Daily Papers

Adapting existing manga into coherent animation that stays faithful to the source is a valuable yet challenging task. Existing methods either access the manga mainly through text, losing its characters and art style, or feed manga pages directly into video generation models, which misinterpret the manga's structure and produce incorrect storylines. In this paper, we propose Manga2Animate, a multi-agent framework that grounds every stage of generation in the source manga. We decompose the task into two intermediate representations, an animation script and a visual storyboard. Each representation is produced by a creator agent and reviewed against the source panels by a paired reviewer agent. We tailor representation-specific selection and dual-level feedback to progressively refine both before synthesizing the final animation. Extensive experiments and a user study demonstrate that Manga2Animate produces animations more faithful to the source manga and more consistent across shots than state-of-the-art approaches. Project page: https://annchenn.github.io/Manga2Animate/

The rapid expansion of scholarly literature presents significant challenges in synthesizing comprehensive, high-quality academic surveys. Recent advancements in agentic systems offer considerable promise for automating tasks that traditionally require human expertise, including literature review, synthesis, and iterative refinement. However, existing automated survey-generation solutions often suffer from inadequate quality control, poor formatting, and limited adaptability to iterative feedback, which are core elements intrinsic to scholarly writing. To address these limitations, we introduce ARISE, an Agentic Rubric-guided Iterative Survey Engine designed for automated generation and continuous refinement of academic survey papers. ARISE employs a modular architecture composed of specialized large language model agents, each mirroring distinct scholarly roles such as topic expansion, citation curation, literature summarization, manuscript drafting, and peer-review-based evaluation. Central to ARISE is a rubric-guided iterative refinement loop in which multiple reviewer agents independently assess manuscript drafts using a structured, behaviorally anchored rubric, systematically enhancing the content through synthesized feedback. Evaluating ARISE against state-of-the-art automated systems and recent human-written surveys, our experimental results demonstrate superior performance, achieving an average rubric-aligned quality score of 92.48. ARISE consistently surpasses baseline methods across metrics of comprehensiveness, accuracy, formatting, and overall scholarly rigor. All code, evaluation rubrics, and generated outputs are provided openly at https://github.com/ziwang11112/ARISE

Editing the video content with audio alignment forms a digital human-made art in current social media. However, the time-consuming and repetitive nature of manual video editing has long been a challenge for filmmakers and professional content creators alike. In this paper, we introduce CutClaw, an autonomous multi-agent framework designed to edit hours-long raw footage into meaningful short videos that leverages the capabilities of multiple Multimodal Language Models~(MLLMs) as an agent system. It produces videos with synchronized music, followed by instructions, and a visually appealing appearance. In detail, our approach begins by employing a hierarchical multimodal decomposition that captures both fine-grained details and global structures across visual and audio footage. Then, to ensure narrative consistency, a Playwriter Agent orchestrates the whole storytelling flow and structures the long-term narrative, anchoring visual scenes to musical shifts. Finally, to construct a short edited video, Editor and Reviewer Agents collaboratively optimize the final cut via selecting fine-grained visual content based on rigorous aesthetic and semantic criteria. We conduct detailed experiments to demonstrate that CutClaw significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines in generating high-quality, rhythm-aligned videos. The code is available at: https://github.com/GVCLab/CutClaw.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved impressive results in natural language understanding, yet their reasoning capabilities remain limited when operating as single agents. Multi-Agent Debate (MAD) has been proposed to address this limitation by enabling collaborative reasoning among multiple models in a round-table debate manner. While effective, MAD introduces substantial computational overhead due to the number of agents involved and the frequent communication required. In this paper, we propose MARS (Multi-Agent Review System), a role-based collaboration framework inspired by the review process. In MARS, an author agent generates an initial solution, reviewer agents provide decisions and comments independently, and a meta-reviewer integrates the feedback to make the final decision and guide further revision. This design enhances reasoning quality while avoiding costly reviewer-to-reviewer interactions, thereby controlling token consumption and inference time. We compared MARS with both MAD and other state-of-the-art reasoning strategies across multiple benchmarks. Extensive experiments with different LLMs show that MARS matches the accuracy of MAD while reducing both token usage and inference time by approximately 50\%. Code is available at https://github.com/xwang97/MARS.

Software development is a complex, multi-phase process traditionally requiring collaboration among individuals with diverse expertise. We propose AgentMesh, a Python-based framework that uses multiple cooperating LLM-powered agents to automate software development tasks. In AgentMesh, specialized agents - a Planner, Coder, Debugger, and Reviewer - work in concert to transform a high-level requirement into fully realized code. The Planner agent first decomposes user requests into concrete subtasks; the Coder agent implements each subtask in code; the Debugger agent tests and fixes the code; and the Reviewer agent validates the final output for correctness and quality. We describe the architecture and design of these agents and their communication, and provide implementation details including prompt strategies and workflow orchestration. A case study illustrates AgentMesh handling a non-trivial development request via sequential task planning, code generation, iterative debugging, and final code review. We discuss how dividing responsibilities among cooperative agents leverages the strengths of large language models while mitigating single-agent limitations. Finally, we examine current limitations - such as error propagation and context scaling - and outline future work toward more robust, scalable multi-agent AI systems for software engineering automation.

Despite rapid advancements in video generation models, generating coherent storytelling videos that span multiple scenes and characters remains challenging. Current methods often rigidly convert pre-generated keyframes into fixed-length clips, resulting in disjointed narratives and pacing issues. Furthermore, the inherent instability of video generation models means that even a single low-quality clip can significantly degrade the entire output animation's logical coherence and visual continuity. To overcome these obstacles, we introduce AniMaker, a multi-agent framework enabling efficient multi-candidate clip generation and storytelling-aware clip selection, thus creating globally consistent and story-coherent animation solely from text input. The framework is structured around specialized agents, including the Director Agent for storyboard generation, the Photography Agent for video clip generation, the Reviewer Agent for evaluation, and the Post-Production Agent for editing and voiceover. Central to AniMaker's approach are two key technical components: MCTS-Gen in Photography Agent, an efficient Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS)-inspired strategy that intelligently navigates the candidate space to generate high-potential clips while optimizing resource usage; and AniEval in Reviewer Agent, the first framework specifically designed for multi-shot animation evaluation, which assesses critical aspects such as story-level consistency, action completion, and animation-specific features by considering each clip in the context of its preceding and succeeding clips. Experiments demonstrate that AniMaker achieves superior quality as measured by popular metrics including VBench and our proposed AniEval framework, while significantly improving the efficiency of multi-candidate generation, pushing AI-generated storytelling animation closer to production standards.

Agentic coding makes code generation cheap, but reliable completion remains difficult: the agent that writes the code is a weak judge of whether it is done. We present Humanize, a multi-agent orchestration workflow for agentic coding built around judgement engineering: explicit, mechanically enforced decisions at the boundaries between planning, implementation, review, and learning. A human approves a plan contract, a builder agent implements it in rounds, and a reviewer agent from another vendor decides completion; deterministic hooks, not a model, route work between these roles and enforce 72 mechanical gates. Viewed as a Markov chain over repository states, alternating builder and reviewer samples jointly from two models, so a defect survives only if both miss it. We study Humanize through its deployment, 118 public postmortems of real loops, and its applications. Over 68 versions in 108 days, it gathered 1,468 GitHub stars. Applications include a 567-file gem5 build-system migration under upstream review; Kernel Design Agents, which extend the loop with a kernel knowledge base and profiling feedback and placed in the top three of all three Full-Agent tracks of the MLSys 2026 FlashInfer contest; and, through Humanize Olympiad Agents (HOA), full scores in IOI 2026, IMO 2026, IPhO 2026, and IBO 2024, 418.5/437 in IChO 2026 (gold-medal). Humanize also achieves 672/672 on PutnamBench and ranks first (251/303) on Lean-Eval's leaderboard even competiting with professional mathematicians. The postmortems show that independent review catches unsupported builder claims, but stopping remains a key weakness. In reports that separate rounds by phase, two thirds of rounds occurred after implementation was accepted. This evidence is observational, not a controlled comparison of workflows.

Coding agents increasingly generate pull requests (PRs) for real-world software issues, yet one-shot PR generation remains open-loop: the PR is proposed without systematic review, diagnosis, or revision. We introduce SWE-Review, a framework for closing this loop with agentic code review. Given an issue and an AI-generated PR, a reviewer agent explores the repository, decides whether the PR should be accepted, and provides structured feedback for revision. We evaluate this setting with our proposed SWE-Review-Bench to measure both review correctness and downstream revision usefulness. We further curate SWE-Review-Traj dataset to study broader applications of agentic review and fill the data-scarcity gap for open reviewer training. Experiments show that agentic review continuously improves PRs through a generate-review-revise loop, outperforms single-turn fixed-context review in both decision accuracy and resolve rate after revision, transfers beyond review to improve issue-resolution models, and enables effective and efficient test-time scaling. These results position agentic code review as a practical mechanism for moving AI coding agents from one-shot PR generation toward closed-loop issue resolution.

Virtual photography asks an agent to enter a prepared 3D scene with no preselected camera pose or reference image, infer a suitable shot from scene information and a language intent, choose executable camera parameters, and render the final photograph. Recent progress in vision-language models makes this kind of spatial agent increasingly plausible, but the task stresses two capabilities that remain hard to evaluate together: complex 3D spatial understanding and abstract aesthetic judgment. We introduce PhotoFlow, a Director-Reviewer-Reflector agent for closed-loop camera search. The Director builds a soft photographic blueprint and proposes diverse candidate cameras; the Reviewer combines rule checks, visual critique, and pairwise incumbent selection; and the Reflector converts failures into region memory, dead-zone suppression, and high-explore relocation. We also introduce VPhotoBench, a benchmark of 47 open-license Blender scenes and 141 language-conditioned photography missions spanning subject placement, relational composition, and atmosphere/style. On held-out experiments, PhotoFlow achieves the strongest external quality-alignment composite and success rate among one-shot prediction, single-chain reflection, anchor-bank selection, and random search under a six-round rendering budget. To our knowledge, this is the first work to make language-conditioned virtual photography in arbitrary Blender scenes an executable agent task, and our results show that an LLM-centered spatial agent can already produce strong photographs in a setting designed to challenge both 3D reasoning and aesthetic choice.

Autonomous systems that generate scientific hypotheses, conduct experiments, and draft manuscripts have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for accelerating discovery. However, existing AI Scientists remain largely domain-agnostic, limiting their applicability to clinical medicine, where research is required to be grounded in medical evidence with specialized data modalities. In this work, we introduce Medical AI Scientist, the first autonomous research framework tailored to clinical autonomous research. It enables clinically grounded ideation by transforming extensively surveyed literature into actionable evidence through clinician-engineer co-reasoning mechanism, which improves the traceability of generated research ideas. It further facilitates evidence-grounded manuscript drafting guided by structured medical compositional conventions and ethical policies. The framework operates under 3 research modes, namely paper-based reproduction, literature-inspired innovation, and task-driven exploration, each corresponding to a distinct level of automated scientific inquiry with progressively increasing autonomy. Comprehensive evaluations by both large language models and human experts demonstrate that the ideas generated by the Medical AI Scientist are of substantially higher quality than those produced by commercial LLMs across 171 cases, 19 clinical tasks, and 6 data modalities. Meanwhile, our system achieves strong alignment between the proposed method and its implementation, while also demonstrating significantly higher success rates in executable experiments. Double-blind evaluations by human experts and the Stanford Agentic Reviewer suggest that the generated manuscripts approach MICCAI-level quality, while consistently surpassing those from ISBI and BIBM. The proposed Medical AI Scientist highlights the potential of leveraging AI for autonomous scientific discovery in healthcare.

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.

Generative AI and coding agents are intensifying a central governance tension in open-source software (OSS): they scale contribution generation faster than maintainers can assess risk, evidence, and accountability. Existing responses improve agent-readability and traceability, but project rules must also organize contribution-specific risk, evidence, accountability, and review-gate states. We theorize this organizational arrangement as project-side governability infrastructure. A diagnostic audit of 50 GitHub repositories finds widespread general governance artifacts, observable agent-readability, and fragmented AI-governance cues, but no project-wide arrangement that coordinates shared rules, preparation obligations, verification rights, and maintainer decision authority across AI-mediated contribution workflows. We develop the Agent Governance Manifest (AGM) as a repository-hosted boundary resource and bidirectional governance contract linking contributor-side evidence preparation with maintainer-side verification. In a controlled reviewer-side evaluation with 15 participants and 75 task-level outputs, AGM-supported materials improved exact risk-label recovery (37/38 vs. 15/37) and perceived review support (6.14 vs. 3.27 on a 1-7 scale). In a contributor-side feasibility check, 15 participants completed 45 tasks; all final packages represented the core governance state correctly, and 41 passed strict structural validation. The study develops a three-layer framework of agent-readability, traceability, and governability, theorizes agent-mediated contributions as governable boundary objects, and advances compliance-enabling digital innovation governance while preserving maintainer decision authority.

