#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
Scientist World: Grow a Research World for AI-Scientists
Taiming Lu, Sachin Konan, Zhuang Liu
AI-Scientists arrived, but a world for them to grow in did not. Human scientists take theirs for granted $-$ centuries of open problems and shared ideas, waiting in the scientific literature. To AI-Scientists, that world is readable but not runnable, so we build Scientist World for them: every research paper becomes an executable environment. Our autonomous pipeline extracts each paper's open-ended research question and reproduces its proposed method as the baseline; an AI-Scientist entering the environment is evaluated against what the human authors achieved. We release the first 1,000 verified environments. With the world as an evaluation, we found that frontier AI-Scientists can already surpass the human researchers 74% of the time. As a record of how AI does science, it contains 6,400 hours of research traces, with every idea, experiment, failure, and success. As a training ground, we are able to raise (+158%) a small model to match frontier models in research ideation. At last, AI-Scientists' own world has arrived, grown from and growing with science itself.
#02Nov 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.
#03Nov 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.
#04Nov 5, 2026
cs.CV
SM4RT: Cascaded Feed-forward Model for 4D Reconstruction
Pang-Chi Lo, Jhao-Syun Lai, Tsung-Wei Ke
We introduce SM4RT, a multi-task cascade feed-forward model for dynamic scene reconstruction from RGB videos. While existing feed-forward approaches typically address geometry reconstruction and motion estimation separately--and often predict motions in a single coordinate frame that must account for camera movement--SM4RT solves these tasks sequentially by first reconstructing 3D geometry and then bootstrapping motion estimation from the predicted structure. By expressing each pixel's 3D motion in its corresponding camera frame, SM4RT reduces ambiguity arising from camera motion. To address the sparsity of real-world motion labels, SM4RT further incorporates a weakly supervised loss that regularizes unlabeled point motions using labeled point positions at the other time step. We evaluate motion estimation on three dynamic-scene datasets--Kubric, Waymo, and Point Odyssey--and SM4RT achieves the best performance on most metrics compared with prior baselines. We additionally benchmark geometry reconstruction on five dynamic scene datasets and show that SM4RT achieves competitive performance with state-of-the-art methods. Overall, our unified framework demonstrates that combining geometry reconstruction and motion estimation in a cascade not only avoids performance trade-offs but also enhances motion estimation through improved geometric reasoning.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Spectral and Subspace Dynamics of LoRA in Supervised Fine-Tuning and Reinforcement Learning
Chenruo Liu, Zihan Wang, Yijun Dong and 1 more
Low-rank adaptation (LoRA) is commonly used in both supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning (RL), often under similar optimizer settings. Yet, how the different dynamics of the two stages manifest in the low-rank increment that LoRA optimizes remains unclear. Tracking the singular spectrum and subspaces of LoRA updates on mathematical reasoning tasks, we find that RL concentrates the spectrum at every learning rate, while SFT expands it at moderate learning rates; moreover, RL rotates the singular subspaces much faster than SFT at small learning rates. Interpolating between SFT and RL one ingredient at a time, we pinpoint group-mean baseline subtraction as the source of both contrasts. A quadratic multi-index model updated via LoRA unveils the underlying mechanism: group-mean baseline subtraction tilts the balance between two competing forces, coherent fitting and gradient noise, toward spectral concentration and faster subspace rotation, while forcing the risk-favorable learning rate to be low. Guided by these dynamics, we tailor LoRA updates to each stage: in SFT, we flatten the spectrum of the full update to spread adaptation across singular directions, whereas in RL, we flatten the part of the update outside the current LoRA increment span to promote subspace rotation. Experiments on mathematical reasoning tasks across multiple models show that the respective configurations for SFT and RL yield the best performance among the compared methods in most evaluated settings.