. This is crucial to study in the context of writing tasks since LLM-LLM collaboration could potentially overwhelm ongoing challenges related to plagiarism detection, credit assignment, maintaining academic integrity in educational settings, and addressing copyright infringement concerns. We make our dataset and code available at \url{https://github.com/saranya-venkatraman/multi_llm_story_writing}.

A benchmark score means nothing without knowing what a trivial method achieves and what the best possible method could achieve. We construct both bounds for a task with a rare kind of ground truth: predicting which sentences a crowd of readers -- highlighting for their own purposes, unpaid, uninstructed, and blind to each other -- marked in 120 web documents. The floor is naive truncation (lead); the ceiling is a split-half oracle: half the crowd predicting the other half. The gap between them is +0.2028 AP [+0.1698, +0.2342, domain-clustered], and three findings structure it. First, the gap is semantic: position and length features recover 5% of it. Second, frontier language models reach 35-53% of it zero-shot -- far above classical baselines, far below the crowd; a state-of-the-art prompt compressor (LLMLingua-2) lands below the floor, indistinguishable from random selection. Third, an unweighted cross-vendor fusion of five frontier rankings plus a position prior reaches 60%, beating the best single model by +0.0159 [+0.0044, +0.0269; Holm p=0.019] -- a gain that survives ablation of its best member, split-half arm selection, prompt paraphrase, and label, gate, and seed perturbations, and was CONFIRMED by a pre-registered replication on 217 independent documents (+0.0179, Holm p=0.042). Finally, the bracket compresses: distilling the fusion into one open-weight 8B student that reads the whole document retains 90% of the fusion's edge and reaches statistical parity with the strongest single frontier model (+0.0070 [-0.0068, +0.0200]), where a local-context student retains only 63% -- the crowd's signal lives in document-level structure, and the cheapest known improvement is to ask several different models and average.

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

Learning robust representations of authorial style is crucial for authorship attribution and AI-generated text detection. However, existing methods often struggle with content-style entanglement, where models learn spurious correlations between authors' writing styles and topics, leading to poor generalization across domains. To address this challenge, we propose Explainable Authorship Variational Autoencoder (EAVAE), a novel framework that explicitly disentangles style from content through architectural separation-by-design. EAVAE first pretrains style encoders using supervised contrastive learning on diverse authorship data, then finetunes with a Variational Autoencoder (VEA) architecture using separate encoders for style and content representations. Disentanglement is enforced through a novel discriminator that not only distinguishes whether pairs of style/content representations belong to the same or different authors/content sources, but also generates natural language explanation for their decision, simultaneously mitigating confounding information and enhancing interpretability. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of EAVAE. On authorship attribution, we achieve state-of-the-art performance on various datasets, including Amazon Reviews, PAN21, and HRS. For AI-generated text detection, EAVAE excels in few-shot learning over the M4 dataset. Code and data repositories are available onlinehttps://github.com/hieum98/avae https://huggingface.co/collections/Hieuman/document-level-authorship-datasets.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.

People overthink; language models over-sample, and the extra effort can talk both into a worse answer. Reasoning systems answer a hard question by sampling it many times (test-time scaling), and the more they draw, the more often a correct answer turns up somewhere, so coverage, the fraction of problems with at least one correct try, climbs and appears to be progress. But a deployed system must return one answer, and choosing it, not knowing which try is right, is selection; selection is capped, and past a point extra samples only make the model surer of a confident mistake, even as every draw adds cost. The gap between climbing coverage and stalled selection, the identifiability gap, is the answer a model can produce but not pick. So the real question is not whether to sample but how far, and the answer is: not far. For picking an answer, the vote has already settled within a few dozen draws, the modal ceiling; for scoring a benchmark, sooner still, the correlation ceiling. Beyond that, extra draws cost compute and add nothing, and can even make the answer worse. This paper turns the cutoff into a single number, the effective number of samples, that any sampling run already reveals. The bottleneck is recognizing a right answer, not generating one.

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

Preprints play an increasingly critical role in academic communities. There are many reasons driving researchers to post their manuscripts to preprint servers before formal submission to journals or conferences, but the use of preprints has also sparked considerable controversy, especially surrounding the claim of priority. In this paper, a case study of computer science preprints submitted to arXiv from 2008 to 2017 is conducted to quantify how many preprints have eventually been printed in peer-reviewed venues. Among those published manuscripts, some are published under different titles and without an update to their preprints on arXiv. In the case of these manuscripts, the traditional fuzzy matching method is incapable of mapping the preprint to the final published version. In view of this issue, we introduce a semantics-based mapping method with the employment of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). With this new mapping method and a plurality of data sources, we find that 66% of all sampled preprints are published under unchanged titles and 11% are published under different titles and with other modifications. A further analysis was then performed to investigate why these preprints but not others were accepted for publication. Our comparison reveals that in the field of computer science, published preprints feature adequate revisions, multiple authorship, detailed abstract and introduction, extensive and authoritative references and available source code.

ChatGPT brings revolutionary social value but also raises concerns about the misuse of AI-generated text. Consequently, an important question is how to detect whether texts are generated by ChatGPT or by human. Existing detectors are built upon the assumption that there are distributional gaps between human-generated and AI-generated text. These gaps are typically identified using statistical information or classifiers. Our research challenges the distributional gap assumption in detectors. We find that detectors do not effectively discriminate the semantic and stylistic gaps between human-generated and AI-generated text. Instead, the "subtle differences", such as an extra space, become crucial for detection. Based on this discovery, we propose the SpaceInfi strategy to evade detection. Experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of this strategy across multiple benchmarks and detectors. We also provide a theoretical explanation for why SpaceInfi is successful in evading perplexity-based detection. And we empirically show that a phenomenon called token mutation causes the evasion for language model-based detectors. Our findings offer new insights and challenges for understanding and constructing more applicable ChatGPT detectors.

Authorship verification (AV) is the task of determining whether two texts were written by the same author. In a forensic context, the strength of AV evidence can be quantified using likelihood ratios. Most AV methods are score-based and deriving well-calibrated likelihood ratios from these scores requires a separate calibration model. This, in turn, requires additional amounts of case-relevant data, which is often time-consuming to obtain and prepare. This study proposes two novel normalisation techniques, the Square Root Correction and the Hapax Correction, for deriving likelihood ratios from the AV method LambdaG without the need of a calibration model (Nini et al. 2026). These corrections are designed to mitigate the overestimation of evidential strength that may result from long or highly repetitive texts. Performance is evaluated against logistic regression calibration across fifteen corpora and a range of text lengths (100-9,500 tokens), using the log-likelihood ratio cost (Cllr). The proposed methods achieve performance comparable to logistic regression calibration, with the Hapax Correction outperforming it in approximately 45% of tests (weighted by corpora). Furthermore, performance was more frequently close (within 5%) when the Hapax Correction was outperformed by logistic regression calibration, compared with the reverse comparison. Eliminating the need to train a calibration model reduces data-requirements, time and complexity, thereby increasing the accessibility and transparency of forensic text comparison. This combination of empirical performance and practical advantages supports the adoption of the proposed methods in forensic settings.

In the age of advanced large language models (LLMs), the boundaries between human and AI-generated text are becoming increasingly blurred. We address the challenge of segmenting mixed-authorship text, that is identifying transition points in text where authorship shifts from human to AI or vice-versa, a problem with critical implications for authenticity, trust, and human oversight. We introduce a novel framework, called Info-Mask for mixed authorship detection that integrates stylometric cues, perplexity-driven signals, and structured boundary modeling to accurately segment collaborative human-AI content. To evaluate the robustness of our system against adversarial perturbations, we construct and release an adversarial benchmark dataset Mixed-text Adversarial setting for Segmentation (MAS), designed to probe the limits of existing detectors. Beyond segmentation accuracy, we introduce Human-Interpretable Attribution (HIA overlays that highlight how stylometric features inform boundary predictions, and we conduct a small-scale human study assessing their usefulness. Across multiple architectures, Info-Mask significantly improves span-level robustness under adversarial conditions, establishing new baselines while revealing remaining challenges. Our findings highlight both the promise and limitations of adversarially robust, interpretable mixed-authorship detection, with implications for trust and oversight in human-AI co-authorship.

Online Social Networks serve as fertile ground for harmful behavior, ranging from hate speech to the dissemination of disinformation. Malicious actors now have unprecedented freedom to misbehave, leading to severe societal unrest and dire consequences, as exemplified by events such as the Capitol assault during the US presidential election and the Antivaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding online language has become more pressing than ever. While existing works predominantly focus on content analysis, we aim to shift the focus towards understanding harmful behaviors by relating content to their respective authors. Numerous novel approaches attempt to learn the stylistic features of authors in texts, but many of these approaches are constrained by small datasets or sub-optimal training losses. To overcome these limitations, we introduce the Style Transformer for Authorship Representations (STAR), trained on a large corpus derived from public sources of 4.5 x 10^6 authored texts involving 70k heterogeneous authors. Our model leverages Supervised Contrastive Loss to teach the model to minimize the distance between texts authored by the same individual. This author pretext pre-training task yields competitive performance at zero-shot with PAN challenges on attribution and clustering. Additionally, we attain promising results on PAN verification challenges using a single dense layer, with our model serving as an embedding encoder. Finally, we present results from our test partition on Reddit. Using a support base of 8 documents of 512 tokens, we can discern authors from sets of up to 1616 authors with at least 80\% accuracy. We share our pre-trained model at huggingface (https://huggingface.co/AIDA-UPM/star) and our code is available at (https://github.com/jahuerta92/star)

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.