Recent game design agents have made substantial progress in generating playable games. However, program correctness does not ensure an enjoyable experience for players. We present Recursive Game Creator, an experience-oriented harness to advance agentic game development from rough game prototypes into entertaining games. Recursive Game Creator organizes recursive development around four components: Designer, Builder, Player, and Reviewer. The Designer translates user instructions and Reviewer's feedback into detailed plans. The Builder turns these plans into candidate games. The coding-native Player creates and executes reusable policies through programmatic interfaces to efficiently collect diverse gameplay trajectories, mitigating evaluation bias caused by slow GUI-based collection. The Reviewer uses carefully designed trajectory-based metrics to induce player preferences, integrating with visual evidence and explicit textual preferences to evaluate games against game-specific criteria. Finally, the Reviewer accepts the better version and provides improvement reviews for the next round, closing the recursive loop. Our method achieves state-of-the-art overall performance of 77.89 on GameCraft-Bench. On GameASG-Bench, it achieves a strict task success rate of 53.2%, a 34.1% improvement over the same-model baseline, and the highest mean runtime-check pass rate at 93.4% among compared methods. A user study shows longer playtime and higher ratings. Code is coming soon.

Code review helps maintain software quality before code integration, but it also imposes a substantial workload on human reviewers. As generative artificial intelligence becomes part of software development, code review is shifting from a primarily human review process toward AI-supported review processes in which large language model (LLM) reviewers and AI agent reviewers participate alongside human reviewers. However, we still lack empirical evidence on how this transition affects review efficiency and review quality. In this paper, we study 1.02 million reviewed pull requests from 207 GitHub projects that transition across three code review eras: human-centric review, LLM-assisted review, and agentic code review. We identify three AI reviewer adoption practices: Gradual AI Adoption, Rapid LLM Adoption, and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. We further model pull request review discussions as reviewer interaction sequences to characterize how human, LLM, and AI agent reviewers collaborate during the review process. Our results show that agent-involved collaboration patterns, especially reviews initiated by AI agents or involving multiple AI agents, are associated with faster review decisions under Gradual AI Adoption and Rapid AI Agent Adoption. However, these efficiency gains do not translate into better review quality. We also find that review activity and pull request type remain important across eras, while human-AI collaboration patterns become the strongest explanatory factor for review efficiency once LLM and AI agent reviewers participate. These findings provide empirical guidance for designing AI-supported code review processes that improve efficiency without weakening review quality.

As LLM agents begin to take real, irreversible actions (shell commands, file edits, deploys), the standard safety pattern is a human-in-the-loop approval gate: risky actions pause and wait for a person. We argue the gate is the easy part; the hard part is the judgment - which actions to stop - which the field evaluates against two false assumptions: that there is a ground-truth notion of "risky," and that the human reviewer is a perfect, infinitely-available oracle. On a hand-labeled set of 125 adversarially-weighted agent actions we show that (i) reviewers only moderately agree on what is risky (Fleiss' kappa = 0.52), so there is no single correct label; (ii) framing the guard as selective classification under asymmetric cost makes its operating limits measurable, and on hard inputs the guard cannot safely auto-decide; and (iii) when the reviewer is modeled as endogenous (fatiguing as escalation load grows), realized safety becomes an inverted-U in the escalation rate: more human oversight can make a system less safe, and the safety-optimal guard escalates below full escalation - a setting a load-aware policy also uses to resist a flooding attack that slips a malicious action past a fatigued reviewer. Agent oversight, framed this way, is not only a classification problem but a resource-allocation one: human attention is finite, and the guard's escalation policy spends it. We claim none of these mechanisms as novel - fatigue-aware learning-to-defer (FALCON), cost-sensitive deferral under workload constraints (DeCCaF), trajectory-level guarding, and reviewer-fatigue/flooding attacks are all prior art we cite. Our contribution is an open-source agent-oversight system that operationalizes and measures them in the LLM-agent action-gating setting, turning "is my guard good?" from a guess into a curve. The inverted-U and the flooding attack are modeling results that motivate a human study.

Early multi-agent LLM systems often used role-separated teams, yet scaling agent count yields diminishing returns on repository-level coding tasks. Recent alternatives treat agents as passive tools (subagents), yet this removes the benefits of agent interaction entirely. We study whether a subagent paradigm can support a middle ground: minimal agentic cooperation without the overhead of large multi-agent teams. We introduce Adversarial Review (AR), a minimal cooperative code-review protocol in which a main coding agent works with a reviewer and a critic agent. The reviewer evaluates code, while the critic audits the review through structured disagreement before the main agent edits. On LiveCodeBench, AR achieves the highest pass rate among tested methods, outperforming a five-agent baseline while using only three agents. On SWE-PRBench, naive AR exposes a false-consensus failure mode, where agents converge on agreement without sufficient evidence, but a single prompt iteration that adds disagreement explicitly achieves the highest F1 among tested methods. On SWE-bench Verified, AR also shows improvements over the baselines on repository-level coding tasks. Together, AR demonstrates that cooperative code review does not require many agents or complex communication structures: it requires that disagreement be minimal, structured, and evidence-grounded.

Skills equip LLM agents with professional knowledge and guidance to complete long-horizon and complex tasks. Although skills have been widely adopted in recent agent paradigms and harnesses, how to synthesize reliable training data and how to train agents for skill use remain underexplored. In this work, we propose SkillGym, an automatic pipeline to build verifiable environments, collect trajectories, and train skill-use agents. SkillGym first crawls a large volume of skills from the internet, then keeps those whose workflows can run reproducibly offline. A builder-reviewer pipeline is used to construct difficulty-controlled tasks, spanning four task types, each with a reference solution and an executable verifier. With this pipeline, we build 6.8k environments and collect 19k verified successful trajectories for supervised finetuning. Finetuning on these trajectories improves LLMs of different families and sizes, from 2B to 122B parameters across four skill-use benchmarks; Our Qwen3.5-9B SFT model outperforms the 397B untrained model on two of them. Further analysis shows that training teaches agents to invoke skills, raising the rate of reading the relevant skill from 28% to 96%, and that the gains hold across reasoning structures, extending to task types that form a minority of the training data and to skills held out from training

Large Language Model (LLM) Agents are advancing quickly, with the increasing leveraging of LLM Agents to assist in development tasks such as code generation. While LLM Agents accelerate code generation, studies indicate they may introduce adverse effects on development. However, existing metrics solely measure pass rates, failing to reflect impacts on long-term maintainability and readability, and failing to capture human intuitive evaluations of PR. To increase the comprehensiveness of this problem, we investigate and evaluate the characteristics of LLM to know the pull requests' characteristics beyond the pass rate. We observe the code quality and maintainability within PRs based on code metrics to evaluate objective characteristics and developers' reactions to the pull requests from both humans and LLM's generation. Evaluation results indicate that LLM Agents frequently disregard code reuse opportunities, resulting in higher levels of redundancy compared to human developers. In contrast to the quality issues, our emotions analysis reveals that reviewers tend to express more neutral or positive emotions towards AI-generated contributions than human ones. This disconnect suggests that the surface-level plausibility of AI code masks redundancy, leading to the silent accumulation of technical debt in real-world development environments. Our research provides insights for improving human-AI collaboration.

Agentic coding -- software development workflows in which autonomous coding agents plan, implement, and submit code changes with minimal human involvement -- is rapidly gaining traction. Prior work has shown that Pull Requests (PRs) produced using coding agents (Agentic-PRs) are accepted less often than PRs that are not labeled as agentic (Human-PRs). The rejection reasons for a single agent (Claude Code) have been explored, but a comparison of how rejection reasons differ between Agentic-PRs generated by different agents has not yet been performed. This comparison is important since different coding agents are often used for different purposes, which can lead to agent-specific failure patterns. In this paper, we inspect 654 rejected PRs from the AIDev dataset covering five coding agents, as well as a human baseline. Our results show that seven rejection modes occur only in Agentic-PRs, including distrust of AI-generated code. We also observe agent-specific patterns (e.g., automated withdrawal of inactive PRs by Devin), reflecting differences in how agents are configured and used in practice. Notably, a large proportion of rejected PRs (67.9%) lack explicit reviewer feedback, making their rejection reasons difficult to determine. To mitigate this issue, we propose a set of heuristics that reduce the proportion of such cases, offering a practical preprocessing step for future studies of PR rejection in agentic coding.

How much of a running workflow should a language model agent revise? ControlScope compares continuing generated code, editing the next tool call's data arguments, and replacing the unfinished workflow from the same public execution state. The nested permissions separate available repairs from the actions an agent selects. We evaluate one-time and repeated reviews across filesystem tasks, ALFWorld, and AppWorld. Across two source programs per task and three reasoning-reviewer draws on 20 filesystem tasks, FULL completes 15-16 tasks versus 13 for KEEP; across four fast draws it completes 10-13 versus 13. Fresh student-record confirmation reproduces a batch-read repair. ALFWorld fast panels yield KEEP/ARG/FULL scores of 85/86/87 on 87 tasks across 52 scenes and 134/134/127 on 134 tasks across four scenes; reasoning on the 87-task cohort also yields 85/86/87 with substantial review cost. An AppWorld V1 official-test panel of 585 task instances from 195 scenario templates shows small net differences. Frozen replays expose viable agent-written replacements interrupted by later revision in two failed file-organization runs. An offline source-trajectory midpoint comparison shows later reviews completing an insufficient repair. Five-call protection saves 19.4% of logged model output and loses one success across 20 fresh source runs. An argument-only shortcut shows that the broader sampled policy can overlook a cheaper successful edit available in both operation sets. These outcomes tie repair access to actual choices and subsequent execution.

Large Language Models' (LLM) reasoning can be improved using test-time aggregation strategies, i.e., generating multiple samples and voting among generated samples. While these improve performance, they often reach a saturation point. Refinement offers an alternative by using LLM-generated feedback to improve solution quality. However, refinement introduces 3 key challenges: (1) Excessive refinement: Uniformly refining all instances can over-correct and reduce the overall performance. (2) Inability to localize and address errors: LLMs have a limited ability to self-correct and struggle to identify and correct their own mistakes. (3) Insufficient refinement: Deciding how many iterations of refinement are needed is non-trivial, and stopping too soon could leave errors unaddressed. To tackle these issues, we propose MAgICoRe, which avoids excessive refinement by categorizing problem difficulty as easy or hard, solving easy problems with coarse-grained aggregation and hard ones with fine-grained and iterative multi-agent refinement. To improve error localization, we incorporate external step-wise reward model (RM) scores. Moreover, to ensure effective refinement, we employ a multi-agent loop with three agents: Solver, Reviewer (which generates targeted feedback based on step-wise RM scores), and the Refiner (which incorporates feedback). To ensure sufficient refinement, we re-evaluate updated solutions, iteratively initiating further rounds of refinement. We evaluate MAgICoRe on Llama-3-8B and GPT-3.5 and show its effectiveness across 5 math datasets. Even one iteration of MAgICoRe beats Self-Consistency by 3.4%, Best-of-k by 3.2%, and Self-Refine by 4.0% while using less than half the samples. Unlike iterative refinement with baselines, MAgICoRe continues to improve with more iterations. Finally, our ablations highlight the importance of MAgICoRe's RMs and multi-agent communication.

Multi-agent systems have emerged as a powerful paradigm for automating scientific discovery. To differentiate agent behavior in the multi-agent system, current frameworks typically assign generic role-based personas such as ''reviewer'' or ''writer'' or rely on coarse grained keyword-based personas. While functional, this approach oversimplifies how human scientists operate, whose contributions are shaped by their unique research trajectories. In response, we propose INDIBATOR, a framework for molecular discovery that grounds agents in individualized scientist profiles constructed from two modalities: publication history for literature-derived knowledge and molecular history for structural priors. These agents engage in multi-turn debate through proposal, critique, and voting phases. Our evaluation demonstrates that these fine-grained individuality-grounded agents consistently outperform systems relying on coarse-grained personas, achieving competitive or state-of-the-art performance. These results validate that capturing the ``scientific DNA'' of individual agents is essential for high-quality discovery.

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.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have catalyzed breakthroughs in automated code generation, Small Language Models (SLMs) often encounter reasoning bottlenecks and failure loops when addressing complex logical requirements. To overcome these challenges, we propose DebateCoder, a multi-agent collaborative framework designed to improve the reasoning ability of SLMs (e.g., Pangu-1B) in resource-constrained environments. DebateCoder uses a structured role-playing protocol with three agents: User Agent (A_UA), Technical Agent (A_TA), and Quality Assurance Agent (A_QA). It also includes an Adaptive Confidence Gating mechanism with a 95% threshold to balance accuracy and inference efficiency. In addition, we introduce a multi-turn deliberation module and a reviewer-guided analytical debugging loop for orthogonal pre-generation debate and post-generation refinement. Experiments on HumanEval and MBPP show that DebateCoder achieves 70.12% Pass@1 on HumanEval, outperforming MapCoder while reducing API overhead by about 35%. These results indicate that collaborative protocols can mitigate limitations of small-parameter models and provide a scalable, efficient approach to high-quality automated software engineering.

