#01Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Synthesis of Ovarian Cancer Multi-Omics Datasets: A Biology-Informed Evaluation Framework
Déborah Boyenval, Alina Malyutina, Jaana Oikkonen and 2 more
Paired multi-omic cancer cohorts are costly to assemble and difficult to share, motivating synthetic cohorts as a complementary resource. As generative model development accelerates, we shift the focus from proposing yet another architecture to defining evaluation criteria that determine whether synthetic data preserve biologically relevant structure. We introduce a biology-informed and patient-disjoint framework for evaluating the generation of paired RNA expression and copy-number variation (CNV) profiles, and apply it to the longitudinal DECIDER high-grade serous ovarian cancer cohort. The framework assesses modality-specific fidelity and coherence between RNA and CNV pairs using agreement between real training and held-out data as a reference, alongside complementary training-data proximity diagnostics. We adapt three multi-omic integration architectures based on variational autoencoders to generate paired profiles. The model leading several fidelity and coherence measures also shows the strongest training-data proximity. The protocol and case study offer the community a reference for comparing future multi-omic generators.
#02Nov 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.
#03Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
SwarmEvolve: Latent Agent Swarms for Evolutionary Discovery and Optimization
Qile Jiang, George Em Karniadakis
LLM-guided evolutionary search uses AI agents to improve programs for mathematical and computational problems by iteratively refining solutions and combining high-scoring methods. However, the process is often slow because the LLM generates a long textual chain of thought for each round and must repeat this generation many times to maintain population diversity. We present SwarmEvolve, a framework in which hundreds of low-cost agents per round work in swarms, reason in latent space without decoding to text, and share information by passing KV caches. Each swarm studies the problem from a different angle. A novelty filter keeps the most distinct agent ideas by directly measuring the distances between the agents' hidden state vectors. Crossover of ideas happens naturally in latent space, as a summarizer agent receives the combined KV caches of all swarm members. On 21 problems in mathematical discovery and scientific computing, SwarmEvolve gets the highest average score and needs a median of only 3 to 8 minutes to reach the best scores that other state-of-the-art frameworks reach in 60 minutes. On several problems, SwarmEvolve with Qwen3 8B improves on the solutions that AlphaEvolve first found with frontier LLMs. Our work shows that agent swarms that communicate in latent space offer a fast, low-cost approach to program search for scientific problems.
#04Nov 5, 2026
cs.AI
Benchmarks as Software: Terminal-Bench and the Case for Continuous Benchmarks
E. Kelly Buchanan, Crystal Zhou, Scott W. Linderman and 1 more
Coding agents are among the most economically consequential deployments of LLMs to date, making reliable evaluation increasingly important. Yet even benchmarks that are carefully validated at release can become stale. As models improve, they can discover valid solutions that existing verifiers reject, while changes to evaluation infrastructure can invalidate assumptions embedded in tasks and tests. We call the resulting accumulation of defects benchmark maintenance debt: a growing gap between benchmark scores and the capabilities they are intended to measure. We introduce a continuous-validation workflow for agentic benchmarks that combines community reports, task artifacts, agent traces, automated oracle checks, and human-gated repairs. We apply this workflow to Terminal-Bench 2.0, a benchmark that underwent extensive human and LM-assisted review and red-teaming before release. Our audit identifies issues in roughly 30% of the benchmark, and we release the resulting repairs as Terminal-Bench 2.1. These repairs change evaluation results: accuracy increased by over 10 percentage points and leaderboard positions move by up to three ranks, even as the overall ranking remains highly correlated (Spearman rho = 0.958). We evaluate how resource allocation shapes benchmark conclusions. We show that fixed wall-clock can materially change agent performance: For example, extending the time limit closes a 20pp harness gap on GPT 5.4 and shrinks a 30 pp gap on GPT 5.4 mini to 5 pp. Benchmark maintenance is therefore not only about repairing task artifacts: resource budgets are part of the measurement specification and must be validated alongside the tasks themselves. More broadly, benchmark maintenance debt is not just accumulated implementation bugs: our results show that as models improve, both evaluation assumptions and resource settings may need to be revalidated.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.LG
Unpacking the Compute Efficiency of Strong-to-Weak OPD against GRPO
Zeyu Leo Liu, Yang Li, Bo Pang and 7 more
On-policy distillation (OPD) trains a student on its own rollouts under a frozen teacher's per-token supervision. Does this dense signal reduce the training FLOPs needed to reach a target accuracy compared with reinforcement learning? We systematically compare vanilla reverse-KL OPD with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) across task difficulty, student and teacher size, domain, and optimization choices, measuring held-out accuracy against training FLOPs. With an external post-trained teacher, OPD generally loses to GRPO in accuracy per training FLOP at matched settings, even when the teacher is further trained with GRPO, and often suffers response-length inflation. Yet a different teacher changes the picture: when the teacher is the student's own GRPO checkpoint, OPD recovers that checkpoint's accuracy on math with $50\times$ fewer distillation FLOPs than GRPO needs to reach the same accuracy. Following the same teacher setting, we consistently observe this high efficiency with a larger student, on code, and in a second model family. On a single domain, however, the GRPO checkpoint is already the desired model, so distilling it adds to total compute. Across domains, separate GRPO checkpoints hold different capabilities, and no single checkpoint serves every domain. Multi-teacher OPD (DeepSeek-AI, 2026) consolidates per-domain GRPO experts into a single student that matches each expert's accuracy, with the distillation stage costing only 5.2% (on 2 domains) and 8.0% (on 4 domains) of the specialist training FLOPs. Counting specialist training and distillation together, this pipeline reaches joint GRPO's performance on the 2-domain mix with 42.0% fewer total FLOPs.