Does personalizing what a reader sees pay off, and where does it stop? Using a social web highlighter and a co-readership identity control (the same document highlighted by many users, which holds document and topic fixed and asks whether a person's own history predicts their marks better than another reader's does), we map the shape and limits of personalization across reading altitudes. At the document altitude we give the clean, leakage-free, identity-controlled measurement that prior next-document evaluations could only upper-bound: a person's history identifies which documents in a co-reading neighborhood are theirs, with an own-versus-other gap of +0.169 against community negatives and +0.119 against topic-matched hard negatives (both highly significant); a content-based arm suggests the signal is not purely title-driven but is largely thematic. This is comparable to the span-level selection signal (+0.14) from our prior work: the selection signal is of comparable magnitude across altitudes (+0.12 to +0.17), most of it stable topic preference. At the sentence altitude, a two-stage personalized auto-highlight (an impersonal model proposes candidates, a personal model re-ranks them) does not improve on its impersonal baseline: two off-the-shelf zero-shot LLMs, including a frontier model, predict highlight locations worse than a lead baseline, and personal re-ranking is beaten by the salience order even on the highest-recall candidate pool, so the null is not merely a Stage-1 ceiling artifact. Measurable personalization appears primarily at the selection layer: modest (~+0.13), topic-dominated, with no reliable gain at the salience layer. We also surface a control-in-negatives bias that inflated our document gap to a spurious +0.227 until audited. Going beyond the shared salience layer may be better approached by aggregating individuals than by personalizing them harder.

Background: Deep learning models are typically trained using stochastic gradient descent or one of its variants. These methods update the weights using their gradient, estimated from a small fraction of the training data. It has been observed that when using large batch sizes there is a persistent degradation in generalization performance - known as the "generalization gap" phenomena. Identifying the origin of this gap and closing it had remained an open problem. Contributions: We examine the initial high learning rate training phase. We find that the weight distance from its initialization grows logarithmically with the number of weight updates. We therefore propose a "random walk on random landscape" statistical model which is known to exhibit similar "ultra-slow" diffusion behavior. Following this hypothesis we conducted experiments to show empirically that the "generalization gap" stems from the relatively small number of updates rather than the batch size, and can be completely eliminated by adapting the training regime used. We further investigate different techniques to train models in the large-batch regime and present a novel algorithm named "Ghost Batch Normalization" which enables significant decrease in the generalization gap without increasing the number of updates. To validate our findings we conduct several additional experiments on MNIST, CIFAR-10, CIFAR-100 and ImageNet. Finally, we reassess common practices and beliefs concerning training of deep models and suggest they may not be optimal to achieve good generalization.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent text, but their ability to replicate the distinctive style of a specific human author remains unclear. We present a fast, training-free framework for authorship verification and style imitation analysis. The method integrates TF-IDF character n-grams with transformer embeddings and classifies text pairs through empirical distance distributions, eliminating the need for supervised training or threshold tuning. It achieves 97.5\% accuracy on academic essays and 94.5\% in cross-domain evaluation, while reducing training time by 91.8\% and memory usage by 59\% relative to parameter-based baselines. Using this framework, we evaluate five LLMs from three separate families (Llama, Qwen, Mixtral) across four prompting strategies - zero-shot, one-shot, few-shot, and text completion. Results show that the prompting strategy has a more substantial influence on style fidelity than model size: few-shot prompting yields up to 23.5x higher style-matching accuracy than zero-shot, and completion prompting reaches 99.9\% agreement with the original author's style. Crucially, high-fidelity imitation does not imply human-like unpredictability - human essays average a perplexity of 29.5, whereas matched LLM outputs average only 15.2. These findings demonstrate that stylistic fidelity and statistical detectability are separable, establishing a reproducible basis for future work in authorship modeling, detection, and identity-conditioned generation.

State-of-the-art natural language processing models have been shown to achieve remarkable performance in 'closed-world' settings where all the labels in the evaluation set are known at training time. However, in real-world settings, 'novel' instances that do not belong to any known class are often observed. This renders the ability to deal with novelties crucial. To initiate a systematic research in this important area of 'dealing with novelties', we introduce 'NoveltyTask', a multi-stage task to evaluate a system's performance on pipelined novelty 'detection' and 'accommodation' tasks. We provide mathematical formulation of NoveltyTask and instantiate it with the authorship attribution task that pertains to identifying the correct author of a given text. We use Amazon reviews corpus and compile a large dataset (consisting of 250k instances across 200 authors/labels) for NoveltyTask. We conduct comprehensive experiments and explore several baseline methods for the task. Our results show that the methods achieve considerably low performance making the task challenging and leaving sufficient room for improvement. Finally, we believe our work will encourage research in this underexplored area of dealing with novelties, an important step en route to developing robust systems.

Optimizing the phrasing of argumentative text is crucial in higher education and professional development. However, assessing whether and how the different claims in a text should be revised is a hard task, especially for novice writers. In this work, we explore the main challenges to identifying argumentative claims in need of specific revisions. By learning from collaborative editing behaviors in online debates, we seek to capture implicit revision patterns in order to develop approaches aimed at guiding writers in how to further improve their arguments. We systematically compare the ability of common word embedding models to capture the differences between different versions of the same text, and we analyze their impact on various types of writing issues. To deal with the noisy nature of revision-based corpora, we propose a new sampling strategy based on revision distance. Opposed to approaches from prior work, such sampling can be done without employing additional annotations and judgments. Moreover, we provide evidence that using contextual information and domain knowledge can further improve prediction results. How useful a certain type of context is, depends on the issue the claim is suffering from, though.

Linguistic style is an integral component of language. Recent advances in the development of style representations have increasingly used training objectives from authorship verification (AV): Do two texts have the same author? The assumption underlying the AV training task (same author approximates same writing style) enables self-supervised and, thus, extensive training. However, a good performance on the AV task does not ensure good "general-purpose" style representations. For example, as the same author might typically write about certain topics, representations trained on AV might also encode content information instead of style alone. We introduce a variation of the AV training task that controls for content using conversation or domain labels. We evaluate whether known style dimensions are represented and preferred over content information through an original variation to the recently proposed STEL framework. We find that representations trained by controlling for conversation are better than representations trained with domain or no content control at representing style independent from content.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have fueled the vision of automated scientific discovery, often called AI Co-Scientists. To date, prior work casts these systems as generative co-authors responsible for crafting hypotheses, synthesizing code, or drafting manuscripts. In this work, we explore a complementary application: using LLMs as verifiers to automate the academic verification of scientific manuscripts. To that end, we introduce SPOT, a dataset of 83 published papers paired with 91 errors significant enough to prompt errata or retraction, cross-validated with actual authors and human annotators. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs on SPOT, we find that none surpasses 21.1\% recall or 6.1\% precision (o3 achieves the best scores, with all others near zero). Furthermore, confidence estimates are uniformly low, and across eight independent runs, models rarely rediscover the same errors, undermining their reliability. Finally, qualitative analysis with domain experts reveals that even the strongest models make mistakes resembling student-level misconceptions derived from misunderstandings. These findings highlight the substantial gap between current LLM capabilities and the requirements for dependable AI-assisted academic verification.

This study explores the challenge of sentence-level AI-generated text detection within human-AI collaborative hybrid texts. Existing studies of AI-generated text detection for hybrid texts often rely on synthetic datasets. These typically involve hybrid texts with a limited number of boundaries. We contend that studies of detecting AI-generated content within hybrid texts should cover different types of hybrid texts generated in realistic settings to better inform real-world applications. Therefore, our study utilizes the CoAuthor dataset, which includes diverse, realistic hybrid texts generated through the collaboration between human writers and an intelligent writing system in multi-turn interactions. We adopt a two-step, segmentation-based pipeline: (i) detect segments within a given hybrid text where each segment contains sentences of consistent authorship, and (ii) classify the authorship of each identified segment. Our empirical findings highlight (1) detecting AI-generated sentences in hybrid texts is overall a challenging task because (1.1) human writers' selecting and even editing AI-generated sentences based on personal preferences adds difficulty in identifying the authorship of segments; (1.2) the frequent change of authorship between neighboring sentences within the hybrid text creates difficulties for segment detectors in identifying authorship-consistent segments; (1.3) the short length of text segments within hybrid texts provides limited stylistic cues for reliable authorship determination; (2) before embarking on the detection process, it is beneficial to assess the average length of segments within the hybrid text. This assessment aids in deciding whether (2.1) to employ a text segmentation-based strategy for hybrid texts with longer segments, or (2.2) to adopt a direct sentence-by-sentence classification strategy for those with shorter segments.

This study evaluates the performance of ChatGPT variants, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, both with and without prompt engineering, against solely student work and a mixed category containing both student and GPT-4 contributions in university-level physics coding assignments using the Python language. Comparing 50 student submissions to 50 AI-generated submissions across different categories, and marked blindly by three independent markers, we amassed n = 300 data points. Students averaged 91.9% (SE:0.4), surpassing the highest performing AI submission category, GPT-4 with prompt engineering, which scored 81.1% (SE:0.8) - a statistically significant difference (p = 2.482 times 10^{-10}). Prompt engineering significantly improved scores for both GPT-4 (p = 1.661 times 10^{-4}) and GPT-3.5 (p = 4.967 times 10^{-9}). Additionally, the blinded markers were tasked with guessing the authorship of the submissions on a four-point Likert scale from `Definitely AI' to `Definitely Human'. They accurately identified the authorship, with 92.1% of the work categorized as 'Definitely Human' being human-authored. Simplifying this to a binary `AI' or `Human' categorization resulted in an average accuracy rate of 85.3%. These findings suggest that while AI-generated work closely approaches the quality of university students' work, it often remains detectable by human evaluators.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in scientific peer review, assisting with drafting, rewriting, expansion, and refinement. However, existing peer-review LLM detection methods largely treat authorship as a binary problem-human vs. AI-without accounting for the hybrid nature of modern review workflows. In practice, evaluative ideas and surface realization may originate from different sources, creating a spectrum of human-AI collaboration. In this work, we introduce PeerPrism, a large-scale benchmark of 20,690 peer reviews explicitly designed to disentangle idea provenance from text provenance. We construct controlled generation regimes spanning fully human, fully synthetic, and multiple hybrid transformations. This design enables systematic evaluation of whether detectors identify the origin of the surface text or the origin of the evaluative reasoning. We benchmark state-of-the-art LLM text detection methods on PeerPrism. While several methods achieve high accuracy on the standard binary task (human vs. fully synthetic), their predictions diverge sharply under hybrid regimes. In particular, when ideas originate from humans but the surface text is AI-generated, detectors frequently disagree and produce contradictory classifications. Accompanied by stylometric and semantic analyses, our results show that current detection methods conflate surface realization with intellectual contribution. Overall, we demonstrate that LLM detection in peer review cannot be reduced to a binary attribution problem. Instead, authorship must be modeled as a multidimensional construct spanning semantic reasoning and stylistic realization. PeerPrism is the first benchmark evaluating human-AI collaboration in these settings. We release all code, data, prompts, and evaluation scripts to facilitate reproducible research at https://github.com/Reviewerly-Inc/PeerPrism.