As Large Language Model (LLM) agents increasingly execute complex, autonomous software engineering tasks, developers rely on natural language instruction files such as AGENTS.md to express project-specific coding conventions, tooling restrictions, and architectural boundaries. However, because these instructions remain passive text, agents frequently violate documented constraints due to context window saturation or conflicting local context. In autonomous settings without real-time human supervision, such violations rapidly compound into technical debt. To ground autonomous agents in repository constraints, we introduce ContextCov, a framework that transforms passive natural language instructions into executable guardrails. Unlike prompt-only or reflection-only compliance approaches, ContextCov compiles documented constraints into three complementary checks: static AST queries for code patterns, runtime shell shims that intercept prohibited commands, and architectural validators that enforce structural rules. Acting as an automated, continuous reviewer, ContextCov intercepts agent actions and returns immediate, reproducible violation traces, enabling self-correction before non-compliant changes are finalized. We evaluate ContextCov on SWE-bench Lite (12 repositories, 300 tasks). Compared to prompt-only and LLM reflection baselines, ContextCov achieves 88.3% constraint compliance (vs. 67.0% and 50.3%) with 3.4x lower feedback cost, while maintaining functional correctness. The source code and evaluation results are available at https://github.com/reSHARMA/ContextCov.

Self-improving agents are state-of-the-art (SOTA) on agentic coding benchmarks and have recently been extended to general domains. However, their search methods generally assume a stationary evaluation criterion: a fixed verifier, benchmark, or labeled dataset that remains valid as the agent improves. This ignores a central feature of evolution: species adapt as their environments change with them. We aim to bring the same principle to recursive self-improvement, making evaluation part of the improvement loop and opening search to evolving evaluators, adversarial objectives, and dynamic utilities that may surpass static benchmarks. We introduce the Red Queen Godel Machine (RQGM), an evolutionary framework for recursive self-improvement under non-stationary utilities. The RQGM makes this possible through controlled utility evolution: search is organized into epochs with a fixed within-epoch evaluation criterion, while the utility can be updated at epoch boundaries, so self-improvement guarantees hold per epoch as the objective evolves across them. We begin by showing that even on verifiable coding tasks, the RQGM improves test pass rate over the prior SOTA by adding a complementary agent-as-a-judge code-review signal. This signal is cheaper and the RQGM uses 1.35x-1.72x fewer tokens. We then turn to scientific paper writing and reviewing, and Olympiad-level proof writing and grading, where the RQGM improves performance over prior self-improving agents: co-evolved writers reach 1.78x-1.86x higher acceptance rates under a diverse agent-as-a-judge panel, while co-evolved graders reach 9% higher ground-truth accuracy. In paper reviewing, the strongest baseline reviewer over-accepts AI-generated papers at up to 1.91x the human rate. The RQGM corrects this by introducing an adversarial objective that discovers reviewers equally stringent on AI and human work.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used across the scientific research lifecycle: ideation, literature search, experiment design and execution, analysis, manuscript drafting, and review. End-to-end AI scientist systems can now produce paper-like manuscripts, but their claims are often harder to verify than their code is to run. This survey studies that gap in computational AI/ML research, where code, benchmarks, experiments, and write-ups are most visible. We screen 125 candidate works and include 35, with full-text coding of 26 entries: 24 runnable systems and two study or position papers. We code seven audit dimensions: lifecycle stage, autonomy level, evaluation method, released artifacts, human-in-the-loop points, novelty verification, and result-selection disclosure. The main pattern is that code release is now common, but reproducibility-grade and claim-verification artifacts remain much less common. In the 24 runnable systems, 83 percent release code, while 38 percent release seeds or execution traces and 38 percent report any novelty-verification method. Among nine closed-loop L4 systems, seven are mechanical reruns and one is author-claimed without an external check; no LLM-era system in the corpus demonstrates an externally validated in-loop oracle under our coding rule. We contribute a coded corpus, a lifecycle-by-autonomy map, an auditability-gap analysis, and a reviewer-facing reporting checklist. The survey argues that the field's central bottleneck is no longer only whether agents can complete research tasks, but whether reviewers can verify the claims those agents produce.

Writing effective rebuttals is a high-stakes task that demands more than linguistic fluency, as it requires precise alignment between reviewer intent and manuscript details. Current solutions typically treat this as a direct-to-text generation problem, suffering from hallucination, overlooked critiques, and a lack of verifiable grounding. To address these limitations, we introduce RebuttalAgent, the first multi-agents framework that reframes rebuttal generation as an evidence-centric planning task. Our system decomposes complex feedback into atomic concerns and dynamically constructs hybrid contexts by synthesizing compressed summaries with high-fidelity text while integrating an autonomous and on-demand external search module to resolve concerns requiring outside literature. By generating an inspectable response plan before drafting, RebuttalAgent ensures that every argument is explicitly anchored in internal or external evidence. We validate our approach on the proposed RebuttalBench and demonstrate that our pipeline outperforms strong baselines in coverage, faithfulness, and strategic coherence, offering a transparent and controllable assistant for the peer review process. Code will be released.

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

Existing approaches for digital short-drama production typically rely on one-shot LLM generated scripts and loosely coupled pipelines, which fail to satisfy three key requirements of short-drama generation: (1) narrative pacing, resulting in weak hooks, insufficient escalation, and unattractive endings; (2) spatial consistency, leading to drifting scene layouts and inconsistent character positions across clips; and (3) production-level quality control, requiring extensive manual review and correction across script and visual stages. We present One Sentence, One Drama, a hierarchical multi-agent framework that transforms a user's single-sentence idea into a fully produced short drama through structured intermediate modules and iterative refinement. Our approach is built upon three key components: (1) a multi-agent debate-based story generation module that enforces short-drama pacing and narrative coherence; (2) a 3D-grounded first-frame generation mechanism that establishes a shared spatial reference for consistent character positioning and scene layout across clips; and (3) multi-stage reviewer loops that perform comprehensive error detection and targeted revision across script, visual, and video generation stages. We also introduce scene-level BGM matching and scene transition planning to improve the audience's immersive experience. To systematically evaluate this task, we introduce Short-Drama-Bench, a benchmark that extends standard video quality metrics with short-drama-specific criteria. Experimental results demonstrate that our method significantly outperforms existing pipelines in narrative quality, cross-clip consistency, and overall viewing experience.

Finite element analysis (FEA) is the most important numerical approach for solid mechanics. Challenges of FEA include a steep learning curve for entry-level users and potential false simulations due to incorrect definitions of key simulation components, such as boundary conditions, load cases, and solution variables. Years of engineering experience are usually necessary for real-world problem-solving. To address these issues, we present AbaqusAgent, a multi-agent framework grounded in large language models (LLMs) for solid mechanics analyses. AbaqusAgent is developed to facilitate analysis case generation and execution using Abaqus, one of the most widely used FEA packages, by turning users' natural-language instructions into executed FEA analyses and result visualization. AbaqusAgent is composed of six agents, including interpreter, architect, input writer, runner, reviewer, and visualizer agents, encompassing all the essential pre-processing and post-processing steps of standard FEA analyses. A wide variety of 50 solid mechanics problems have been successfully validated, achieving an overall success rate of 86%. Beyond improving the efficiency of FEA for solid mechanics problems and lowering the barrier to computational mechanics education, AbaqusAgent advances the human-simulation interaction paradigm and enables integration with AI-empowered optimization and material characterization workflows. The code is available at https://github.com/LIRAM-LIN/AbaqusAgent

AI coding agents are now submitting pull requests (PRs) to software projects, acting not just as assistants but as autonomous contributors. As these agentic contributions are rapidly increasing across real repositories, little is known about how they behave in practice and why many of them fail to be merged. In this paper, we conduct a large-scale study of 33k agent-authored PRs made by five coding agents across GitHub. (RQ1) We first quantitatively characterize merged and not-merged PRs along four broad dimensions: 1) merge outcomes across task types, 2) code changes, 3) CI build results, and 4) review dynamics. We observe that tasks related to documentation, CI, and build update achieve the highest merge success, whereas performance and bug-fix tasks perform the worst. Not-merged PRs tend to involve larger code changes, touch more files, and often do not pass the project's CI/CD pipeline validation. (RQ2) To further investigate why some agentic PRs are not merged, we qualitatively analyze 600 PRs to derive a hierarchical taxonomy of rejection patterns. This analysis complements the quantitative findings in RQ1 by uncovering rejection reasons not captured by quantitative metrics, including lack of meaningful reviewer engagement, duplicate PRs, unwanted feature implementations, and agent misalignment. Together, our findings highlight key socio-technical and human-AI collaboration factors that are critical to improving the success of future agentic workflows.

LLM-based code review agents promise scalable, always-on review, yet current systems suffer from two intertwined weaknesses: (1) non-determinism--unbounded tool use makes review outcomes unstable, and (2) context locality--the reviewer's access remains bounded to the diff, capping discoverable issue depth. Both give rise to three challenges: misaligned context retrieval, a coherence-efficiency trade-off in multi-file pull requests, and hallucinated comments that erode trust. To address these, we introduce OpenCodeReview, built on deterministic engineering for uncertain agents: rather than granting maximal freedom, we inject determinism at three deliberate pipeline points. Rule-Guided Dispatch uses a multi-layer rule system to deterministically select files and review criteria, eliminating variability of agent-driven triage. Grounded File Review replaces free-form exploration with a curated tool set exposed through a ReAct loop, while file-level parallel SubAgents balance context coherence against efficiency and recover cross-file dependencies on demand. Independent Reflection introduces a falsification-first filter under an asymmetric information boundary--the reflector sees only the diff, not the agent's tool-augmented exploration--removing hallucinated comments without self-reinforcing bias, improving precision while preserving recall. On AACR-Bench (200 real-world PRs, 10 languages, 1,505 expert-verified comments), OpenCodeReview outperforms mainstream coding agents (e.g., Claude Code and Codex) across six LLM backends, achieving up to 2.17x higher SEM-F1 (25.10% vs. 11.57%) while consuming 5-15x fewer tokens. We open-source OpenCodeReview at https://github.com/alibaba/open-code-review.

LLM agents are increasingly used to translate natural language into 3D scenes in a procedural way, but existing systems focus on static output. Dynamic 4D scenes from text alone, in which liquids flow, particles emit, rigid bodies cascade, and articulated mechanisms move, remain largely unexplored despite their value as editable content and as physics-grounded training data for video generation and embodied AI. Two challenges set the dynamic case apart from static text-to-scene work: an agent must jointly coordinate spatial layout, multiple physics solvers, temporal sequencing, camera, and lighting in a single coherent scene, and verifying motion correctness from rendered video is fundamentally harder than judging a single image. We present SimWorlds: a multi-agent framework that produces dynamic, editable 4D scenes from text, with Blender-specific procedural knowledge, a planner-coder-reviewer workflow driving a fixed ordered sequence of construction stages, a layered scene protocol enforced by a deterministic verifier, and a runtime-state inspection tool suite that catches mechanism failures the rendered image cannot reveal. We also introduce 4DBuildBench, a benchmark for assessing both visual fidelity and physical consistency of the procedural dynamic 3D scenes generated from text prompts. Experiments show that SimWorlds outperforms prior dynamic Blender generation baselines.

AI is increasingly playing a pivotal role in transforming how scientific discoveries are made. We introduce The AI Scientist-v2, an end-to-end agentic system capable of producing the first entirely AI generated peer-review-accepted workshop paper. This system iteratively formulates scientific hypotheses, designs and executes experiments, analyzes and visualizes data, and autonomously authors scientific manuscripts. Compared to its predecessor (v1, Lu et al., 2024 arXiv:2408.06292), The AI Scientist-v2 eliminates the reliance on human-authored code templates, generalizes effectively across diverse machine learning domains, and leverages a novel progressive agentic tree-search methodology managed by a dedicated experiment manager agent. Additionally, we enhance the AI reviewer component by integrating a Vision-Language Model (VLM) feedback loop for iterative refinement of content and aesthetics of the figures. We evaluated The AI Scientist-v2 by submitting three fully autonomous manuscripts to a peer-reviewed ICLR workshop. Notably, one manuscript achieved high enough scores to exceed the average human acceptance threshold, marking the first instance of a fully AI-generated paper successfully navigating a peer review. This accomplishment highlights the growing capability of AI in conducting all aspects of scientific research. We anticipate that further advancements in autonomous scientific discovery technologies will profoundly impact human knowledge generation, enabling unprecedented scalability in research productivity and significantly accelerating scientific breakthroughs, greatly benefiting society at large. We have open-sourced the code at https://github.com/SakanaAI/AI-Scientist-v2 to foster the future development of this transformative technology. We also discuss the role of AI in science, including AI safety.

Long-horizon reasoning requires an agentic runtime that can persist when evidence supports its current approach and pivot when measurements reveal failure, hidden constraints, or a misspecified objective. We present Argus, a persistent, self-evolving runtime in which Manager, Planner, Engineer, and Reviewer execute bounded missions over durable project state. Argus separates stable user intent from operational objectives, constraints, and verification criteria, and admits memories, skills, procedures, verifiers, routing decisions, and rejected routes only after role-owned review and, when available, task-native verification. Model weights remain fixed; self-evolution occurs through persistent runtime state and control policy, with autonomous execution between operator-owned escalation points. Across seven GPT-5.5 benchmark arenas, Argus achieves about 78% on SWE-Bench Pro versus 59% for Direct Copilot while using 1.41 times the aggregate tokens. After verification-gated self-evolution, mature SWE-Bench waves use 21% fewer solve-input tokens and 15% less active workflow time per task than startup waves, while recording 34 verifier recoveries and 22 strict review-loop rescues. Argus also reaches 76.8% on AARRI-Bench and a 28.0-point gap on mathematical data synthesis, with competitive GPU-kernel and language-model-training results. Beyond benchmarks, an optimized RWKV6 kernel was merged upstream; a multi-day mathematics campaign retained falsified routes and proof-backed frontier updates; and six paper pipelines completed 254 missions with 16 stage rollbacks. These results show that a fixed-weight, self-evolving harness can revise, recover, and accumulate verified approaches while producing structured trajectories for future supervised and reinforcement learning.

