#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
The Gold Rush in AI4Math, II: What are signatures of AI-assisted Proofs?
Yuanchuan Guo, Jiashun Jin, Zheng Tracy Ke and 1 more
The growing use of AI in mathematics raises a question: can we detect AI involvement in proofs, separately from AI assistance with writing? Historical arXiv papers, recent papers disclosing substantive AI use, and manuscripts released by OpenAI provide a rich empirical basis for studying this question. However, several challenges remain: lack of matched case-control pairs; potential incompleteness of disclosure; and lack of ready-to-use features designed to capture signals of AI involvement in proofs. To address these challenges, we construct five cohorts comprising 8,281 papers by combining existing manuscripts with those we produced using generative AI. These cohorts span different levels of AI involvement and include matched pairs of papers addressing the same research problems. We then introduce ProofTrace, a framework that represents each paper as a graph of immediate proof support (GIPS) and extracts interpretable features of mathematical organization. Our study yields three discoveries. First, principal-component projections of our features reveal a qualitative gradient of AI involvement, where AI-reworded papers remain close to human papers, the two AI-generated cohorts depart in broadly shared directions, and papers disclosing substantive AI use occupy intermediate positions which shifts toward AI-generated cohorts over time. Second, we identify recurring signatures of AI-generated proofs, such as fewer externally cited results, greater reliance on intermediate conclusions, and altered graph connectivity; many of these signatures persist under controls for research field, manuscript length, or graph size. Finally, in a separate detection experiment, ProofTrace distinguishes human-written papers from those disclosing substantive AI use. Its performance remains stable under AI rewording, whereas the performance of state-of-the-art text-based detectors declines sharply.
#02Nov 5, 2026
cs.CV
Where and Why is Grounded Reasoning Useful?
David Yan, Le Xue, Forrest Huang and 4 more
Grounded reasoning, where a model outputs text coordinates of relevant locations in chain-of-thought reasoning, is a common strategy for solving complex visual reasoning problems. However, the benefits and limitations of grounded reasoning are understudied. We study where and why grounded reasoning is most useful. To do so, we introduce a chain-of-thought analysis method to measure how much a model uses its outputted grounding in its thinking trace and perform a detailed ablation study of a grounded reasoning training recipe. We find that grounded reasoning improves counting but shows no significant gain over baselines without coordinate grounding across a wide range of spatial reasoning and perception benchmarks. Using several synthetic tasks, we show that grounded reasoning is most useful when a task requires undescribable references, which are visual concepts that are difficult to describe in language. However, we observe that many existing visual reasoning benchmarks are solvable with only describable text references. To close this gap, we introduce BrickVision, a new benchmark that requires undescribable visual references to solve.
#03Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
StepBack: Step-Level Error-Localized Resampling for Efficient Test-Time Reasoning
Yang Ouyang, Jung-Eun Kim
Self-consistency (SC) is a widely used decoding strategy for improving chain-of-thought reasoning, but it requires sampling many complete reasoning trajectories with a preset budget. Its efficient variants reduce the cost mainly by stopping full-trajectory sampling early or distributing the number of samples across questions. In this paper, we propose StepBack, a step-level error-localized resampling method for efficient test-time reasoning. Given a small set of draft trajectories, StepBack localizes likely first error positions using lightweight signals and then resamples the detected error step and its suffix, followed by majority answer voting. Empirically, StepBack matches the accuracy of SC on average across seven mathematical reasoning and multi-hop QA benchmarks, while reducing token usage by up to 41.26%. In addition, by nature, StepBack can be combined with adaptive inference methods such as Adaptive Consistency, further improving their inference-time efficiency.
#04Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
On the limitations of molecular representations
Acer Blake, Fergus Imrie, Charlotte M. Deane
Molecular representations such as fingerprints and learned embeddings play a central role in cheminformatics and small-molecule machine learning. They serve as the primary input for a diverse array of tasks, including clustering, dataset splitting, and virtual screening, yet their evaluation is often limited to downstream model performance on narrow benchmark tasks. We carried out a systematic investigation of the quality of molecular representations, finding that none of the state-of-the-art molecular embedding models capture graph structure, 3D shape, or ADMET endpoint similarity better than fingerprints or physicochemical descriptors. However, classical fingerprints also revealed their own material limitations. For example, we show that depending on the representation, between 225M and $\sim$4B molecules have non-unique representations in the 10.8B Enamine REAL database, with implications for virtual screening. Our findings provide an insight into the current limitations of molecular representations, outlining future research directions for the development of more robust encodings of small molecules.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Same Behavior, Different Mechanism: What Finite Experiments Can Certify About Integrated Information
Linqian Wu, Diaoxuan He
Interpretability, AI auditing and assessments of machine consciousness increasingly rest on mechanism-level quantities: functionals of a system's causal transition law that describe how it computes, not what it outputs. Experiments see that law only through finite, partial and noisy interventions. We ask when such a quantity is identifiable from an experiment's access, continuous in the mechanism and certifiable from finite data, and answer exactly for a deliberately demanding case - the integrated information $\varphi$ of integrated information theory - in stochastic networks of four and five units with known ground truth. Behavior can be silent: a recurrent and a feed-forward network with identical input-output laws at their response delay carry 0.28 and 0 bits, yet internal recordings separate them within 4-53 trials. Partial access can be just as blind: in our examples, units left out of a one-step recording impose precision floors of 0.30-1.02 bits that no sample size lowers, and in all-but-self parity networks, recordings of any length see several hidden units only through the product of their fidelities - a symmetry that one intervention broke in exact checks. The measure has sharp edges: because $\varphi$ selects a partition, and the cause and effect it specifies, by one criterion and reports another, infinitesimal changes of mechanism that cross an edge change it by 25-100% at 99% of the edges we found in random networks, and about 1% of surrogate models that fit interventional data almost perfectly misreport it by more than 20%. One-sided claims survive: the same data certify a lower bound on both sides of an edge, and we prove $\varphi>1.004$ bits throughout a 64-dimensional region of mechanisms and certify it from about $10^7$ controlled transitions with false-certificate probability at most $α$. Measurability is thus a design question with computable answers.