Recent auto-research systems can produce complete papers, but feasibility is not the same as quality, and the field still lacks a systematic study of how good agent-generated papers actually are. We introduce ResearchArena, a minimal scaffold that lets off-the-shelf agents (Claude Code using Opus 4.6, Codex using GPT-5.4, and Kimi Code using K2.5) carry out the full research loop themselves (ideation, experimentation, paper writing, self-refinement) under only lightweight guidance. Across 13 computer science seeds and 3 trials per agent-domain pair, ResearchArena yields 117 agent-generated papers, each evaluated under three complementary lenses: a manuscript-only reviewer (SAR), an artifact-aware peer review (PR) in which agents inspect the workspace alongside the manuscript, and an human conducted meta-review. Under SAR alone the picture is optimistic: Claude Code obtains the highest score, outperforms Analemma's FARS, and matches the weighted-average human ICLR 2025 submission, suggesting that minimally scaffolded agents can produce papers that look competitive on manuscript-only review. Manual inspection, however, reveals this picture is overstated: SAR scores are poorly aligned with its actual acceptance decisions and reward plausible framing without verifying experimental substance. Under artifact-aware PR scores drop sharply, and manual auditing identifies experimental rigor as the major bottleneck, decomposing into three failure modes (fabricated results, underpowered experiments, and plan/execution mismatch) that are highly agent-dependent: Codex 5%/8% paper-vs-artifact mismatch / fabricated references versus Kimi Code 77%/72%, a sim15times spread that tracks distinct research personas the agents develop. None of the 117 agent-generated papers reaches the acceptance bar of a top-tier venue. This suggests that we are still gapped from the true auto-research.

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

Drawing on 1,178 safety and reliability papers from 9,439 generative AI papers (January 2020 - March 2025), we compare research outputs of leading AI companies (Anthropic, Google DeepMind, Meta, Microsoft, and OpenAI) and AI universities (CMU, MIT, NYU, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and University of Washington). We find that corporate AI research increasingly concentrates on pre-deployment areas -- model alignment and testing & evaluation -- while attention to deployment-stage issues such as model bias has waned. Significant research gaps exist in high-risk deployment domains, including healthcare, finance, misinformation, persuasive and addictive features, hallucinations, and copyright. Without improved observability into deployed AI, growing corporate concentration could deepen knowledge deficits. We recommend expanding external researcher access to deployment data and systematic observability of in-market AI behaviors.

LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference. We instead ask: how far are current LLM-generated ideas from human researchers? To characterize this gap, we build a large-scale evaluation framework for ideation from high-quality human research papers. For each paper, we reverse-engineer a small set of closely related prior works that likely inspired its core idea. LLMs are then prompted to generate a new idea from the set of paper titles and summaries. We introduce a two-axis research-taste taxonomy to profile each idea by its opportunity pattern and research paradigm, and use it to quantify the divergence between human and LLM ideas. Across idea sets generated by different LLMs, we observe a consistent distributional gap: LLM ideas are disproportionately concentrated around bridge-like opportunities and synthesis methods, whereas the human paper reference distribution spreads more broadly across ways of framing gaps and constructing contributions. This result suggests that strong LLMs can produce a range of reasonable ideas, but that range remains narrower than, and systematically shifted relative to, human research taste.

The usage of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools based on large language models, including ChatGPT, Bard, and Claude, for text generation has many exciting applications with the potential for phenomenal productivity gains. One issue is authorship attribution when using AI tools. This is especially important in an academic setting where the inappropriate use of generative AI tools may hinder student learning or stifle research by creating a large amount of automatically generated derivative work. Existing plagiarism detection systems can trace the source of submitted text but are not yet equipped with methods to accurately detect AI-generated text. This paper introduces the idea of direct origin detection and evaluates whether generative AI systems can recognize their output and distinguish it from human-written texts. We argue why current transformer-based models may be able to self-detect their own generated text and perform a small empirical study using zero-shot learning to investigate if that is the case. Results reveal varying capabilities of AI systems to identify their generated text. Google's Bard model exhibits the largest capability of self-detection with an accuracy of 94\%, followed by OpenAI's ChatGPT with 83\%. On the other hand, Anthropic's Claude model seems to be not able to self-detect.

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.

Pre-trained language models (LMs) perform well in In-Topic setups, where training and testing data come from the same topics. However, they face challenges in Cross-Topic scenarios where testing data is derived from distinct topics -- such as Gun Control. This study analyzes various LMs with three probing-based experiments to shed light on the reasons behind the In- vs. Cross-Topic generalization gap. Thereby, we demonstrate, for the first time, that generalization gaps and the robustness of the embedding space vary significantly across LMs. Additionally, we assess larger LMs and underscore the relevance of our analysis for recent models. Overall, diverse pre-training objectives, architectural regularization, or data deduplication contribute to more robust LMs and diminish generalization gaps. Our research contributes to a deeper understanding and comparison of language models across different generalization scenarios.

Characters are the smallest unit of text that can extract stylometric signals to determine the author of a text. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of character-level signals in Authorship Attribution of Bangla Literature and show that the results are promising but improvable. The time and memory efficiency of the proposed model is much higher than the word level counterparts but accuracy is 2-5% less than the best performing word-level models. Comparison of various word-based models is performed and shown that the proposed model performs increasingly better with larger datasets. We also analyze the effect of pre-training character embedding of diverse Bangla character set in authorship attribution. It is seen that the performance is improved by up to 10% on pre-training. We used 2 datasets from 6 to 14 authors, balancing them before training and compare the results.

We present IXAM, an Interactive eXplainability framework for Authorship Attribution Models. Given an authorship attribution (AA) task and an embedding-based AA model, our tool enables users to interactively explore the model's embedding space and construct an explanation of the model's prediction as a set of writing style features at different levels of granularity. Through a user evaluation, we demonstrate the value of our framework compared to predefined stylistic explanations.

As language models become capable of processing increasingly long and complex texts, there has been growing interest in their application within computational literary studies. However, evaluating the usefulness of these models for such tasks remains challenging due to the cost of fine-grained annotation for long-form texts and the data contamination concerns inherent in using public-domain literature. Current embedding similarity datasets are not suitable for evaluating literary-domain tasks because of a focus on coarse-grained similarity and primarily on very short text. We assemble and release FICSIM, a dataset of long-form, recently written fiction, including scores along 12 axes of similarity informed by author-produced metadata and validated by digital humanities scholars. We evaluate a suite of embedding models on this task, demonstrating a tendency across models to focus on surface-level features over semantic categories that would be useful for computational literary studies tasks. Throughout our data-collection process, we prioritize author agency and rely on continual, informed author consent.

The use of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly publications has grown dramatically since the launch of ChatGPT in late 2022. This usage is often undisclosed, and it can be challenging for readers and reviewers to identify human written but LLM-revised or translated text, or predominantly LLM-generated text. Given the known quality and reliability issues connected with LLM-generated text, their potential growth poses an increasing problem for research integrity, and for public trust in research. This study presents a simple and easily reproducible methodology to show the growth in the full text of published papers, across the full range of research, as indexed in the Dimensions database. It uses this to demonstrate that LLM tools are likely to have been involved in the production of more than 10% of all published papers in 2024, based on disproportionate use of specific indicative words, and draws together earlier studies to confirm that this is a plausible overall estimate. It then discusses the implications of this for the integrity of scholarly publishing, highlighting evidence that use of LLMs for text generation is still being concealed or downplayed by authors, and presents an argument that more comprehensive disclosure requirements are urgently required to address this.

The present study attempts to highlight the research output generated in Russia in coronary artery disease (CAD) research during the period 1990-2019 to understand the distribution of research output, top journals for publications, and most prolific authors, authorship pattern, and citation pattern. This study is based on secondary data extracted from the Science Citation Index (SCI), which is an integral component of the Web of Science. Descriptive and inferential statistical techniques were applied in the study. There were 5058 articles by Russian scholars in coronary artery disease during 1990-2019; they preferred to publish in Russian journals. The research contributions were in the form of research articles, meeting abstracts and reviews with a consistent drop in the number of editorial material and article; proceedings paper with time. Co-authorship was the norm in coronary artery disease research, with a steady increase in the number of multi-author documents in recent years.

We analysed a sample of NLP research papers archived in ACL Anthology as an attempt to quantify the degree of openness and the benefit of such an open culture in the NLP community. We observe that papers published in different NLP venues show different patterns related to artefact reuse. We also note that more than 30% of the papers we analysed do not release their artefacts publicly, despite promising to do so. Further, we observe a wide language-wise disparity in publicly available NLP-related artefacts.

Authorship obfuscation aims to disguise the identity of an author within a text by altering the writing style, vocabulary, syntax, and other linguistic features associated with the text author. This alteration needs to balance privacy and utility. While strong obfuscation techniques can effectively hide the author's identity, they often degrade the quality and usefulness of the text for its intended purpose. Conversely, maintaining high utility tends to provide insufficient privacy, making it easier for an adversary to de-anonymize the author. Thus, achieving an optimal trade-off between these two conflicting objectives is crucial. In this paper, we propose TAROT: Task-Oriented Authorship Obfuscation Using Policy Optimization, a new unsupervised authorship obfuscation method whose goal is to optimize the privacy-utility trade-off by regenerating the entire text considering its downstream utility. Our approach leverages policy optimization as a fine-tuning paradigm over small language models in order to rewrite texts by preserving author identity and downstream task utility. We show that our approach largely reduce the accuracy of attackers while preserving utility. We make our code and models publicly available.

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/.