This paper presents synthetic Preference Optimization (PO) datasets generated using multi-agent workflows and evaluates the effectiveness and potential of these workflows in the dataset generation process. PO dataset generation requires two modules: (1) response evaluation, and (2) response generation. In the response evaluation module, the responses from Large Language Models (LLMs) are evaluated and ranked - a task typically carried out by human annotators that we automate using LLMs. We assess the response evaluation module in a 2 step process. In step 1, we assess LLMs as evaluators using three distinct prompting strategies. In step 2, we apply the winning prompting strategy to compare the performance of LLM-as-a-Judge, LLMs-as-a-Jury, and LLM Debate. In each step, we use inter-rater agreement using Cohen's Kappa between human annotators and LLMs. For the response generation module, we compare different configurations for the LLM Feedback Loop using the identified LLM evaluator configuration. We use the win rate (the fraction of times a generation framework is selected as the best by an LLM evaluator) to determine the best multi-agent configuration for generation. After identifying the best configurations for both modules, we use models from the GPT, Gemma, and Llama families to generate our PO datasets using the above pipeline. We generate two types of PO datasets, one to improve the generation capabilities of individual LLM and the other to improve the multi-agent workflow. Our evaluation shows that GPT-4o-as-a-Judge is more consistent across datasets when the candidate responses do not include responses from the GPT family. Additionally, we find that the LLM Feedback Loop, with Llama as the generator and Gemma as the reviewer, achieves a notable 71.8% and 73.8% win rate over single-agent Llama and Gemma, respectively.

Recent advancements in large language model (LLM) agents have significantly accelerated scientific discovery automation, yet concurrently raised critical ethical and safety concerns. To systematically address these challenges, we introduce SafeScientist, an innovative AI scientist framework explicitly designed to enhance safety and ethical responsibility in AI-driven scientific exploration. SafeScientist proactively refuses ethically inappropriate or high-risk tasks and rigorously emphasizes safety throughout the research process. To achieve comprehensive safety oversight, we integrate multiple defensive mechanisms, including prompt monitoring, agent-collaboration monitoring, tool-use monitoring, and an ethical reviewer component. Complementing SafeScientist, we propose SciSafetyBench, a novel benchmark specifically designed to evaluate AI safety in scientific contexts, comprising 240 high-risk scientific tasks across 6 domains, alongside 30 specially designed scientific tools and 120 tool-related risk tasks. Extensive experiments demonstrate that SafeScientist significantly improves safety performance by 35\% compared to traditional AI scientist frameworks, without compromising scientific output quality. Additionally, we rigorously validate the robustness of our safety pipeline against diverse adversarial attack methods, further confirming the effectiveness of our integrated approach. The code and data will be available at https://github.com/ulab-uiuc/SafeScientist. red{Warning: this paper contains example data that may be offensive or harmful.}

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

Decentralized LLM-based multi-agent systems coordinate through local interactions, but an agent can remain responsive while its task-solving quality persistently degrades. Such gray failures require protecting current tasks before sufficient evidence exists to alter future routing, while still allowing recovered agents to rejoin. We introduce MeshHeal, a fully decentralized self-healing framework that couples ability-matched peer review across two timescales. At the fast timescale, an adaptive hierarchy escalates uncertain or low-scoring outputs from repeated single-reviewer evaluation to committee deliberation and, when needed, correction before use. At the slow timescale, a task- and ability-conditioned peer-relative detector aggregates scores to distinguish persistent degradation from ordinary output variation, trigger mandatory committee review, and eventually exclude degraded agents from ordinary routing; recovery probes provide fresh evidence for reintegration. To faithfully evaluate routing, we introduce Model-Backed MAS Evaluation, which ties ability assignments to execution models, since prompt-based ability assignments alone can leave routing errors hidden. Across BBH, MATH, and MMLU-Pro, MeshHeal achieves 0.839 degraded-phase accuracy using 51k total model tokens per task, versus the strongest baseline Symphony's 0.807 accuracy using 115k per task. Under staggered degradation and recovery, MeshHeal isolates degraded agents, keeps them excluded from ordinary task execution until recovery, and returns them to normal routing.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive capabilities in downstream software engineering tasks such as Automated Program Repair (APR). In particular, there has been a lot of research on repository-level issue-resolution benchmarks such as SWE-Bench. Although there has been significant progress on this topic, we notice that in the process of solving such issues, existing agentic systems tend to hyper-localize on immediately suspicious lines of code and fix them in isolation, without a deeper understanding of the issue semantics, code semantics, or execution semantics. Consequently, many existing systems generate patches that overfit to the user issue, even when a more general fix is preferable. To address this limitation, we introduce SemAgent, a novel workflow-based procedure that leverages issue, code, and execution semantics to generate patches that are complete - identifying and fixing all lines relevant to the issue. We achieve this through a novel pipeline that (a) leverages execution semantics to retrieve relevant context, (b) comprehends issue-semantics via generalized abstraction, (c) isolates code-semantics within the context of this abstraction, and (d) leverages this understanding in a two-stage architecture: a repair stage that proposes fine-grained fixes, followed by a reviewer stage that filters relevant fixes based on the inferred issue-semantics. Our evaluations show that our methodology achieves a solve rate of 44.66% on the SWEBench-Lite benchmark beating all other workflow-based approaches, and an absolute improvement of 7.66% compared to our baseline, which lacks such deep semantic understanding. We note that our approach performs particularly well on issues requiring multi-line reasoning (and editing) and edge-case handling, suggesting that incorporating issue and code semantics into APR pipelines can lead to robust and semantically consistent repairs.

The effectiveness upper bound of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is fundamentally constrained by the semantic integrity and information granularity of text chunks in its knowledge base. To address these challenges, this paper proposes QChunker, which restructures the RAG paradigm from retrieval-augmentation to understanding-retrieval-augmentation. Firstly, QChunker models the text chunking as a composite task of text segmentation and knowledge completion to ensure the logical coherence and integrity of text chunks. Drawing inspiration from Hal Gregersen's "Questions Are the Answer" theory, we design a multi-agent debate framework comprising four specialized components: a question outline generator, text segmenter, integrity reviewer, and knowledge completer. This framework operates on the principle that questions serve as catalysts for profound insights. Through this pipeline, we successfully construct a high-quality dataset of 45K entries and transfer this capability to small language models. Additionally, to handle long evaluation chains and low efficiency in existing chunking evaluation methods, which overly rely on downstream QA tasks, we introduce a novel direct evaluation metric, ChunkScore. Both theoretical and experimental validations demonstrate that ChunkScore can directly and efficiently discriminate the quality of text chunks. Furthermore, during the text segmentation phase, we utilize document outlines for multi-path sampling to generate multiple candidate chunks and select the optimal solution employing ChunkScore. Extensive experimental results across four heterogeneous domains exhibit that QChunker effectively resolves aforementioned issues by providing RAG with more logically coherent and information-rich text chunks.

ATANT v1.0 (arXiv:2604.06710) defined continuity as a system property with 7 required properties and introduced a 10-checkpoint, LLM-free evaluation methodology validated on a 250-story corpus. Since publication, a recurring reviewer and practitioner question has concerned not the framework itself but its relationship to a wider set of memory evaluations: LOCOMO, LongMemEval, BEAM, MemoryBench, Zep's evaluation suite, Letta/MemGPT's evaluations, and RULER. This companion paper, v1.1, does not modify the v1.0 standard. It closes a related-work gap that v1.0 left brief under page limits. We show by structural analysis that none of these benchmarks measures continuity as defined in v1.0: of the 7 required properties, the median existing eval covers 1 property, the mean covers 0.43 when partial credit is scored at 0.5, and no eval covers more than 2. We provide a cell-by-cell property-coverage matrix, identify methodological defects specific to each benchmark (including an empty-gold scoring bug in the LOCOMO reference implementation that renders 23% of its corpus unscorable by construction), and publish our reference implementation's LOCOMO score (8.8%) alongside the structural reason that number is uninformative about continuity. We publish our 8.8% LOCOMO score alongside our 96% ATANT cumulative-scale score as a calibration pair: the 87-point divergence is evidence that the two benchmarks measure different properties, not that one system is an order of magnitude better than another. The position v1.1 takes is not adversarial: each benchmark measures a real capability. The claim is that none of them can adjudicate continuity, and conflating them with continuity evaluation has led the field to under-invest in the properties v1.0 names.

Large language model agents solve tasks through long sequences of tool calls, and the prevailing design has a single strong model generate every step, although many steps are routine enough for a much smaller model. Existing ways of sharing this work keep the strong model as the generator: routers and collaborative agents decide which model handles each query or step, and speculative methods check a small model's drafts one step at a time, usually against the strong model's own action. We introduce SpecAgent, a collaboration protocol that turns the strong model from the author of each step into a reviewer of steps drafted by a weak model. The weak model executes read-only tool calls as it drafts, so that every step is grounded in real observations, and holds the first action that would modify the environment. The strong model then verifies the drafted segment in a single prefill pass, commits the longest prefix it judges semantically valid, and repairs the first rejected step. Because verification replaces autoregressive decoding with parallel prefill, the strong model decodes only short verdicts and occasional repairs rather than every step. On τ^2-Bench, SpecAgent comes within one point of the strong model's success rate while roughly halving memory traffic and wall time, and on AutomationBench and VitaBench it recovers 44-75% of the quality gap while lowering both. In an edge-cloud deployment on MCP-Atlas with three cloud models, it closes 53-75% of the weak-strong quality gap while the strong model generates at most half as many tokens. These results suggest that a strong model need not author every step of an agent: reviewing grounded drafts retains most of its quality while cutting both latency and memory traffic.

Competitive debate is a complex task of computational argumentation. Large Language Models (LLMs) suffer from hallucinations and lack competitiveness in this field. To address these challenges, we introduce Agent for Debate (Agent4Debate), a dynamic multi-agent framework based on LLMs designed to enhance their capabilities in competitive debate. Drawing inspiration from human behavior in debate preparation and execution, Agent4Debate employs a collaborative architecture where four specialized agents, involving Searcher, Analyzer, Writer, and Reviewer, dynamically interact and cooperate. These agents work throughout the debate process, covering multiple stages from initial research and argument formulation to rebuttal and summary. To comprehensively evaluate framework performance, we construct the Competitive Debate Arena, comprising 66 carefully selected Chinese debate motions. We recruit ten experienced human debaters and collect records of 200 debates involving Agent4Debate, baseline models, and humans. The evaluation employs the Debatrix automatic scoring system and professional human reviewers based on the established Debatrix-Elo and Human-Elo ranking. Experimental results indicate that the state-of-the-art Agent4Debate exhibits capabilities comparable to those of humans. Furthermore, ablation studies demonstrate the effectiveness of each component in the agent structure.

An AI scientist should not grade its own homework. Yet in the systems we examined, the agent that reviews the work usually comes from the same model family as the agent that produced it, or at least from the same vendor. Model evaluators are known to favour their own generations. Whether models trained alike also share blind spots is a conjecture, not a settled finding, but if they do, the reviewer inherits the author's. The record of what was flagged and what was waved through often sits in platform logs that nobody outside can replay. We present CrossAudit, a protocol for supervising autonomous research pipelines. It rests on three commitments. Each increment of work is audited by an agent from a different vendor against a rulebook a human wrote and versioned. Reports, verdicts, disputes and rulings are git commits, so the supervision history can be re-read and cited; raw model exchanges are not yet part of that record. Scripted checks run before any model does. Advisory judgement never gates the pipeline: a model blocks only by citing a rule, and no model may waive a deterministic failure. Blockers that survive a bounded number of revision rounds go to a person. We state the protocol as eight invariants. We describe a reference implementation built from GitHub Actions and a few hundred lines of Python, and report a live deployment of a closely related variant in a computational-chemistry pipeline. We also ran a seeded-defect trial (30 increments, 43 seeded defects, one run per configuration). A cross-vendor audit of our own repository then voided its blinding. We adopt that audit's findings and report the corrected results. The trial shows that two vendors read the same rulebook differently. It does not show that either is better. The strongest evidence here is the committed, uncontrolled record of cross-vendor audits of this paper itself.

While prior work has examined the generation capabilities of Agentic AI systems, little is known about how reviewers respond to AI-authored code in practice. In this paper, we present a large-scale empirical study of code review dynamics in agent-generated PRs. Using a curated subset of the AIDev dataset, we analyze 19,450 inline review comments spanning 3,177 agent-authored PRs from real-world GitHub repositories. We first derive a taxonomy of 12 review comment themes using topic modeling combined with large language model (LLM)-assisted semantic clustering and consolidation. According to this taxonomy, we then investigate whether zero-shot prompts to LLM can reliably annotate review comments. Our evaluation against human annotations shows that open-source LLM achieves reasonably high exact match (78.63%), macro F1 score (0.78), and substantial agreement with human annotators at the review comment level. At the PR level, the LLM also correctly identifies the dominant review theme with 78% Top-1 accuracy and achieves an average Jaccard similarity of 0.76, indicating strong alignment with human judgments. Applying this annotation pipeline at scale, we find that apart from functional correctness and logical changes, reviews of agent-authored PRs predominantly focus on documentation gaps, refactoring needs, styling and formatting issues, with testing and security-related concerns. These findings suggest that while AI agents can accelerate code production, there remain gaps requiring targeted human review oversight.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating scientific peer review. However, existing approaches often struggle to generate in-depth reviews supported by concrete evidence. We argue that a key limitation is the lack of flexibility to proactively investigate suspicious parts of a paper based on accumulated evidence, as human reviewers do. In this paper, we explore how to enable an LLM-based review agent to perform such proactive investigation. We find that this can be naturally formulated as a Markov Decision Process (MDP), and propose ProReviewer, a scientific peer review agent that proactively reviews a paper guided by a maintained, structured review log. The structured review log serves as a workspace for the agent to track evidence and intermediate findings collected during review. Experiments show that ProReviewer with an 8B backbone, trained by supervised fine-tuning and optimized by reinforcement learning, achieves the highest average score across five quality dimensions, outperforming prompt-based methods with much larger frontier LLMs by up to 39% and the strongest fine-tuned baseline by 16% relatively. It also attains the highest win rates against baselines in human evaluation.

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

Data annotation remains a significant bottleneck in the Humanities and Social Sciences, particularly for complex semantic tasks such as metaphor identification. While Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise, a significant gap remains between the theoretical capability of LLMs and their practical utility for researchers. This paper introduces LinguistAgent, an integrated, user-friendly platform that leverages a reflective multi-model architecture to automate linguistic annotation. The system implements a dual-agent workflow, comprising an Annotator and a Reviewer, to simulate a professional peer-review process. LinguistAgent supports comparative experiments across three paradigms: Prompt Engineering (Zero/Few-shot), Retrieval-Augmented Generation, and Fine-tuning. We demonstrate LinguistAgent's efficacy using the task of metaphor identification as an example, providing real-time token-level evaluation (Precision, Recall, and F_1 score) against human gold standards. The application and codes are released on https://github.com/Bingru-Li/LinguistAgent.

Agentic code review in terminal-based environments enables early feedback during local development before pull request creation. However, existing evaluations remain performance-centric and fail to capture the dynamic behaviors of repository-grounded agentic reviewers. Understanding these behaviors is critical for identifying how agentic reviewers succeed, fail, and incur hidden operational costs in practice. Then, we analyze the reviewers' behavior based on their trajectories. Our results show that agentic reviewers achieve higher review precision but incur substantial exploration and validation overhead, while successful reviews are associated with stronger planning and less downstream validation. These findings highlight the potential benefits of trajectory-aware and cost-sensitive evaluation of future agentic code review systems.

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.

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.

Sophisticated text-centric forgeries, fueled by rapid AIGC advancements, pose a significant threat to societal security and information authenticity. Current methods for text-centric forgery analysis are often limited to coarse-grained visual analysis and lack the capacity for sophisticated reasoning. Moreover, they typically treat detection, grounding, and explanation as discrete sub-tasks, overlooking their intrinsic relationships for holistic performance enhancement. To address these challenges, we introduce LogicLens, a unified framework for Visual-Textual Co-reasoning that reformulates these objectives into a joint task. The deep reasoning of LogicLens is powered by our novel Cross-Cues-aware Chain of Thought (CCT) mechanism, which iteratively cross-validates visual cues against textual logic. To ensure robust alignment across all tasks, we further propose a weighted multi-task reward function for GRPO-based optimization. Complementing this framework, we first designed the PR^2 (Perceiver, Reasoner, Reviewer) pipeline, a hierarchical and iterative multi-agent system that generates high-quality, cognitively-aligned annotations. Then, we constructed RealText, a diverse dataset comprising 5,397 images with fine-grained annotations, including textual explanations, pixel-level segmentation, and authenticity labels for model training. Extensive experiments demonstrate the superiority of LogicLens across multiple benchmarks. In a zero-shot evaluation on T-IC13, it surpasses the specialized framework by 41.4% and GPT-4o by 23.4% in macro-average F1 score. Moreover, on the challenging dense-text T-SROIE dataset, it establishes a significant lead over other MLLM-based methods in mF1, CSS, and the macro-average F1. Our dataset, model, and code will be made publicly available.

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

K-Dense BYOK (bring your own keys) is a free, open-source AI research assistant for scientists in any field that runs on the researcher's own computer. The researcher supplies access to a model of their choice, hosted or running locally, and the application supplies everything else: a place for the work to run, a layer of scientific scaffolding, and a complete record. Each project is an ordinary folder, so the data, the code, the results, and the record stay on a machine the researcher administers and can be read years later without the application. Three things separate it from a chat assistant or a general-purpose coding agent. It ships a library of written scientific procedures, guided workflow templates, catalogs of where research data can be found, and reviewer and writer roles the agent can hand work to. It keeps a Living Lab Notebook whose entries link into an argument and are added to but never erased. And it records what happened by watching what the agent does rather than by taking the agent's word for it, in a log the agent has no tool that can write to. That choice targets the most common failure, model overclaiming, in our earlier benchmark of nine frontier models, by making claims checkable rather than preventing them. On twenty interdisciplinary research prompts, scored under a rubric fixed in advance, K-Dense BYOK led two managed platforms on both scientific quality and research execution. Its deliverables were the only ones that recorded the software they ran in, and the only ones that usually arrived with a command that regenerates the results. One of the managed platforms ran the same frontier model and supplied neither. Those environment records were files the agent wrote, not part of the observed log, which does not yet capture the software environment itself. The code is available under the MIT license at https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/k-dense-byok.

Acquiring high-quality instruction-code pairs is essential for training Large Language Models (LLMs) for code generation. Manually curated data is expensive and inherently limited in scale, motivating the development of code-centric synthesis methods. Yet, current approaches either focus on augmenting existing code or rely on predefined heuristics, both lacking rigorous data validation, which results in synthetic data that is ungrounded, repetitive, or overly simplistic. Inspired by collaborative programming practices, we propose CodeEvo, a framework that synthesizes code data through iterative interactions between two LLM agents: a Coder, which generates candidate code and test cases based on given instructions, and a Reviewer, which guides the synthesis process by producing new instructions and feedback. We further introduce a hybrid feedback mechanism that combines compiler determinism with the generative flexibility of agents, enabling automatic quality control throughout synthesis. Extensive experiments demonstrate that models fine-tuned on CodeEvo data significantly outperform established baselines across code generation benchmarks with various difficulties. In-depth analyses further provide insights from multiple perspectives into effective code-centric data synthesis.

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

To assist human review process, we build a novel ReviewRobot to automatically assign a review score and write comments for multiple categories such as novelty and meaningful comparison. A good review needs to be knowledgeable, namely that the comments should be constructive and informative to help improve the paper; and explainable by providing detailed evidence. ReviewRobot achieves these goals via three steps: (1) We perform domain-specific Information Extraction to construct a knowledge graph (KG) from the target paper under review, a related work KG from the papers cited by the target paper, and a background KG from a large collection of previous papers in the domain. (2) By comparing these three KGs, we predict a review score and detailed structured knowledge as evidence for each review category. (3) We carefully select and generalize human review sentences into templates, and apply these templates to transform the review scores and evidence into natural language comments. Experimental results show that our review score predictor reaches 71.4%-100% accuracy. Human assessment by domain experts shows that 41.7%-70.5% of the comments generated by ReviewRobot are valid and constructive, and better than human-written ones for 20% of the time. Thus, ReviewRobot can serve as an assistant for paper reviewers, program chairs and authors.

Recent autonomous AI agents such as Codex, and Claude Code have made it increasingly practical for users to delegate complex tasks, including writing emails, executing code, issuing shell commands, and carrying out multi-step plans. However, despite these capabilities, human-agent interaction still largely happens through terminal interfaces or remote text-based channels such as Discord. These interaction modes are often inefficient and unfriendly: long text outputs are difficult to read and review, proposed actions lack clear structure and visual context, and users must express feedback by typing detailed corrections, which is cumbersome and often discourages effective collaboration. As a result, non-expert users in particular face a high barrier to working productively with agents. To address this gap, we present AgentClick, an interactive review layer for terminal-based agents. AgentClick is implemented as a localhost npm server paired with a skill-based plugin that connects the running agent to a browser interface, allowing users to supervise and collaborate with agents through a structured web UI rather than raw terminal text alone. The system supports a range of human-in-the-loop workflows, including email drafting and revision, plan review and modification, memory management, trajectory inspection and visualization, and error localization during agent execution. It also turns code generation and execution into a reviewable process, enabling users to inspect and intervene before consequential actions are taken. In addition, AgentClick supports persistent preference capture through editable memory and remote access over HTTP, allowing users to review agents running on servers from their personal devices. Our goal is to lower the barrier for non-expert users and improve the efficiency and quality of human-agent co-work.

As LLMs are increasingly used for pre-submission self-review, there is growing demand for feedback that not only identifies weaknesses but also guides authors toward concrete revisions. We study this as Actionable Peer-review Generation and decompose it into two subtasks: diagnostic claim generation and revision suggestion generation. We introduce ActReview, a rebuttal-guided post-training framework that connects paper-specific diagnoses to concrete, grounded revision plans. Our central insight is that author rebuttals reveal plausible actions for addressing reviewer concerns and can therefore provide latent supervision for revision-oriented feedback. From real review-rebuttal threads on OpenReview, we construct ActReview-40K by aligning reviewer weaknesses with author responses and grounding the resulting feedback in localized paper evidence. We post-train Qwen3-8B-Base with multi-task supervised fine-tuning followed by GRPO using candidate-aware, weakness-specific rubric rewards. We also introduce ActReview-Bench, a human-curated benchmark of 1,000 instances for evaluating diagnostic quality and revision usefulness. Experiments show that ActReview outperforms prior specialized review-generation models on actionability and grounding while remaining competitive with strong prompt-based LLMs. Human evaluation confirms improved revision usefulness while revealing a remaining gap in technical accuracy, and additional analyses support generalization to held-out papers and robustness across independent judges.

Recent developments in LLMs offer new opportunities for assisting authors in improving their work. In this paper, we envision a use case where authors can receive LLM-generated reviews that uncover weak points in the current draft. While initial methods for automated review generation already exist, these methods tend to produce reviews that lack detail, and they do not cover the range of opinions that human reviewers produce. To address this shortcoming, we propose an efficient two-stage review generation framework called Reviewer2. Unlike prior work, this approach explicitly models the distribution of possible aspects that the review may address. We show that this leads to more detailed reviews that better cover the range of aspects that human reviewers identify in the draft. As part of the research, we generate a large-scale review dataset of 27k papers and 99k reviews that we annotate with aspect prompts, which we make available as a resource for future research.

Automated peer review has evolved from simple text classification to structured feedback generation. However, current state-of-the-art systems still struggle with "surface-level" critiques: they excel at summarizing content but often fail to accurately assess novelty and significance or identify deep methodological flaws because they evaluate papers in a vacuum, lacking the external context a human expert possesses. In this paper, we introduce ScholarPeer, a search-enabled multi-agent framework designed to emulate the cognitive processes of a senior researcher. ScholarPeer employs a dual-stream process of context acquisition and active verification. It dynamically constructs a domain narrative using a historian agent, identifies missing comparisons via a baseline scout, and verifies claims through a multi-aspect Q&A engine, grounding the critique in live web-scale literature. We evaluate ScholarPeer on DeepReview-13K and the results demonstrate that ScholarPeer achieves significant win-rates against state-of-the-art approaches in side-by-side evaluations and reduces the gap to human-level diversity.

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

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.

Generating professional scholarly content, such as peer reviews and rebuttals, requires an intricate synergy between domain reasoning and factual grounding. This work presents a comprehensive framework for the development and evaluation of specialized scholarly agents, InternReviewer and InternAdvocate. We first establish a large-scale, high-quality scholarly dataset and integrate a high-efficiency arXiv retrieval tool to enable active evidence gathering. To optimize these agents, we implement an agentic Reinforcement Learning (RL) paradigm driven by a unified objective metric and reward system. This system avoids the biases of subjective model-based judging by employing multi-dimensional criteria, including reference-anchored semantic alignment, structural compliance, and a strict verification mechanism that cross-checks citations against real-time interaction logs to eliminate hallucinations. Experimental results demonstrate that agents trained within this closed-loop framework exhibit significant improvements in reasoning depth and citation accuracy.