These names do not exist. Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived. We show that large language models do not merely default to high-probability individual names when generating fictional experts: they produce correlated character ensembles, pairs and trios whose co-occurrence rates far exceed chance and are consistent across independent generations. These priors are model-family-specific (Claude: Elena Vasquez + Marcus Chen + Amara Okafor; Gemini: Aris Thorne + Lena Petrova; GPT: Elara Voss with no fixed partner), version-specific, and actively suppressed at model release boundaries, leaving dateable behavioral fingerprints in the content they produced. We document a downstream consequence at scale. On Zenodo, a CERN-operated repository that mints real DataCite DOIs, we identify 1,655 ghost-authored records claiming nonexistent journals with fabricated publication dates: server-side DataCite timestamps prove deliberate backdating, and 991 records were registered in a single month; these carry real DOIs registered in DataCite, making them harvestable by any scholarly aggregator that ingests DOI metadata. Ghost names additionally appear on ResearchGate forming synthetic research groups with collaborators drawn from multiple model families; publication dates on these records provide a reliable temporal proxy for model deployment windows.

As agentic applications increasingly route user tasks through official and third-party LLM APIs, provenance becomes an operational question: which model generated a given black-box response? We study Dynamic Black-Box LLM Provenance: identifying the source LLM from generations elicited by query-varying, non-predefined prompts rather than a fixed input set or benchmark suite. This setting is difficult because prompt semantics dominate the text, while model-specific authorship traces are weak and inconsistent at the surface level. We introduce READER (Robust Evidence-based Authorship Decoding via Extracted Representations), a lightweight provenance framework that treats a frozen proxy LLM as a reader of hidden authorship evidence. READER maps black-box outputs into proxy activation space, temporally filters token states within each response, and performs Bayesian Evidence Accumulation by summing single-response log-posterior evidence across independently sampled prompts. This avoids fragile mean-pooling of prompt-specific representations while preserving the query-wise evidence needed for calibrated confidence. On Agent500, a 50-target dataset built from agent-style prompts, READER reaches 31.0-42.4% top-1 accuracy from a single response and 70.0-84.0% from 50 responses, substantially outperforming sentence-encoder fingerprints. Scaling across nine proxy readers further shows that stronger LLMs expose more linearly decodable authorship structure, suggesting that authorship perception is already present in frozen LLM representations and can be converted into reliable multi-query attribution.

Frontier LLM companies have repeatedly assured courts and regulators that their models do not store copies of training data. They further rely on safety alignment strategies via RLHF, system prompts, and output filters to block verbatim regurgitation of copyrighted works, and have cited the efficacy of these measures in their legal defenses against copyright infringement claims. We show that finetuning bypasses these protections: by training models to expand plot summaries into full text, a task naturally suited for commercial writing assistants, we cause GPT-4o, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.1 to reproduce up to 85-90% of held-out copyrighted books, with single verbatim spans exceeding 460 words, using only semantic descriptions as prompts and no actual book text. This extraction generalizes across authors: finetuning exclusively on Haruki Murakami's novels unlocks verbatim recall of copyrighted books from over 30 unrelated authors. The effect is not specific to any training author or corpus: random author pairs and public-domain finetuning data produce comparable extraction, while finetuning on synthetic text yields near-zero extraction, indicating that finetuning on individual authors' works reactivates latent memorization from pretraining. Three models from different providers memorize the same books in the same regions (r ge 0.90), pointing to an industry-wide vulnerability. Our findings offer compelling evidence that model weights store copies of copyrighted works and that the security failures that manifest after finetuning on individual authors' works undermine a key premise of recent fair use rulings, where courts have conditioned favorable outcomes on the adequacy of measures preventing reproduction of protected expression.

With the rise of prolific ChatGPT, the risk and consequences of AI-generated text has increased alarmingly. To address the inevitable question of ownership attribution for AI-generated artifacts, the US Copyright Office released a statement stating that 'If a work's traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it'. Furthermore, both the US and the EU governments have recently drafted their initial proposals regarding the regulatory framework for AI. Given this cynosural spotlight on generative AI, AI-generated text detection (AGTD) has emerged as a topic that has already received immediate attention in research, with some initial methods having been proposed, soon followed by emergence of techniques to bypass detection. This paper introduces the Counter Turing Test (CT^2), a benchmark consisting of techniques aiming to offer a comprehensive evaluation of the robustness of existing AGTD techniques. Our empirical findings unequivocally highlight the fragility of the proposed AGTD methods under scrutiny. Amidst the extensive deliberations on policy-making for regulating AI development, it is of utmost importance to assess the detectability of content generated by LLMs. Thus, to establish a quantifiable spectrum facilitating the evaluation and ranking of LLMs according to their detectability levels, we propose the AI Detectability Index (ADI). We conduct a thorough examination of 15 contemporary LLMs, empirically demonstrating that larger LLMs tend to have a higher ADI, indicating they are less detectable compared to smaller LLMs. We firmly believe that ADI holds significant value as a tool for the wider NLP community, with the potential to serve as a rubric in AI-related policy-making.

Diffusion models have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in generating high-quality samples and enhancing performance across diverse domains through Classifier-Free Guidance (CFG). However, the quality of generated samples is highly sensitive to the selection of the guidance weight. In this work, we identify a critical ``training-inference gap'' and we argue that it is the presence of this gap that undermines the performance of conditional generation and renders outputs highly sensitive to the guidance weight. We quantify this gap by measuring the accumulated error during the inference stage and establish a correlation between the selection of guidance weight and minimizing this gap. Furthermore, to mitigate this gap, we propose DiffIER, an optimization-based method for high-quality generation. We demonstrate that the accumulated error can be effectively reduced by an iterative error minimization at each step during inference. By introducing this novel plug-and-play optimization framework, we enable the optimization of errors at every single inference step and enhance generation quality. Empirical results demonstrate that our proposed method outperforms baseline approaches in conditional generation tasks. Furthermore, the method achieves consistent success in text-to-image generation, image super-resolution, and text-to-speech generation, underscoring its versatility and potential for broad applications in future research.

Patent prior-art retrieval becomes especially challenging when relevant disclosures cross technological boundaries. Existing benchmarks lack explicit domain partitions, making it difficult to assess how retrieval systems cope with such shifts. We introduce DAPFAM, a family-level benchmark with explicit IN-domain and OUT-domain partitions defined by a new IPC3 overlap scheme. The dataset contains 1,247 query families and 45,336 target families aggregated at the family level to reduce international redundancy, with citation based relevance judgments. We conduct 249 controlled experiments spanning lexical (BM25) and dense (transformer) backends, document and passage level retrieval, multiple query and document representations, aggregation strategies, and hybrid fusion via Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF). Results reveal a pronounced domain gap: OUT-domain performance remains roughly five times lower than IN-domain across all configurations. Passage-level retrieval consistently outperforms document-level, and dense methods provide modest gains over BM25, but none close the OUT-domain gap. Document-level RRF yields strong effectiveness efficiency trade-offs with minimal overhead. By exposing the persistent challenge of cross-domain retrieval, DAPFAM provides a reproducible, compute-aware testbed for developing more robust patent IR systems. The dataset is publicly available on huggingface at https://huggingface.co/datasets/datalyes/DAPFAM_patent.

As the number of accepted papers at AI and ML conferences reaches into the thousands, it has become unclear how researchers access and read research publications. In this paper, we investigate the role of social media influencers in enhancing the visibility of machine learning research, particularly the citation counts of papers they share. We have compiled a comprehensive dataset of over 8,000 papers, spanning tweets from December 2018 to October 2023, alongside controls precisely matched by 9 key covariates. Our statistical and causal inference analysis reveals a significant increase in citations for papers endorsed by these influencers, with median citation counts 2-3 times higher than those of the control group. Additionally, the study delves into the geographic, gender, and institutional diversity of highlighted authors. Given these findings, we advocate for a responsible approach to curation, encouraging influencers to uphold the journalistic standard that includes showcasing diverse research topics, authors, and institutions.

With the growing importance of detecting misinformation, many studies have focused on verifying factual claims by retrieving evidence. However, canonical fact verification tasks do not apply to catching subtle differences in factually consistent claims, which might still bias the readers, especially on contentious political or economic issues. Our underlying assumption is that among the trusted sources, one's argument is not necessarily more true than the other, requiring comparison rather than verification. In this study, we propose ClaimDiff, a novel dataset that primarily focuses on comparing the nuance between claim pairs. In ClaimDiff, we provide 2,941 annotated claim pairs from 268 news articles. We observe that while humans are capable of detecting the nuances between claims, strong baselines struggle to detect them, showing over a 19% absolute gap with the humans. We hope this initial study could help readers to gain an unbiased grasp of contentious issues through machine-aided comparison.

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

In scientific research, limitations refer to the shortcomings, constraints, or weaknesses within a study. Transparent reporting of such limitations can enhance the quality and reproducibility of research and improve public trust in science. However, authors often a) underreport them in the paper text and b) use hedging strategies to satisfy editorial requirements at the cost of readers' clarity and confidence. This underreporting behavior, along with an explosion in the number of publications, has created a pressing need to automatically extract or generate such limitations from scholarly papers. In this direction, we present a complete architecture for the computational analysis of research limitations. Specifically, we create a dataset of limitations in ACL, NeurIPS, and PeerJ papers by extracting them from papers' text and integrating them with external reviews; we propose methods to automatically generate them using a novel Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) technique; we create a fine-grained evaluation framework for generated limitations; and we provide a meta-evaluation for the proposed evaluation techniques.

How can we distinguish whether a peer review was written by a human or generated by an AI model? We argue that, in this setting, authorship should not be attributed solely from the textual features of a review, but also from the ideas, judgments, and claims it expresses. To this end, we propose Sem-Detect, an authorship detection method for peer reviews that operationalizes this principle by combining textual features with claim-level semantic analysis. Sem-Detect compares a target review against multiple AI-generated reviews of the same paper, leveraging the observation that different AI models tend to converge on similar points, while human reviewers introduce more unique and diverse ones. As a result, Sem-Detect is able to distinguish fully AI reviews from authentic human-written ones, including those that have been refined using an LLM but still reflect human judgment. Across a dataset of over 20,000 peer reviews from ICLR and NeurIPS conferences, Sem-Detect improves over the strongest baseline by 25.5% in TPR@0.1% FPR in the binary setting. Moreover, in the three-class scenario, we empirically show that LLM refinement preserves the semantic signals of human reviews, which remain distinct from the patterns exhibited by fully AI-generated text; as a result, fewer than 3.5% of LLM-refined human reviews are misclassified as AI-generated.