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

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

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

Peer review is the cornerstone of scientific publishing, yet it suffers from inconsistencies, reviewer subjectivity, and scalability challenges. We introduce ReviewerToo, a modular framework for studying and deploying AI-assisted peer review to complement human judgment with systematic and consistent assessments. ReviewerToo supports systematic experiments with specialized reviewer personas and structured evaluation criteria, and can be partially or fully integrated into real conference workflows. We validate ReviewerToo on a carefully curated dataset of 1,963 paper submissions from ICLR 2025, where our experiments with the gpt-oss-120b model achieves 81.8% accuracy for the task of categorizing a paper as accept/reject compared to 83.9% for the average human reviewer. Additionally, ReviewerToo-generated reviews are rated as higher quality than the human average by an LLM judge, though still trailing the strongest expert contributions. Our analysis highlights domains where AI reviewers excel (e.g., fact-checking, literature coverage) and where they struggle (e.g., assessing methodological novelty and theoretical contributions), underscoring the continued need for human expertise. Based on these findings, we propose guidelines for integrating AI into peer-review pipelines, showing how AI can enhance consistency, coverage, and fairness while leaving complex evaluative judgments to domain experts. Our work provides a foundation for systematic, hybrid peer-review systems that scale with the growth of scientific publishing.

Peer review serves as the gatekeeper of science, yet the surge in submissions and widespread adoption of large language models (LLMs) in scholarly evaluation present unprecedented challenges. Recent work has focused on using LLMs to improve review efficiency or generate insightful review content. However, unchecked deficient reviews from both human experts and AI systems threaten to systematically undermine the peer review ecosystem and compromise academic integrity. To address this critical issue, we introduce ReviewGuard, an automated system for detecting and categorizing deficient reviews. ReviewGuard employs a comprehensive four-stage LLM-driven framework that: (1) collects ICLR and NeurIPS papers with their corresponding reviews from OpenReview; (2) annotates review types using GPT-4.1 with human validation; (3) addresses class imbalance and data scarcity through LLM-driven synthetic data augmentation, producing a final corpus of 6,634 papers, 24,657 real reviews, and 46,438 synthetic reviews; and (4) fine-tunes both encoder-based models and open source LLMs. We perform comprehensive feature analysis of the structure and quality of the review text. Compared to sufficient reviews, deficient reviews demonstrate lower rating scores, higher self-reported confidence, reduced structural complexity, and a higher proportion of negative sentiment. AI-generated text detection reveals that, since ChatGPT's emergence, AI-generated reviews have increased dramatically. In the evaluation of deficient review detection models, mixed training with synthetic and real review data provides substantial enhancements to recall and F1 scores on the binary task. This study presents the first LLM-driven system for detecting deficient peer reviews, providing evidence to inform AI governance in peer review while offering valuable insights into human-AI collaboration to maintain academic integrity.

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

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.

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

The web is increasingly accessed by AI agents rather than humans. Every agent needs knowledge, especially in the life-sciences, where agentic pipelines are growing fast. Access to the literature is a crucial part of that need, and resources such as Europe PMC, with over 40M indexed records, are widely used to meet it. Yet these resources were not built for AI agents: they take keywords and complex syntax and return whole papers, so every agent must learn the syntax, issue several searches, and read full papers to find the evidence it needs. We introduce EMBL AI Librarian, a knowledge layer that upgrades the Europe PMC interface for AI agents: an agent asks in natural language and receives evidence that answers it. A single LLM orchestrates the whole knowledge retrieval process: it plans complementary subqueries executed by the live Europe PMC search engine, then reads the selected papers and locates the relevant evidence. We evaluate Librarian across four benchmarks: literature synthesis, claim verification, open-domain question answering, and downstream biology tasks such as protocol questions and sequence manipulation. On ScholarQABench, Librarian improves Citation F1 by more than 16 points over strong recently published baselines. Used as the retrieval layer of an existing claim-verification pipeline, it increases agreement with expert consensus; and on the open-form LitQA2 benchmark, a GPT-5.4 agent scores about 8 points higher when grounded in Librarian than with web search. Overall, our results show that equipping life-science agents with the Librarian knowledge layer improves performance across a range of tasks. We release our code publicly at https://github.com/petroni-lab/librarian

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

As autonomous AI agents transition from code completion tools to full-fledged teammates capable of opening pull requests (PRs) at scale, software maintainers face a new challenge: not just reviewing code, but managing complex interaction loops with non-human contributors. This paradigm shift raises a critical question: can we predict which agent-generated PRs will consume excessive review effort before any human interaction begins? Analyzing 33,707 agent-authored PRs from the AIDev dataset across 2,807 repositories, we uncover a striking two-regime behavioral pattern that fundamentally distinguishes autonomous agents from human developers. The first regime, representing 28.3 percent of all PRs, consists of instant merges (less than 1 minute), reflecting success on narrow automation tasks. The second regime involves iterative review cycles where agents frequently stall or abandon refinement (ghosting). We propose a Circuit Breaker triage model that predicts high-review-effort PRs (top 20 percent) at creation time using only static structural features. A LightGBM model achieves AUC 0.957 on a temporal split, while semantic text features (TF-IDF, CodeBERT) provide negligible predictive value. At a 20 percent review budget, the model intercepts 69 percent of total review effort, enabling zero-latency governance. Our findings challenge prevailing assumptions in AI-assisted code review: review burden is dictated by what agents touch, not what they say, highlighting the need for structural governance mechanisms in human-AI collaboration.

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

Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built. Repository-mining studies measure surface trends but seldom explain the mechanisms beneath them, and the trends themselves prove unstable. A motivating observational analysis of public GITHUB activity finds that agent-authored pull requests are reviewed less often, merged several times faster, and discussed less than human-authored ones, yet the direction of these trends flips under different but equally defensible analysis choices, so the traces establish what is changing without explaining why. To recover the mechanisms, we synthesize practitioner discourse at scale into an explanatory theory: we collect 38,709 grey-literature documents (engineering blogs and Reddit threads), filter to those substantively about code review, and code a stratified random sample of 3,100 with an LLM-assisted pipeline, from which we build a causal model of 26 constructs and 67 relationships (64 directed, 3 contested). Its organizing claim is that review is the control point through which a coding agent's effect on software is decided, and that AI does not fix the sign of that effect: the team sets it, through the expertise its humans bring and how it structures the review process. The theory makes the competing positions explicit and turns "AI is changing code review" into falsifiable propositions with named constructs and moderators. As a secondary contribution, we offer the underlying LLM-assisted, grey-literature theory-building method as a scalable template for software-engineering research, with a public implementation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used across the scientific workflow, including to draft peer-review reports. However, many AI-generated reviews are superficial and insufficiently actionable, leaving authors without concrete, implementable guidance and motivating the gap this work addresses. We propose RbtAct, which targets actionable review feedback generation and places existing peer review rebuttal at the center of learning. Rebuttals show which reviewer comments led to concrete revisions or specific plans, and which were only defended. Building on this insight, we leverage rebuttal as implicit supervision to directly optimize a feedback generator for actionability. To support this objective, we propose a new task called perspective-conditioned segment-level review feedback generation, in which the model is required to produce a single focused comment based on the complete paper and a specified perspective such as experiments and writing. We also build a large dataset named RMR-75K that maps review segments to the rebuttal segments that address them, with perspective labels and impact categories that order author uptake. We then train the Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct model with supervised fine-tuning on review segments followed by preference optimization using rebuttal derived pairs. Experiments with human experts and LLM-as-a-judge show consistent gains in actionability and specificity over strong baselines while maintaining grounding and relevance.

As natural language generation (NLG) models have become prevalent, systematically assessing the quality of machine-generated texts has become increasingly important. Recent studies introduce LLM-based evaluators that operate as reference-free metrics, demonstrating their capability to adeptly handle novel tasks. However, these models generally rely on a single-agent approach, which, we argue, introduces an inherent limit to their performance. This is because there exist biases in LLM agent's responses, including preferences for certain text structure or content. In this work, we propose DEBATE, an NLG evaluation framework based on multi-agent scoring system augmented with a concept of Devil's Advocate. Within the framework, one agent is instructed to criticize other agents' arguments, potentially resolving the bias in LLM agent's answers. DEBATE substantially outperforms the previous state-of-the-art methods in two meta-evaluation benchmarks in NLG evaluation, SummEval and TopicalChat. We also show that the extensiveness of debates among agents and the persona of an agent can influence the performance of evaluators.

Existing vision-language models (VLMs), whether generalists or specialists, remain constrained by their parameter scale, lack robust self-correction capabilities, and underperform in tasks involving long visual contexts and complex reasoning, resulting in suboptimal performance on document-based tasks. To address this, we propose MACT, a Multi-Agent Collaboration framework with Test-Time scaling, tailored for visual document understanding and visual question answering (VQA). It comprises four distinct small-scale agents, i.e., planning, execution, judgment, and answer agents, with clearly defined roles and effective collaboration. Notably, the judgment agent exclusively verifies correctness and redirects to prior agents for revisions, outperforming conventional correction strategies. To further expand the capability boundaries of the framework, we propose mixed reward modeling that balances agent-specific abilities and global collaboration, as well as agent-wise hybrid test-time scaling, which customizes different scaling strategies for each agent based on their functions. Evaluated on benchmarks spanning both document-based and non-document-based settings, our MACT shows superior performance with a smaller parameter scale without sacrificing the ability of general and mathematical tasks. Especially, it stands out in benchmarks involving long visual contexts and complicated reasoning. The three variants of MACT consistently hold the top three positions in average scores, leading in 13 of the 15 benchmarks. Code will be available at: https://github.com/YU-deep/MACT.git.

Helpful reviews have been essential for the success of e-commerce services, as they help customers make quick purchase decisions and benefit the merchants in their sales. While many reviews are informative, others provide little value and may contain spam, excessive appraisal, or unexpected biases. With the large volume of reviews and their uneven quality, the problem of detecting helpful reviews has drawn much attention lately. Existing methods for identifying helpful reviews primarily focus on review text and ignore the two key factors of (1) who post the reviews and (2) when the reviews are posted. Moreover, the helpfulness votes suffer from scarcity for less popular products and recently submitted (a.k.a., cold-start) reviews. To address these challenges, we introduce a dataset and develop a model that integrates the reviewer's expertise, derived from the past review history of the reviewers, and the temporal dynamics of the reviews to automatically assess review helpfulness. We conduct experiments on our dataset to demonstrate the effectiveness of incorporating these factors and report improved results compared to several well-established baselines.

Generating natural language explanations for recommendations has become increasingly important in recommender systems. Traditional approaches typically treat user reviews as ground truth for explanations and focus on improving review prediction accuracy by designing various model architectures. However, due to limitations in data scale and model capability, these explanations often fail to meet key user-centric aspects such as factuality, personalization, and sentiment coherence, significantly reducing their overall helpfulness to users. In this paper, we propose a novel paradigm that refines initial explanations generated by existing explainable recommender models during the inference stage to enhance their quality in multiple aspects. Specifically, we introduce a multi-agent collaborative refinement framework based on large language models. To ensure alignment between the refinement process and user demands, we employ a plan-then-refine pattern to perform targeted modifications. To enable continuous improvements, we design a hierarchical reflection mechanism that provides feedback on the refinement process from both strategic and content perspectives. Extensive experiments on three datasets demonstrate the effectiveness of our framework.

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

Web agents enable users to perform tasks on web browsers through natural language interaction. Evaluating web agents trajectories is an important problem, since it helps us determine whether the agent successfully completed the tasks. Rule-based methods are widely used for this purpose, but they are challenging to extend to new tasks and may not always recognize successful trajectories. We may achieve higher accuracy through human evaluation, but the process would be substantially slower and more expensive. Automatic evaluations with LLMs may avoid the challenges of designing new rules and manually annotating trajectories, enabling faster and cost-effective evaluation. However, it is unclear how effective they are at evaluating web agents. To this end, we propose AgentRewardBench, the first benchmark to assess the effectiveness of LLM judges for evaluating web agents. AgentRewardBench contains 1302 trajectories across 5 benchmarks and 4 LLMs. Each trajectory in AgentRewardBench is reviewed by an expert, who answers questions pertaining to the success, side effects, and repetitiveness of the agent. Using our benchmark, we evaluate 12 LLM judges and find that no single LLM excels across all benchmarks. We also find that the rule-based evaluation used by common benchmarks tends to underreport the success rate of web agents, highlighting a key weakness of rule-based evaluation and the need to develop more flexible automatic evaluations. We release the benchmark at: https://agent-reward-bench.github.io

Autoresearch agents are reshaping the research ecosystem, but they can also let flawed claims enter the literature at scale. Human advisors catch such issues in drafts through careful, traceable feedback, yet advisor-style assessment requires extensive manual effort and does not scale. To shift automated paper assessment from a judge to a diagnostician, we introduce PaperDoctor, an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations. First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through three layers: L1 surface screening, L2 typed verifiers that route each claim to the appropriate evidence, and L3 reproducers that rerun experiments by priority. Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion, making critiques auditable and actionable. Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget, surfacing reproducibility gaps and quantitative limitations that are invisible from the manuscript alone. We evaluate PaperDoctor on 30 in-progress papers, yielding 70.6% agreement and all positive holistic scores, and on 40 manuscripts across machine learning, natural science, and social science, covering human- and AI-authored papers with code. Overall, PaperDoctor produces more auditable feedback than human and other agentic reviewers, pairs critiques with concrete suggestions by design, and complements dimensions often overlooked by human reviewers. We also develop an interactive interface that lets authors browse findings grounded in their paper. PaperDoctor reframes automated paper assessment as diagnosis rather than verdict, taking a concrete step toward AI advisors for more rigorous AI-assisted scientific discovery.