General large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have shown remarkable success, but it has also raised concerns among people about the misuse of AI-generated texts. Therefore, an important question is how to detect whether the texts are generated by ChatGPT or by humans. Existing detectors are built on the assumption that there is a distribution gap between human-generated and AI-generated texts. These gaps are typically identified using statistical information or classifiers. In contrast to prior research methods, we find that large language models such as ChatGPT exhibit strong self-consistency in text generation and continuation. Self-consistency capitalizes on the intuition that AI-generated texts can still be reasoned with by large language models using the same logical reasoning when portions of the texts are masked, which differs from human-generated texts. Using this observation, we subsequently proposed a new method for AI-generated texts detection based on self-consistency with masked predictions to determine whether a text is generated by LLMs. This method, which we call DetectGPT-SC. We conducted a series of experiments to evaluate the performance of DetectGPT-SC. In these experiments, we employed various mask scheme, zero-shot, and simple prompt for completing masked texts and self-consistency predictions. The results indicate that DetectGPT-SC outperforms the current state-of-the-art across different tasks.

Large Language Models, particularly decoder-only generative models such as GPT, are increasingly used to automate Software Engineering tasks. These models are primarily guided through natural language prompts, making prompt engineering a critical factor in system performance and behavior. Despite their growing role in SE research, prompt-related decisions are rarely documented in a systematic or transparent manner, hindering reproducibility and comparability across studies. To address this gap, we conducted a two-phase empirical study. First, we analyzed nearly 300 papers published at the top-3 SE conferences since 2022 to assess how prompt design, testing, and optimization are currently reported. Second, we surveyed 105 program committee members from these conferences to capture their expectations for prompt reporting in LLM-driven research. Based on the findings, we derived a structured guideline that distinguishes essential, desirable, and exceptional reporting elements. Our results reveal significant misalignment between current practices and reviewer expectations, particularly regarding version disclosure, prompt justification, and threats to validity. We present our guideline as a step toward improving transparency, reproducibility, and methodological rigor in LLM-based SE research.

Patent examination remains an ongoing challenge in the NLP literature even after the advent of large language models (LLMs), as it requires an extensive yet nuanced human judgment on whether a submitted claim meets the statutory standards of novelty and non-obviousness against previously granted claims -- prior art -- in expert domains. Previous NLP studies have approached this challenge as a prediction task (e.g., forecasting grant outcomes) with high-level proxies such as similarity metrics or classifiers trained on historical labels. However, this approach often overlooks the step-by-step evaluations that examiners must make with profound information, including rationales for the decisions provided in office actions documents, which also makes it harder to measure the current state of techniques in patent review processes. To fill this gap, we construct PANORAMA, a dataset of 8,143 U.S. patent examination records that preserves the full decision trails, including original applications, all cited references, Non-Final Rejections, and Notices of Allowance. Also, PANORAMA decomposes the trails into sequential benchmarks that emulate patent professionals' patent review processes and allow researchers to examine large language models' capabilities at each step of them. Our findings indicate that, although LLMs are relatively effective at retrieving relevant prior art and pinpointing the pertinent paragraphs, they struggle to assess the novelty and non-obviousness of patent claims. We discuss these results and argue that advancing NLP, including LLMs, in the patent domain requires a deeper understanding of real-world patent examination. Our dataset is openly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/LG-AI-Research/PANORAMA.

Research is a fundamental process driving the advancement of human civilization, yet it demands substantial time and effort from researchers. In recent years, the rapid development of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has inspired researchers to explore how AI can accelerate and enhance research. To monitor relevant advancements, this paper presents a systematic review of the progress in this domain. Specifically, we organize the relevant studies into three main categories: hypothesis formulation, hypothesis validation, and manuscript publication. Hypothesis formulation involves knowledge synthesis and hypothesis generation. Hypothesis validation includes the verification of scientific claims, theorem proving, and experiment validation. Manuscript publication encompasses manuscript writing and the peer review process. Furthermore, we identify and discuss the current challenges faced in these areas, as well as potential future directions for research. Finally, we also offer a comprehensive overview of existing benchmarks and tools across various domains that support the integration of AI into the research process. We hope this paper serves as an introduction for beginners and fosters future research. Resources have been made publicly available at https://github.com/zkzhou126/AI-for-Research.

Wikipedia's contents are based on reliable and published sources. To this date, relatively little is known about what sources Wikipedia relies on, in part because extracting citations and identifying cited sources is challenging. To close this gap, we release Wikipedia Citations, a comprehensive dataset of citations extracted from Wikipedia. A total of 29.3M citations were extracted from 6.1M English Wikipedia articles as of May 2020, and classified as being to books, journal articles or Web contents. We were thus able to extract 4.0M citations to scholarly publications with known identifiers -- including DOI, PMC, PMID, and ISBN -- and further equip an extra 261K citations with DOIs from Crossref. As a result, we find that 6.7% of Wikipedia articles cite at least one journal article with an associated DOI, and that Wikipedia cites just 2% of all articles with a DOI currently indexed in the Web of Science. We release our code to allow the community to extend upon our work and update the dataset in the future.

We propose a new approach for the authorship attribution task that leverages the various linguistic representations learned at different layers of pre-trained transformer-based models. We evaluate our approach on three datasets, comparing it to a state-of-the-art baseline in in-domain and out-of-domain scenarios. We found that utilizing various transformer layers improves the robustness of authorship attribution models when tested on out-of-domain data, resulting in new state-of-the-art results. Our analysis gives further insights into how our model's different layers get specialized in representing certain stylistic features that benefit the model when tested out of the domain.

LLM-generated peer reviews are increasingly common at major venues, yet their deficiencies are hard to detect because they are uniformly fluent and well-structured. Existing work either classifies authorship without judging quality, or scores quality with features designed for human-written reviews; no prior system detects deficiencies in LLM-generated reviews at the level of individual defect types. To bridge the gap, we introduce TADDLE, a Tool-Augmented Agent for Detecting Deficient LLM-Generated Peer Reviews, together with the first expert-annotated benchmark for this task. Our benchmark comprises 1,800 reviews on 50 ICLR 2025 papers, multi-label-annotated by 18 domain experts against a taxonomy of six defect categories (plus a non-deficient label). TADDLE decomposes detection into four specialized analysis tools -- Verify, Correct, Complete, and Transform -- orchestrated by an agent; an integrator synthesizes their outputs into binary and multi-label classifications via two-stage semi-supervised learning. Extensive experiments show that TADDLE performs strongly on both binary detection and the multi-label classification task. We release the benchmark and code at https://github.com/AquariusAQ/TADDLE.

Tracing connections between historical texts is an important part of intertextual research, enabling scholars to reconstruct the virtual library of a writer and identify the sources influencing their creative process. These intertextual links manifest in diverse forms, ranging from direct verbatim quotations to subtle allusions and paraphrases disguised by morphological variation. Language models offer a promising path forward due to their capability of capturing semantic similarity beyond lexical overlap. However, the development of new methods for this task is held back by the scarcity of standardized benchmarks and easy-to-use datasets. We address this gap by introducing Loci Similes, a benchmark for Latin intertextuality detection comprising of a curated dataset of ~172k text segments containing 545 expert-verified parallels linking Late Antique authors to a corpus of classical authors. Using this data, we establish baselines for retrieval and classification of intertextualities with state-of-the-art LLMs.

The increasing adoption of large language models (LLMs) has been accompanied by growing concerns regarding their reliability and trustworthiness. As a result, a growing body of research focuses on evidence-based text generation with LLMs, aiming to link model outputs to supporting evidence to ensure traceability and verifiability. However, the field is fragmented due to inconsistent terminology, isolated evaluation practices, and a lack of unified benchmarks. To bridge this gap, we systematically analyze 134 papers, introduce a unified taxonomy of evidence-based text generation with LLMs, and investigate 300 evaluation metrics across seven key dimensions. Thereby, we focus on approaches that use citations, attribution, or quotations for evidence-based text generation. Building on this, we examine the distinctive characteristics and representative methods in the field. Finally, we highlight open challenges and outline promising directions for future work.

HAL (Hyper Articles en Ligne) is the French national publication repository, used by most higher education and research organizations for their open science policy. As a digital library, it is a rich repository of scholarly documents, but its potential for advanced research has been underutilized. We present HALvest, a unique dataset that bridges the gap between citation networks and the full text of papers submitted on HAL. We craft our dataset by filtering HAL for scholarly publications, resulting in approximately 700,000 documents, spanning 34 languages across 13 identified domains, suitable for language model training, and yielding approximately 16.5 billion tokens (with 8 billion in French and 7 billion in English, the most represented languages). We transform the metadata of each paper into a citation network, producing a directed heterogeneous graph. This graph includes uniquely identified authors on HAL, as well as all open submitted papers, and their citations. We provide a baseline for authorship attribution using the dataset, implement a range of state-of-the-art models in graph representation learning for link prediction, and discuss the usefulness of our generated knowledge graph structure.

Recent large language models (LLMs) can generate and revise text with human-level performance, and have been widely commercialized in systems like ChatGPT. These models come with clear limitations: they can produce inaccurate information, reinforce existing biases, and be easily misused. Yet, many scientists have been using them to assist their scholarly writing. How wide-spread is LLM usage in the academic literature currently? To answer this question, we use an unbiased, large-scale approach, free from any assumptions on academic LLM usage. We study vocabulary changes in 14 million PubMed abstracts from 2010-2024, and show how the appearance of LLMs led to an abrupt increase in the frequency of certain style words. Our analysis based on excess words usage suggests that at least 10% of 2024 abstracts were processed with LLMs. This lower bound differed across disciplines, countries, and journals, and was as high as 30% for some PubMed sub-corpora. We show that the appearance of LLM-based writing assistants has had an unprecedented impact in the scientific literature, surpassing the effect of major world events such as the Covid pandemic.

Recent domain generalization (DG) approaches typically use the hypothesis learned on source domains for inference on the unseen target domain. However, such a hypothesis can be arbitrarily far from the optimal one for the target domain, induced by a gap termed ``adaptivity gap''. Without exploiting the domain information from the unseen test samples, adaptivity gap estimation and minimization are intractable, which hinders us to robustify a model to any unknown distribution. In this paper, we first establish a generalization bound that explicitly considers the adaptivity gap. Our bound motivates two strategies to reduce the gap: the first one is ensembling multiple classifiers to enrich the hypothesis space, then we propose effective gap estimation methods for guiding the selection of a better hypothesis for the target. The other method is minimizing the gap directly by adapting model parameters using online target samples. We thus propose Domain-specific Risk Minimization (DRM). During training, DRM models the distributions of different source domains separately; for inference, DRM performs online model steering using the source hypothesis for each arriving target sample. Extensive experiments demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed DRM for domain generalization with the following advantages: 1) it significantly outperforms competitive baselines on different distributional shift settings; 2) it achieves either comparable or superior accuracies on all source domains compared to vanilla empirical risk minimization; 3) it remains simple and efficient during training, and 4) it is complementary to invariant learning approaches.

This study presents a comparative analysis of 55 Wikipedia language editions employing a citation index alongside a synthetic quality measure. Specifically, we identified the most significant Wikipedia articles within distinct topical areas, selecting the top 10, top 25, and top 100 most cited articles in each topic and language version. This index was built on the basis of wikilinks between Wikipedia articles in each language version and in order to do that we processed 6.6 billion page-to-page link records. Next, we used a quality score for each Wikipedia article - a synthetic measure scaled from 0 to 100. This approach enabled quality comparison of Wikipedia articles even between language versions with different quality grading schemes. Our results highlight disparities among Wikipedia language editions, revealing strengths and gaps in content coverage and quality across topics.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have enabled the generation of open-ended high-quality texts, that are non-trivial to distinguish from human-written texts. We refer to such LLM-generated texts as deepfake texts. There are currently over 11K text generation models in the huggingface model repo. As such, users with malicious intent can easily use these open-sourced LLMs to generate harmful texts and misinformation at scale. To mitigate this problem, a computational method to determine if a given text is a deepfake text or not is desired--i.e., Turing Test (TT). In particular, in this work, we investigate the more general version of the problem, known as Authorship Attribution (AA), in a multi-class setting--i.e., not only determining if a given text is a deepfake text or not but also being able to pinpoint which LLM is the author. We propose TopRoBERTa to improve existing AA solutions by capturing more linguistic patterns in deepfake texts by including a Topological Data Analysis (TDA) layer in the RoBERTa model. We show the benefits of having a TDA layer when dealing with noisy, imbalanced, and heterogeneous datasets, by extracting TDA features from the reshaped pooled_output of RoBERTa as input. We use RoBERTa to capture contextual representations (i.e., semantic and syntactic linguistic features), while using TDA to capture the shape and structure of data (i.e., linguistic structures). Finally, TopRoBERTa, outperforms the vanilla RoBERTa in 2/3 datasets, achieving up to 7\% increase in Macro F1 score.

Identifying and articulating limitations is essential for transparent and rigorous scientific research. However, zero-shot large language models (LLMs) approach often produce superficial or general limitation statements (e.g., dataset bias or generalizability). They usually repeat limitations reported by authors without looking at deeper methodological issues and contextual gaps. This problem is made worse because many authors disclose only partial or trivial limitations. We propose LimAgents, a multi-agent LLM framework for generating substantive limitations. LimAgents integrates OpenReview comments and author-stated limitations to provide stronger ground truth. It also uses cited and citing papers to capture broader contextual weaknesses. In this setup, different agents have specific roles as sequential role: some extract explicit limitations, others analyze methodological gaps, some simulate the viewpoint of a peer reviewer, and a citation agent places the work within the larger body of literature. A Judge agent refines their outputs, and a Master agent consolidates them into a clear set. This structure allows for systematic identification of explicit, implicit, peer review-focused, and literature-informed limitations. Moreover, traditional NLP metrics like BLEU, ROUGE, and cosine similarity rely heavily on n-gram or embedding overlap. They often overlook semantically similar limitations. To address this, we introduce a pointwise evaluation protocol that uses an LLM-as-a-Judge to measure coverage more accurately. Experiments show that LimAgents substantially improve performance. The RAG + multi-agent GPT-4o mini configuration achieves a +15.51% coverage gain over zero-shot baselines, while the Llama 3 8B multi-agent setup yields a +4.41% improvement.

Patient education materials for solid-organ transplantation vary substantially across U.S. centers, yet no systematic method exists to quantify this heterogeneity at scale. We introduce a framework that grounds the same patient questions in different centers' handbooks using retrieval-augmented language models and compares the resulting answers using a five-label consistency taxonomy. Applied to 102 handbooks from 23 centers and 1,115 benchmark questions, the framework quantifies heterogeneity across four dimensions: question, topic, organ, and center. We find that 20.8% of non-absent pairwise comparisons exhibit clinically meaningful divergence, concentrated in condition monitoring and lifestyle topics. Coverage gaps are even more prominent: 96.2% of question-handbook pairs miss relevant content, with reproductive health at 95.1% absence. Center-level divergence profiles are stable and interpretable, where heterogeneity reflects systematic institutional differences, likely due to patient diversity. These findings expose an information gap in transplant patient education materials, with document-grounded medical question answering highlighting opportunities for content improvement.

In the field of Computer Science, conference and workshop papers serve as important contributions, carrying substantial weight in research assessment processes, compared to other disciplines. However, a considerable number of these papers are not assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI), hence their citations are not reported in widely used citation datasets like OpenCitations and Crossref, raising limitations to citation analysis. While the Microsoft Academic Graph (MAG) previously addressed this issue by providing substantial coverage, its discontinuation has created a void in available data. BIP! NDR aims to alleviate this issue and enhance the research assessment processes within the field of Computer Science. To accomplish this, it leverages a workflow that identifies and retrieves Open Science papers lacking DOIs from the DBLP Corpus, and by performing text analysis, it extracts citation information directly from their full text. The current version of the dataset contains more than 510K citations made by approximately 60K open access Computer Science conference or workshop papers that, according to DBLP, do not have a DOI.

Probably not, at least for meta-analyses in economics. In a pre-registered, identity-masked, within-paper experiment, the authors of 44 meta-analyses ranked three AI reports on their own paper by usefulness for improving it: a single pass by a frontier model against two multi-agent debate tools we built and expected to win. All reports were held to a common length and template. The authors preferred the single pass, by 0.66 rank points over mad-research (95% CI 0.32 to 1.00) and 0.57 over paper-workshop (0.16 to 0.95), though paper-workshop spent roughly thirty times the tokens. Authors who recalled their journal referee report usually placed it first and never last; in a separate exercise, three AI judges almost always placed the real journal referee report last. Among the three AI reports, Gemini (the judge whose model family wrote none of the reports) would have ranked paper-workshop first in the authors' place, reversing the single-pass preference. The reversal warns against substituting an AI judge for the author. We measure perceived usefulness for finished papers; whether AI should referee papers is a separate question.

Many recent improvements in NLP stem from the development and use of large pre-trained language models (PLMs) with billions of parameters. Large model sizes makes computational cost one of the main limiting factors for training and evaluating such models; and has raised severe concerns about the sustainability, reproducibility, and inclusiveness for researching PLMs. These concerns are often based on personal experiences and observations. However, there had not been any large-scale surveys that investigate them. In this work, we provide a first attempt to quantify these concerns regarding three topics, namely, environmental impact, equity, and impact on peer reviewing. By conducting a survey with 312 participants from the NLP community, we capture existing (dis)parities between different and within groups with respect to seniority, academia, and industry; and their impact on the peer reviewing process. For each topic, we provide an analysis and devise recommendations to mitigate found disparities, some of which already successfully implemented. Finally, we discuss additional concerns raised by many participants in free-text responses.

The exponential growth of knowledge and the increasing complexity of interdisciplinary research pose significant challenges for researchers, including information overload and difficulties in exploring novel ideas. The advancements in large language models (LLMs), such as GPT-4, have shown great potential in enhancing idea proposals, but how to effectively utilize large models for reasonable idea proposal has not been thoroughly explored. This paper proposes a scientific paper idea proposer (SciPIP). Based on a user-provided research background, SciPIP retrieves helpful papers from a literature database while leveraging the capabilities of LLMs to generate more novel and feasible ideas. To this end, 1) we construct a literature retrieval database, extracting lots of papers' multi-dimension information for fast access. Then, a literature retrieval method based on semantics, entity, and citation co-occurrences is proposed to search relevant literature from multiple aspects based on the user-provided background. 2) After literature retrieval, we introduce dual-path idea proposal strategies, where one path infers solutions from the retrieved literature and the other path generates original ideas through model brainstorming. We then combine the two to achieve a good balance between feasibility and originality. Through extensive experiments on the natural language processing (NLP) field, we demonstrate that SciPIP can retrieve citations similar to those of existing top conference papers and generate many ideas consistent with them. Additionally, we evaluate the originality of other ideas generated by SciPIP using large language models, further validating the effectiveness of our proposed method. The code and the database are released at https://github.com/cheerss/SciPIP.

Large language models (LLMs) have significantly impacted human society, influencing various domains. Among them, academia is not simply a domain affected by LLMs, but it is also the pivotal force in the development of LLMs. In academic publications, this phenomenon is represented during the incorporation of LLMs into the peer review mechanism for reviewing manuscripts. We proposed the concept of automated scholarly paper review (ASPR) in our previous paper. As the incorporation grows, it now enters the coexistence phase of ASPR and peer review, which is described in that paper. LLMs hold transformative potential for the full-scale implementation of ASPR, but they also pose new issues and challenges that need to be addressed. In this survey paper, we aim to provide a holistic view of ASPR in the era of LLMs. We begin with a survey to find out which LLMs are used to conduct ASPR. Then, we review what ASPR-related technological bottlenecks have been solved with the incorporation of LLM technology. After that, we move on to explore new methods, new datasets, new source code, and new online systems that come with LLMs for ASPR. Furthermore, we summarize the performance and issues of LLMs in ASPR, and investigate the attitudes and reactions of publishers and academia to ASPR. Lastly, we discuss the challenges associated with the development of LLMs for ASPR. We hope this survey can serve as an inspirational reference for the researchers and promote the progress of ASPR for its actual implementation.