Existing computer-use agent benchmarks do not fully evaluate agents acting as assistants. A useful assistant retrieves information across complex, multi-step workflows, synthesizes it into artifacts (documents, presentations, spreadsheets), and navigates program interfaces to produce a coherent final product. Such workflows demand reasoning and synthesis, decomposition of complex tasks, as well as visual and spatial understanding. To study agents on workflows like these, we introduce KNOWS, a benchmark of open-ended, complex, browser-based tasks that jointly evaluate these capabilities, with each task culminating in a produced artifact. To write tasks, we develop a task design rubric and a protocol for ensuring that tasks meet the requirements. Each task is paired with an evaluator, a program that combines deterministic checks with LLM judgments to balance the richness, reliability, and automation tradeoff inherent to agent evaluation. We evaluate and analyze frontier computer-use agents and browser-based harnesses. They achieve moderate scores on partial-success metrics, but the best performer fully succeeds in fewer than 3% of our complex, long-horizon tasks. Failures on visual steps render the resulting artifacts unusable, even when agents complete more than 50% of other evaluation steps. Our results expose limitations of current agents acting as end-to-end assistants, and call for progress on tool use, visual understanding, and long-horizon reasoning.

The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight. We investigate this through BadScientist, a framework that evaluates whether fabrication-oriented paper generation agents can deceive multi-model LLM review systems. Our generator employs presentation-manipulation strategies requiring no real experiments. We develop a rigorous evaluation framework with formal error guarantees (concentration bounds and calibration analysis), calibrated on real data. Our results reveal systematic vulnerabilities: fabricated papers achieve acceptance rates up to . Critically, we identify concern-acceptance conflict -- reviewers frequently flag integrity issues yet assign acceptance-level scores. Our mitigation strategies show only marginal improvements, with detection accuracy barely exceeding random chance. Despite provably sound aggregation mathematics, integrity checking systematically fails, exposing fundamental limitations in current AI-driven review systems and underscoring the urgent need for defense-in-depth safeguards in scientific publishing.

LLM agents are rapidly becoming the practical interface for task automation, yet the ecosystem lacks a principled way to choose among an exploding space of deployable configurations. Existing LLM leaderboards and tool/agent benchmarks evaluate components in isolation and remain fragmented across tasks, metrics, and candidate pools, leaving a critical research gap: there is little query-conditioned supervision for learning to recommend end-to-end agent configurations that couple a backbone model with a toolkit. We address this gap with AgentSelect, a benchmark that reframes agent selection as narrative query-to-agent recommendation over capability profiles and systematically converts heterogeneous evaluation artifacts into unified, positive-only interaction data. AgentSelectcomprises 111,179 queries, 107,721 deployable agents, and 251,103 interaction records aggregated from 40+ sources, spanning LLM-only, toolkit-only, and compositional agents. Our analyses reveal a regime shift from dense head reuse to long-tail, near one-off supervision, where popularity-based CF/GNN methods become fragile and content-aware capability matching is essential. We further show that Part~III synthesized compositional interactions are learnable, induce capability-sensitive behavior under controlled counterfactual edits, and improve coverage over realistic compositions; models trained on AgentSelect also transfer to a public agent marketplace (MuleRun), yielding consistent gains on an unseen catalog. Overall, AgentSelect provides the first unified data and evaluation infrastructure for agent recommendation, which establishes a reproducible foundation to study and accelerate the emerging agent ecosystem.

Recent advances in frontier large language models have enabled code review agents that operate in open-ended, reasoning-intensive settings. However, the lack of standardized benchmarks and granular evaluation protocols makes it difficult to assess behavior of code review agents beyond coarse success metrics, particularly for tasks where false positives are costly. To address this gap, we introduce CR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset, and CR-Evaluator, a fine-grained evaluation pipeline for code review agents. Using these tools, we conduct a preliminary study evaluating both a single-shot agent and a Reflexion-based agent across two frontier models. We find that code review agents can exhibit a low signal-to-noise ratio when designed to identify all hidden issues, obscuring true progress and developer productivity when measured solely by resolution rates. Our analysis identifies the hidden trade-off between issue resolution and spurious findings, revealing a frontier that constrains effective agent design. Together, CR-Bench and CR-Evaluator provide a timely foundation for studying and developing code review agents as LLM-based systems transition from controlled benchmarks to real-world software engineering workflows.

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

Agentic search systems iteratively interact with retrieval models to answer complex queries. Despite substantial progress, optimizing retrievers for agentic search remains challenging, often requiring heavy co-training or gold-standard annotations that limit real-world applicability. We propose Critic-R, a framework that explicitly closes the feedback loop between the reasoning agent and the retrieval model during both inference and training. Critic-R introduces a critic model that evaluates the agent's introspective reasoning trace after consuming retrieved evidence to determine whether the retrieved context sufficiently supports the next reasoning step. Critic-R has two complementary mechanisms: Critic-R-Zero, an inference-time query refinement loop that iteratively rewrites queries and retrieval instructions, and Critic-Embed, an optimization approach for retrieval models that leverages successful and failed refinement trajectories as automatic supervision without requiring manual relevance annotation. We evaluate Critic-R on HotpotQA, 2WikiMultihopQA, MuSiQue, and Bamboogle. Results show that Critic-R significantly improves both retrieval quality and downstream answer accuracy.

As software engineering moves toward SE3.0, AI agents are increasingly used to carry out development tasks and contribute changes to software projects. It is therefore important to understand the extent of these contributions and how human developers review and intervene, since these factors shape the risks of delegating work to AI agents. While recent studies have examined how AI agents support software development tasks (e.g., code generation, issue resolution, and PR automation), their role in documentation tasks remains underexplored-even though documentation is widely consumed and shapes how developers understand and use software. Using the AIDev, we analyze 1,997 documentation-related pull requests (PRs) authored by AI agents and human developers, where documentation PRs are those that create or modify project documentation artifacts. We find that AI agents submit substantially more documentation-related PRs than humans in the studied repositories. We further observe that agent-authored documentation edits are typically integrated with little follow-up modification from humans, raising concerns about review practices and the reliability of agent-generated documentation. Overall, while AI agents already contribute substantially to documentation workflows, our results suggest concerns for emerging challenges for documentation quality assurance and human-AI collaboration in SE3.0.

Code review is a critical software engineering practice where developers review code changes before integration to ensure code quality, detect defects, and improve maintainability. In recent years, AI agents that can understand code context, plan review actions, and interact with development environments have been increasingly integrated into the code review process. However, there is limited empirical evidence to compare the effectiveness of AI agents and human reviewers in collaborative workflows. To address this gap, we conduct a large-scale empirical analysis of 278,790 code review conversations across 300 open-source GitHub projects. In our study, we aim to compare the feedback differences provided by human reviewers and AI agents. We investigate human-AI collaboration patterns in review conversations to understand how interaction shapes review outcomes. Moreover, we analyze the adoption of code suggestions provided by human reviewers and AI agents into the codebase and how adopted suggestions change code quality. We find that human reviewers provide additional feedback than AI agents, including understanding, testing, and knowledge transfer. Human reviewers exchange 11.8% more rounds when reviewing AI-generated code than human-written code. Moreover, code suggestions made by AI agents are adopted into the codebase at a significantly lower rate than suggestions proposed by human reviewers. Over half of unadopted suggestions from AI agents are either incorrect or addressed through alternative fixes by developers. When adopted, suggestions provided by AI agents produce significantly larger increases in code complexity and code size than suggestions provided by human reviewers. Our findings suggest that while AI agents can scale defect screening, human oversight remains critical for ensuring suggestion quality and providing contextual feedback that AI agents lack.

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with creative generation, and multi-agent frameworks that improve reasoning through interaction can paradoxically hinder creativity by inducing content homogenization. We introduce LLM Review, a peer-review-inspired framework implementing Blind Peer Review: agents exchange targeted feedback while revising independently, preserving divergent creative trajectories. To enable rigorous evaluation, we propose SciFi-100, a science fiction writing dataset with a unified framework combining LLM-as-a-judge scoring, human annotation, and rule-based novelty metrics. Experiments demonstrate that LLM Review consistently outperforms multi-agent baselines, and smaller models with our framework can surpass larger single-agent models, suggesting interaction structure may substitute for model scale.

LLM-based coding agents repeat the same classes of mistakes across sessions because they lack a mechanism to retain corrections from human review feedback. We present a closed-loop framework in which every accepted review comment is codified as a persistent behavioral rule, progressively expanding the set of error classes the agent can self-detect. The framework combines an accumulating rule set in a version-controlled instruction file, a self-review checklist executed before code submission, and automated validation that ensures rule set integrity as it grows. In deployment across a 35+ service microservices platform, the rule set grew from 5 to 18 behavioral rules, 15+ language-specific standards, and a 15-item self-review checklist, all derived from real review feedback. We present empirical results from 11 recorded working sessions spanning code generation, PR review, incident investigation, and cross service refactoring. We observe that accumulated rules shift review effort from low-level correctness toward design-level validation, achieve a measured 0% recurrence rate for ruled-against error classes, and transfer across heterogeneous agent interfaces. We compare our approach against related work in experiential LLM learning (Reflexion, ExpeL, Voyager) and automated code review (CodeReviewer, SWE-bench agents), showing that our framework achieves persistent cross-session learning without weight updates, operates on production codebases rather than synthetic benchmarks, and addresses an orthogonal dimension (behavioral consistency over time) that existing benchmarks do not measure. The result is a coding agent that improves with every review cycle, accumulating the engineering wisdom of its human collaborators without changing a single model weight.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in automated code-review systems, where their approvals can determine which code is merged into shared repositories. However, it is unclear whether review agents can detect vulnerability-introducing code when an attacker controls both the code change and the persuasive Pull Request (PR) narrative designed to mask it. We introduce SEVRA-BENCH (Social Engineering of Vulnerabilities in Review Agents), a benchmark that measures how often a review agent approves such adversarial PR s. Each PR in SEVRA-BENCH is built from a historical commit that fixed a vulnerability. We automatically reverse that fix to extract the original vulnerable code, and submit the resulting code change as a PR wrapped in one of 15 social-engineering framings. To test review-agent resilience to narrative manipulation, these framings vary dimensions such as supporting evidence, conveyed urgency, signals of prior approval, and appeals to authority. SEVRA-BENCH evaluates a retained challenge split of roughly 1000 adversarial PRs drawn from publicly disclosed vulnerability fixes across the top 10 entries of the MITRE's 2025 most dangerous software weaknesses. Evaluating 8 review agents against this benchmark, we reveal that review agents are susceptible to narrative manipulation, exposing a significant gap in security capabilities.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in general natural language processing tasks but often fall short in complex reasoning tasks. Recent studies have explored human-like problem-solving strategies, such as self-correct, to push further the boundary of single-model reasoning ability. In this work, we let a single model "step outside the box" by engaging multiple models to correct each other. We introduce a multi-agent collaboration strategy that emulates the academic peer review process. Each agent independently constructs its own solution, provides reviews on the solutions of others, and assigns confidence levels to its reviews. Upon receiving peer reviews, agents revise their initial solutions. Extensive experiments on three different types of reasoning tasks show that our collaboration approach delivers superior accuracy across all ten datasets compared to existing methods. Further study underscores the effectiveness of integrating confidence in reviews, demonstrates the superiority of feedback exchange over mere solution sharing, and highlights the role of capability and diversity in fostering successful collaboration.

LLM-based agents have gained considerable attention for their decision-making skills and ability to handle complex tasks. Recognizing the current gap in leveraging agent capabilities for multi-agent collaboration in recommendation systems, we introduce MACRec, a novel framework designed to enhance recommendation systems through multi-agent collaboration. Unlike existing work on using agents for user/item simulation, we aim to deploy multi-agents to tackle recommendation tasks directly. In our framework, recommendation tasks are addressed through the collaborative efforts of various specialized agents, including Manager, User/Item Analyst, Reflector, Searcher, and Task Interpreter, with different working flows. Furthermore, we provide application examples of how developers can easily use MACRec on various recommendation tasks, including rating prediction, sequential recommendation, conversational recommendation, and explanation generation of recommendation results. The framework and demonstration video are publicly available at https://github.com/wzf2000/MACRec.

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

This paper describes a highly developed personalised recommendation system using multimodal, autonomous, multi-agent systems. The system focuses on the incorporation of futuristic AI tech and LLMs like Gemini-1.5- pro and LLaMA-70B to improve customer service experiences especially within e-commerce. Our approach uses multi agent, multimodal systems to provide best possible recommendations to its users. The system is made up of three agents as a whole. The first agent recommends products appropriate for answering the given question, while the second asks follow-up questions based on images that belong to these recommended products and is followed up with an autonomous search by the third agent. It also features a real-time data fetch, user preferences-based recommendations and is adaptive learning. During complicated queries the application processes with Symphony, and uses the Groq API to answer quickly with low response times. It uses a multimodal way to utilize text and images comprehensively, so as to optimize product recommendation and customer interaction.