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.

As LLMs rapidly advance, increasing concerns arise regarding risks about actual authorship of texts we see online and in real world. The task of distinguishing LLM-authored texts is complicated by the nuanced and overlapping behaviors of both machines and humans. In this paper, we challenge the current practice of considering LLM-generated text detection a binary classification task of differentiating human from AI. Instead, we introduce a novel ternary text classification scheme, adding an "undecided" category for texts that could be attributed to either source, and we show that this new category is crucial to understand how to make the detection result more explainable to lay users. This research shifts the paradigm from merely classifying to explaining machine-generated texts, emphasizing need for detectors to provide clear and understandable explanations to users. Our study involves creating four new datasets comprised of texts from various LLMs and human authors. Based on new datasets, we performed binary classification tests to ascertain the most effective SOTA detection methods and identified SOTA LLMs capable of producing harder-to-detect texts. We constructed a new dataset of texts generated by two top-performing LLMs and human authors, and asked three human annotators to produce ternary labels with explanation notes. This dataset was used to investigate how three top-performing SOTA detectors behave in new ternary classification context. Our results highlight why "undecided" category is much needed from the viewpoint of explainability. Additionally, we conducted an analysis of explainability of the three best-performing detectors and the explanation notes of the human annotators, revealing insights about the complexity of explainable detection of machine-generated texts. Finally, we propose guidelines for developing future detection systems with improved explanatory power.

It has become routine to report research results where Large Language Models (LLMs) outperform average humans in a wide range of language-related tasks, and creative text writing is no exception. It seems natural, then, to raise the bid: Are LLMs ready to compete in creative writing skills with a top (rather than average) novelist? To provide an initial answer for this question, we have carried out a contest between Patricio Pron (an awarded novelist, considered one of the best of his generation) and GPT-4 (one of the top performing LLMs), in the spirit of AI-human duels such as DeepBlue vs Kasparov and AlphaGo vs Lee Sidol. We asked Pron and GPT-4 to provide thirty titles each, and then to write short stories for both their titles and their opponent's. Then, we prepared an evaluation rubric inspired by Boden's definition of creativity, and we collected 5,400 manual assessments provided by literature critics and scholars. The results of our experimentation indicate that LLMs are still far from challenging a top human creative writer, and that reaching such level of autonomous creative writing skills probably cannot be reached simply with larger language models.

The COVID-19 pandemic has been severely impacting global society since December 2019. Massive research has been undertaken to understand the characteristics of the virus and design vaccines and drugs. The related findings have been reported in biomedical literature at a rate of about 10,000 articles on COVID-19 per month. Such rapid growth significantly challenges manual curation and interpretation. For instance, LitCovid is a literature database of COVID-19-related articles in PubMed, which has accumulated more than 200,000 articles with millions of accesses each month by users worldwide. One primary curation task is to assign up to eight topics (e.g., Diagnosis and Treatment) to the articles in LitCovid. Despite the continuing advances in biomedical text mining methods, few have been dedicated to topic annotations in COVID-19 literature. To close the gap, we organized the BioCreative LitCovid track to call for a community effort to tackle automated topic annotation for COVID-19 literature. The BioCreative LitCovid dataset, consisting of over 30,000 articles with manually reviewed topics, was created for training and testing. It is one of the largest multilabel classification datasets in biomedical scientific literature. 19 teams worldwide participated and made 80 submissions in total. Most teams used hybrid systems based on transformers. The highest performing submissions achieved 0.8875, 0.9181, and 0.9394 for macro F1-score, micro F1-score, and instance-based F1-score, respectively. The level of participation and results demonstrate a successful track and help close the gap between dataset curation and method development. The dataset is publicly available via https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/lu/LitCovid/biocreative/ for benchmarking and further development.

Effective scientific communication depends on accurate citations that validate sources and guide readers to supporting evidence. Yet academic literature faces mounting challenges: semantic citation errors that misrepresent sources, AI-generated hallucinated references, and traditional citation formats that point to entire papers without indicating which sections substantiate specific claims. We introduce SemanticCite, an AI-powered system that verifies citation accuracy through full-text source analysis while providing rich contextual information via detailed reasoning and relevant text snippets. Our approach combines multiple retrieval methods with a four-class classification system (Supported, Partially Supported, Unsupported, Uncertain) that captures nuanced claim-source relationships and enables appropriate remedial actions for different error types. Our experiments show that fine-tuned lightweight language models achieve performance comparable to large commercial systems with significantly lower computational requirements, making large-scale citation verification practically feasible. The system provides transparent, evidence-based explanations that support user understanding and trust. We contribute a comprehensive dataset of over 1,000 citations with detailed alignments, functional classifications, semantic annotations, and bibliometric metadata across eight disciplines, alongside fine-tuned models and the complete verification framework as open-source software. SemanticCite addresses critical challenges in research integrity through scalable citation verification, streamlined peer review, and quality control for AI-generated content, providing an open-source foundation for maintaining citation accuracy at scale.

Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R\&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.

Majority voting over multiple LLM attempts improves mathematical reasoning, but correlated errors limit the effective sample size. A natural fix is to assign different reasoning strategies to different voters. The approach, Diverse Prompt Mixer, is tested on the AIMO 3 competition: 3 models, 23+ experiments, 50 IMO-level problems, one H100 80 GB, 5-hour limit. Every prompt-level intervention fails. High-temperature sampling already decorrelates errors; weaker strategies reduce accuracy more than they reduce correlation. Across an 8-point capability gap at equal N=8 and every optimization tested, model capability dominates. The gap between the best majority-vote score (42/50) and pass@20 (~45.5) is selection loss, not prompt loss. A verifier-based selector could close it. Prompt engineering cannot.

The prerequisite of many approaches to authorship analysis is a representation of writing style. But despite decades of research, it still remains unclear to what extent commonly used and widely accepted representations like character trigram frequencies actually represent an author's writing style, in contrast to more domain-specific style components or even topic. We address this shortcoming for the first time in a novel experimental setup of fixed authors but swapped domains between training and testing. With this setup, we reveal that approaches using character trigram features are highly susceptible to favor domain information when applied without attention to domains, suffering drops of up to 55.4 percentage points in classification accuracy under domain swapping. We further propose a new remedy based on domain-adversarial learning and compare it to ones from the literature based on heuristic rules. Both can work well, reducing accuracy losses under domain swapping to 3.6% and 3.9%, respectively.

Authorship obfuscation, rewriting a text to intentionally obscure the identity of the author, is an important but challenging task. Current methods using large language models (LLMs) lack interpretability and controllability, often ignoring author-specific stylistic features, resulting in less robust performance overall. To address this, we develop StyleRemix, an adaptive and interpretable obfuscation method that perturbs specific, fine-grained style elements of the original input text. StyleRemix uses pre-trained Low Rank Adaptation (LoRA) modules to rewrite an input specifically along various stylistic axes (e.g., formality and length) while maintaining low computational cost. StyleRemix outperforms state-of-the-art baselines and much larger LLMs in a variety of domains as assessed by both automatic and human evaluation. Additionally, we release AuthorMix, a large set of 30K high-quality, long-form texts from a diverse set of 14 authors and 4 domains, and DiSC, a parallel corpus of 1,500 texts spanning seven style axes in 16 unique directions

Claims that language models homogenise are usually measured against human judgements collected for the study, which makes the human side an artifact of the design: a crowdworker given the model's instruction is running the model's prompt. We measure convergence against a human reference nobody built for the purpose -- 2,523 reader mark sets across 120 web documents, produced by people highlighting for their own reasons on a platform where the overlay of others' marks is off by default. Agreement is the overlap between two size-matched sentence sets minus the overlap expected when each is resampled within its own depth-and-length bands. The null's calibration is demonstrated, not asserted: every pair involving a random baseline lands within 0.006 of zero. On the median document each party names 14 sentences of 70; two readers share 4.1 and two models 8.7. Across 18 model arms spanning 11 vendors, 3 countries and both weight regimes, the median of 153 model pairs is +0.093 against a human yardstick of +0.040, and 99 sit entirely above the human interval. Two frontier models from rival labs reach +0.203, twice what GPT-4o agrees with itself on a second call. The effect is not determinism, prompt wording, procedure, vendor or routing, and it is graded: the smallest models agree at the human level. No model agrees with readers detectably more than a reader does, and at equal depth and length no surface feature separates their choices. The multiples are procedure-dependent and the ordering is not: models are cut to their sharpest set while a reader's is a random draw from what they marked, and blunting the models alike halves the gap without closing it. Tested out of sample on four models released after this analysis, against predictions fixed beforehand, none clears the human interval. A population simulated from several models is not several populations.

This scientometric study analyzes Avian Influenza research from 2014 to 2023 using bibliographic data from the Web of Science database. We examined publication trends, sources, authorship, collaborative networks, document types, and geographical distribution to gain insights into the global research landscape. Results reveal a steady increase in publications, with high contributions from Chinese and American institutions. Journals such as PLoS One and the Journal of Virology published the highest number of studies, indicating their influence in this field. The most prolific institutions include the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the University of Hong Kong, while the College of Veterinary Medicine at South China Agricultural University emerged as the most productive department. China and the USA lead in publication volume, though developed nations like the United Kingdom and Germany exhibit a higher rate of international collaboration. "Articles" are the most common document type, constituting 84.6% of the total, while "Reviews" account for 7.6%. This study provides a comprehensive view of global trends in Avian Influenza research, emphasizing the need for collaborative efforts across borders.

Prior work in style-controlled text generation has focused on tasks such as emulating the style of prolific literary authors, producing formal or informal text, and the degree of toxicity of generated text. Plentiful demonstrations of these styles are available, and as a result modern language models are often able to emulate them, either via prompting or discriminative control. However, in applications such as writing assistants, it is desirable for language models to produce text in an author-specific style on the basis of a small writing sample. We find that instruction-tuned language models can struggle to reproduce author-specific style demonstrated in a prompt. Instead, we propose to guide a language model to generate text in a target style using contrastively-trained representations that capture stylometric features. A central challenge in doing so is that an author's writing is characterized by surprising token choices under a generic language model. To reconcile this tension, we combine generative re-scoring to achieve an author-specific model, with discriminative control to ensure style consistency at the sequence-level. The combination of these approaches is found to be particularly effective at adhering to an author-specific style in a variety of conditions, including unconditional generation and style transfer, and is applicable to any underlying language model without requiring fine-tuning.