Online recommendation has traditionally taken place after a user enters a platform, which determines the candidate pool and the ranking shown to the user. LLM-based user agents enable a different recommendation process: a user specifies a need before choosing a platform, leaving platforms to compete for the user's attention, which we refer to as an agentic recommendation market. In our controlled LLM-based experiments across three product domains, we find this new setting of recommendation creates a tension between access and attention. Compared with traditional platform-centric recommendation, user-centric recommendation greatly expands the opportunity for relevant items to enter comparison; yet broader participation does not translate directly into effective exposure. Competition directly triggers platforms' strategic play: selectively positive explanations occupy 73--78% of first-ranked positions. When the user agent relates platforms' actions to subsequent user feedback, this share falls to 36--41%, while the chance of a user purchasing the relevant item increases. A user agent is therefore more than a ranker over a larger pool of candidates: its querying, ranking, and feedback mechanism governing who can compete, how scarce attention is allocated, and how earlier outcomes shape the evaluation of platforms directly affect user utility. Designing agentic recommendation therefore requires treating access, attention, and accountability as a joint mechanism design problem.

Critique ability, a meta-cognitive capability of humans, presents significant challenges for LLMs to improve. Recent works primarily rely on supervised fine-tuning (SFT) using critiques generated by a single LLM like GPT-4. However, these model-generated critiques often exhibit flaws due to the inherent complexity of the critique. Consequently, fine-tuning LLMs on such flawed critiques typically limits the model's performance and propagates these flaws into the learned model. To overcome these challenges, this paper proposes a novel data generation pipeline, named MultiCritique, that improves the critique ability of LLMs by utilizing multi-agent feedback in both the SFT and reinforcement learning (RL) stages. First, our data generation pipeline aggregates high-quality critiques from multiple agents instead of a single model, with crucial information as input for simplifying the critique. Furthermore, our pipeline improves the preference accuracy of critique quality through multi-agent feedback, facilitating the effectiveness of RL in improving the critique ability of LLMs. Based on our proposed MultiCritique data generation pipeline, we construct the MultiCritiqueDataset for the SFT and RL fine-tuning stages. Extensive experimental results on two benchmarks demonstrate: 1) the superior quality of our constructed SFT dataset compared to existing critique datasets; 2) additional improvements to the critique ability of LLMs brought by the RL stage. Notably, our fine-tuned 7B model significantly surpasses other advanced 7B-13B open-source models, approaching the performance of advanced 70B LLMs and GPT-4. Codes, datasets and model weights will be publicly available.

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

In this paper, we present AgentDisCo, a novel Disentangled and Collaborative agentic architecture that formulates deep research as an adversarial optimization problem between information exploration and exploitation. Unlike existing approaches that conflate these two processes into a single module, AgentDisCo employs a critic agent to evaluate generated outlines and refine search queries, and a generator agent to retrieve updated results and revise outlines accordingly. The iteratively refined outline is then passed to a downstream report writer that synthesizes a comprehensive research report. The overall workflow supports both handcrafted and automatically discovered design strategies via a meta-optimization harness, in which the generator agent is repurposed as a scoring agent to evaluate critic outputs and generate quality signals. Powerful code-generation agents (e.g., Claude-Code, Codex) systematically explore agent configurations and construct a policy bank, a structured repository of reusable design strategies, enabling the framework to self-refine without extensive human intervention. We evaluate AgentDisCo on three established deep research benchmarks (DeepResearchBench, DeepConsult, DeepResearchGym) using Gemini-2.5-Pro, achieving performance comparable to or surpassing leading closed-source systems. Observing that existing benchmarks inadequately reflect real-world user needs, we introduce GALA (General AI Life Assistants), a benchmark that mines latent research interests from users' historical browsing behavior. We further develop a rendering agent that converts research reports into visually rich poster presentations, and demonstrate an end-to-end product, AutoResearch Your Interest, which delivers personalized deep research recommendations derived from individual browsing histories.

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

Reproducible and analytically robust research findings are essential to scientific progress, but evaluating these properties typically requires costly manual effort. We investigate whether LLM agents can help automate reproduction and robustness analysis, using a medical case study grounded in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, a widely used U.S. cancer registry underlying tens of thousands of published studies. First, we introduce SEER-Repro, a benchmark of 20 published SEER-based papers together with the data and resources required to reproduce their findings. Second, we create an AI agent that successfully reproduces 77.4% of 2,190 atomic claims, while providing executable baselines for further analysis. Third, we develop an agentic analysis pipeline to test the robustness of the medical findings by identifying analytical choices underlying each finding, proposing defensible alternatives, and rerunning the analysis to determine whether those choices affect the conclusion. Across published papers in SEER-Repro, our pipeline identifies potentially consequential analytical choices in 9.5% of fully reproduced findings and flags them for expert review. These results show how LLM agents can support scientific review by reproducing findings, systematically testing their robustness, and directing expert attention toward potentially consequential analytical choices.

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers' writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline uswithout the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use. Our code is publicly available under the AGPL-3.0 license at https://github.com/jiarui-liu/overleaf

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

Benchmark contamination has become a significant concern in the LLM evaluation community. Previous Agents-as-an-Evaluator address this issue by involving agents in the generation of questions. Despite their success, the biases in Agents-as-an-Evaluator methods remain largely unexplored. In this paper, we present a theoretical formulation of evaluation bias, providing valuable insights into designing unbiased evaluation protocols. Furthermore, we identify two type of bias in Agents-as-an-Evaluator through carefully designed probing tasks on a minimal Agents-as-an-Evaluator setup. To address these issues, we propose the Unbiased Evaluator, an evaluation protocol that delivers a more comprehensive, unbiased, and interpretable assessment of LLMs.Extensive experiments reveal significant room for improvement in current LLMs. Additionally, we demonstrate that the Unbiased Evaluator not only offers strong evidence of benchmark contamination but also provides interpretable evaluation results.

Large Language Model (LLM) integrations into applications like Microsoft365 suite and Google Workspace for creating/processing documents, emails, presentations, etc. has led to considerable enhancements in productivity and time savings. But as these integrations become more more complex, it is paramount to ensure that the quality of output from the LLM-integrated applications are relevant and appropriate for use. Identifying the need to develop robust evaluation approaches for natural language generation, wherein references/ground labels doesn't exist or isn't amply available, this paper introduces a novel framework called "SAGEval" which utilizes a critiquing Agent to provide feedback on scores generated by LLM evaluators. We show that the critiquing Agent is able to rectify scores from LLM evaluators, in absence of references/ground-truth labels, thereby reducing the need for labeled data even for complex NLG evaluation scenarios, like the generation of JSON-structured forms/surveys with responses in different styles like multiple choice, likert ratings, single choice questions, etc.

Question answering systems should help users to access knowledge on a broad range of topics and to answer a wide array of different questions. Most systems fall short of this expectation as they are only specialized in one particular setting, e.g., answering factual questions with Wikipedia data. To overcome this limitation, we propose composing multiple QA agents within a meta-QA system. We argue that there exist a wide range of specialized QA agents in literature. Thus, we address the central research question of how to effectively and efficiently identify suitable QA agents for any given question. We study both supervised and unsupervised approaches to address this challenge, showing that TWEAC -- Transformer with Extendable Agent Classifiers -- achieves the best performance overall with 94% accuracy. We provide extensive insights on the scalability of TWEAC, demonstrating that it scales robustly to over 100 QA agents with each providing just 1000 examples of questions they can answer. Our code and data is available: https://github.com/UKPLab/TWEAC-qa-agent-selection

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

What makes great scientists great? Even as AI systems start to make progress on open problems, scientists remain far ahead of them at sensing which prior idea, buried in an ever-growing archive of research, a new problem needs. To study this skill, we draw on researchers who know firsthand which earlier work advanced their completed projects, with papers serving as pointers to the ideas within. Using our automated pipeline that makes author annotation scalable, we build ScholarCatalyst by having 184 lead authors of 207 recent computer science papers label which candidates did or could have advanced their project, each with a detailed rationale. We introduce a retrieval task with author-provided judgments: given an initial research question, retrieve these papers from only the literature available when the project began. Agentic search does no better than embedding retrieval (0.42 vs. 0.48 Recall@20) despite calling that same retriever as a tool. Even an agent built on Claude Fable 5.1, which may have seen the completed papers during training, reaches only 0.51 R@20. These results highlight the need for new training recipes that equip models with expert intuition for searching broad corpora. We envision ScholarCatalyst as a step toward scientific agents that can take a half-formed idea and point to the prior research it needs.

AI coding agents increasingly author pull requests (PRs), often under developers' own accounts, obscuring who actually produced a change. Reliable attribution is important for repository governance, empirical studies of AI-assisted software development, and measuring the impact of AI coding agents. Existing work focuses on closed-set identification of known agents, leaving the practical limits of open-world AI coding agent attribution largely unexplored. In this paper, we present AgenTag, a multimodal framework for open-world AI coding agent attribution, evaluated on AIDev, comprising 33,580 PRs from five AI coding agents and 6,618 human-authored PRs. We represent each PR using textual, behavioral, and code-based modalities, and compare conventional classification with supervised contrastive learning for open-set recognition and few-shot enrollment of previously unseen agents. AgenTag identifies authoring agents with a weighted F1 of 0.96 (macro F1 of 0.84), distinguishes AI- from human-authored PRs with a balanced F1 of 0.89, and detects previously unseen agents with an AUC of 0.84. We further show that PR descriptions and commit messages provide nearly all of the attribution signal, whereas code diffs contribute little across multiple representations, indicating that coding agents are distinguished primarily by how they communicate changes rather than by the code they generate. Moreover, these behavioral fingerprints persist after removing explicit self-disclosed markers, demonstrating that attribution relies largely on latent stylistic characteristics. These findings show that reliable attribution of AI coding agents is feasible and clarify the practical trade-offs between attribution accuracy and the information required to achieve it.

Search agents are language models (LMs) that reason and search knowledge bases (or the web) to answer questions; recent methods supervise only the final answer accuracy using reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR). Most RLVR search agents tackle general-domain QA, which limits their relevance to technical AI systems in science, engineering, and medicine. In this work we propose training agents to search and reason over scientific papers -- this tests technical question-answering, it is directly relevant to real scientists, and the capabilities will be crucial to future AI Scientist systems. Concretely, we release a search corpus of 16 million biomedical paper abstracts and construct a challenging factoid QA dataset called PaperSearchQA with 60k samples answerable from the corpus, along with benchmarks. We train search agents in this environment to outperform non-RL retrieval baselines; we also perform further quantitative analysis and observe interesting agent behaviors like planning, reasoning, and self-verification. Our corpus, datasets, and benchmarks are usable with the popular Search-R1 codebase for RLVR training and released on https://huggingface.co/collections/jmhb/papersearchqa. Finally, our data creation methods are scalable and easily extendable to other scientific domains.

AI agents hold the potential to revolutionize scientific productivity by automating literature reviews, replicating experiments, analyzing data, and even proposing new directions of inquiry; indeed, there are now many such agents, ranging from general-purpose "deep research" systems to specialized science-specific agents, such as AI Scientist and AIGS. Rigorous evaluation of these agents is critical for progress. Yet existing benchmarks fall short on several fronts: they (1) fail to provide holistic, product-informed measures of real-world use cases such as science research; (2) lack reproducible agent tools necessary for a controlled comparison of core agentic capabilities; (3) do not account for confounding variables such as model cost and tool access; (4) do not provide standardized interfaces for quick agent prototyping and evaluation; and (5) lack comprehensive baseline agents necessary to identify true advances. In response, we define principles and tooling for more rigorously benchmarking agents. Using these, we present AstaBench, a suite that provides the first holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research, comprising 2400+ problems spanning the entire scientific discovery process and multiple scientific domains, and including many problems inspired by actual user requests to deployed Asta agents. Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools that enable controlled, reproducible evaluation, better accounting for confounders. Alongside, we provide a comprehensive suite of nine science-optimized classes of Asta agents and numerous baselines. Our extensive evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings, most importantly that despite meaningful progress on certain individual aspects, AI remains far from solving the challenge of science research assistance.

Modern Code Review (MCR) is an informal tool-assisted quality assurance practice. It relies on the asynchronous communication among the authors of code changes and reviewers, who are developers that provide feedback. However, from candidate developers, some are able to provide better feedback than others given a particular context. The selection of reviewers is thus an important task, which can benefit from automated support. Many approaches have been proposed in this direction, using for example data from code review repositories to recommend reviewers. In this paper, we propose the use of team-related features to improve the performance of predictions that are helpful to build code reviewer recommenders, with our target predictions being the identification of reviewers that would participate in a review and the provided amount of feedback. We evaluate the prediction power of these features, which are related to code ownership, workload, and team relationship. This evaluation was done by carefully addressing challenges imposed by the MCR domain, such as temporal aspects of the dataset and unbalanced classes. Moreover, given that it is currently unknown how much past data is needed for building MCR prediction models with acceptable performance, we explore the amount of past data used to build prediction models. Our results show that, individually, features related to code ownership have the best prediction power. However, based on feature selection, we conclude that all proposed features together with lines of code can make the best predictions for both reviewer participation and amount of feedback. Regarding the amount of past data, the timeframes of 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of data produce similar results. Therefore, models can be trained considering short timeframes, thus reducing the computational costs with negligible impact in the prediction performance ...