ResearchPilot is an open-source, self-hostable multi-agent system for literature-review assistance. Given a natural-language research question, it retrieves papers from Semantic Scholar and arXiv, extracts structured findings from paper abstracts, synthesizes cross-paper patterns, and drafts a citation-aware related-work section. The system combines FastAPI, Next.js, DSPy, SQLite, and Qdrant in a local-first architecture that supports bring-your-own-key model access and remote-or-local embeddings. This paper describes the system design, typed agent interfaces, persistence and history-search mechanisms, and the engineering tradeoffs involved in building a transparent research assistant. Rather than claiming algorithmic novelty, we present ResearchPilot as a systems contribution and evaluate it through automated tests and end-to-end local runs. We discuss limitations including external API rate limits, abstract-only extraction, incomplete corpus coverage, and the lack of citation verification.

Multilingual language models (LMs) promise broader NLP access, yet current systems deliver uneven performance across the world's languages. This survey examines why these gaps persist and whether they reflect intrinsic linguistic difficulty or modeling artifacts. We organize the literature around two questions: do linguistic disparities arise from representation and allocation choices (e.g., tokenization, encoding, data exposure, parameter sharing) rather than inherent complexity; and which design choices mitigate inequities across typologically diverse languages. We review linguistic features, such as orthography, morphology, lexical diversity, syntax, information density, and typological distance, linking each to concrete modeling mechanisms. Gaps often shrink when segmentation, encoding, and data exposure are normalized, suggesting much apparent difficulty stems from current modeling choices. We synthesize these insights into design recommendations for tokenization, sampling, architectures, and evaluation to support more balanced multilingual LMs.

As autonomous LLM-based agents increasingly populate social platforms, understanding the dynamics of AI-agent communities becomes essential for both communication research and platform governance. We present the first large-scale empirical comparison of AI-agent and human online communities, analyzing 73,899 Moltbook and 189,838 Reddit posts across five matched communities. Structurally, we find that Moltbook exhibits extreme participation inequality (Gini = 0.84 vs. 0.47) and high cross-community author overlap (33.8\% vs. 0.5\%). In terms of linguistic attributes, content generated by AI-agents is emotionally flattened, cognitively shifted toward assertion over exploration, and socially detached. These differences give rise to apparent community-level homogenization, but we show this is primarily a structural artifact of shared authorship. At the author level, individual agents are more identifiable than human users, driven by outlier stylistic profiles amplified by their extreme posting volume. As AI-mediated communication reshapes online discourse, our work offers an empirical foundation for understanding how multi-agent interaction gives rise to collective communication dynamics distinct from those of human communities.

Textual content is often the output of a collaborative writing process: We start with an initial draft, ask for suggestions, and repeatedly make changes. Agnostic of this process, today's language models are trained to generate only the final result. As a consequence, they lack several abilities crucial for collaborative writing: They are unable to update existing texts, difficult to control and incapable of verbally planning or explaining their actions. To address these shortcomings, we introduce PEER, a collaborative language model that is trained to imitate the entire writing process itself: PEER can write drafts, add suggestions, propose edits and provide explanations for its actions. Crucially, we train multiple instances of PEER able to infill various parts of the writing process, enabling the use of self-training techniques for increasing the quality, amount and diversity of training data. This unlocks PEER's full potential by making it applicable in domains for which no edit histories are available and improving its ability to follow instructions, to write useful comments, and to explain its actions. We show that PEER achieves strong performance across various domains and editing tasks.

AI coding agents now read repositories, call tools, and execute shell commands with limited human oversight, and a fast-growing body of work studies whether the execution layer around them is actually safe. That literature is scattered. Papers on sandbox isolation, capability and access control, policy enforcement, time-of-check-to-time-of-use (TOCTOU) races, Model Context Protocol (MCP) threats, identity delegation, execution provenance, network egress control, and static analysis of agent-generated code are published independently and rarely cite one another. We systematize 39 papers published between 2023 and 2026 into 17 categories, each verified directly against its source. The same verification protocol also confirms four disclosed, patched CVEs directly affecting production agent harnesses. Reading across categories surfaces five cross-cutting gaps that no single paper addresses. (1) Isolation architectures and capability models are almost never evaluated against one another on a shared benchmark. (2) Policy-enforcement studies report failure rates from 69% to 98% of real denylists, yet no isolation paper re-evaluates its own defense under that adversarial setting. (3) TOCTOU and MCP threats are analyzed as separate literatures despite both being instances of the same state-validation problem. (4) Every enforcement mechanism assumes an honest policy author, leaving policy-authoring error itself unaddressed. (5) Benign but out-of-scope agent actions occurring at rates up to 17.1% under realistic prompting are addressed by no access-control or capability paper in the corpus. Existing broader surveys of agentic AI security discuss sandboxing only as one item among many defenses, leaving execution security without a dedicated systematization. This paper is written to fill that gap. We conclude with a research agenda directed at the five gaps.

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.

Behaviour-Driven Development (BDD) suites accumulate step-text duplication whose maintenance cost is established in prior work. Existing detection techniques require running the tests (Binamungu et al., 2018-2023) or are confined to a single organisation (Irshad et al., 2020-2022), leaving a gap: a purely static, paraphrase-robust, step-level detector usable on any repository. We fill the gap with cukereuse, an open-source Python CLI combining exact hashing, Levenshtein ratio, and sentence-transformer embeddings in a layered pipeline, released alongside an empirical corpus of 347 public GitHub repositories, 23,667 parsed .feature files, and 1,113,616 Gherkin steps. The step-weighted exact-duplicate rate is 80.2 %; the median-repository rate is 58.6 % (Spearman rho = 0.51 with size). The top hybrid cluster groups 20.7k occurrences across 2.2k files. Against 1,020 pairs manually labelled by the three authors under a released rubric (inter-annotator Fleiss' kappa = 0.84 on a 60-pair overlap), we report precision, recall, and F1 with bootstrap 95 % CIs under two protocols: the primary rubric and a score-free second-pass relabelling. The strongest honest pair-level number is near-exact at F1 = 0.822 on score-free labels; the primary-rubric semantic F1 = 0.906 is inflated by a stratification artefact that pins recall at 1.000. Lexical baselines (SourcererCC-style, NiCad-style) reach primary F1 = 0.761 and 0.799. The paper also presents a CDN-structured critique of Gherkin (Cognitive Dimensions of Notations); eight of fourteen dimensions are rated problematic or unsupported. The tool, corpus, labelled pairs, rubric, and pipeline are released under permissive licences.

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

Large Language Models provide significant new opportunities for the generation of high-quality written works. However, their employment in the research community is inhibited by their tendency to hallucinate invalid sources and lack of direct access to a knowledge base of relevant scientific articles. In this work, we present Citegeist: An application pipeline using dynamic Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) on the arXiv Corpus to generate a related work section and other citation-backed outputs. For this purpose, we employ a mixture of embedding-based similarity matching, summarization, and multi-stage filtering. To adapt to the continuous growth of the document base, we also present an optimized way of incorporating new and modified papers. To enable easy utilization in the scientific community, we release both, a website (https://citegeist.org), as well as an implementation harness that works with several different LLM implementations.

Large language models (LLMs) have led to a surge in collaborative writing with model assistance. As different users incorporate suggestions from the same model, there is a risk of decreased diversity in the produced content, potentially limiting diverse perspectives in public discourse. In this work, we measure the impact of co-writing on diversity via a controlled experiment, where users write argumentative essays in three setups -- using a base LLM (GPT3), a feedback-tuned LLM (InstructGPT), and writing without model help. We develop a set of diversity metrics and find that writing with InstructGPT (but not the GPT3) results in a statistically significant reduction in diversity. Specifically, it increases the similarity between the writings of different authors and reduces the overall lexical and content diversity. We additionally find that this effect is mainly attributable to InstructGPT contributing less diverse text to co-written essays. In contrast, the user-contributed text remains unaffected by model collaboration. This suggests that the recent improvement in generation quality from adapting models to human feedback might come at the cost of more homogeneous and less diverse content.

Topic model evaluation, like evaluation of other unsupervised methods, can be contentious. However, the field has coalesced around automated estimates of topic coherence, which rely on the frequency of word co-occurrences in a reference corpus. Contemporary neural topic models surpass classical ones according to these metrics. At the same time, topic model evaluation suffers from a validation gap: automated coherence, developed for classical models, has not been validated using human experimentation for neural models. In addition, a meta-analysis of topic modeling literature reveals a substantial standardization gap in automated topic modeling benchmarks. To address the validation gap, we compare automated coherence with the two most widely accepted human judgment tasks: topic rating and word intrusion. To address the standardization gap, we systematically evaluate a dominant classical model and two state-of-the-art neural models on two commonly used datasets. Automated evaluations declare a winning model when corresponding human evaluations do not, calling into question the validity of fully automatic evaluations independent of human judgments.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly capable of processing long inputs and locating specific information within them, as evidenced by their performance on the Needle in a Haystack (NIAH) test. However, while models excel at recalling surprising information, they still struggle to identify clearly omitted information. We introduce AbsenceBench to assesses LLMs' capacity to detect missing information across three domains: numerical sequences, poetry, and GitHub pull requests. AbsenceBench asks models to identify which pieces of a document were deliberately removed, given access to both the original and edited contexts. Despite the apparent straightforwardness of these tasks, our experiments reveal that even state-of-the-art models like Claude-3.7-Sonnet achieve only 69.6% F1-score with a modest average context length of 5K tokens. Our analysis suggests this poor performance stems from a fundamental limitation: Transformer attention mechanisms cannot easily attend to "gaps" in documents since these absences don't correspond to any specific keys that can be attended to. Overall, our results and analysis provide a case study of the close proximity of tasks where models are already superhuman (NIAH) and tasks where models breakdown unexpectedly (AbsenceBench).