#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.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.CV
Do You Miss the Nights We Spent Crafting Figures? Rethinking Teaser and Framework Figures in the Age of Generative AI
Xiaoqi Zhao, Youwei Pang, Kailai Zhou
Scientific figures give research ideas a visual form through choices of abstraction, composition, and emphasis. Generative AI offers new ways to realize these choices, raising questions about explanatory clarity and purposeful visual expression. We examine these questions through a visual retrospective of 371 motivation and framework figures from 200 papers. The corpus comprises a quota-based main sample of 160 papers spanning four temporal periods and a separate purposive style-contrast sample of 40 papers. A single multimodal judge evaluates six dimensions of communication and design, with three repeated judgments per figure. We attempt source-constrained revisions of all 371 figures, of which 369 pass the recorded fidelity checks. Original-figure ratings show no uniform decline across periods. Revisions increase mean clarity ratings by 0.428 points and decrease aesthetic coherence ratings by 0.111 points on a five-point scale. Gains in the six-dimension average are larger for main-sample motivation figures than for frameworks. Case analyses show that added explanation can clarify comparisons while leaving typographic hierarchy and visual economy unresolved. These model-based findings support researcher-led design, with AI assisting exploration and authors retaining responsibility for explanatory purpose, composition, and scientific relationships. The accompanying atlas and evaluation records are available at https://ntu-ai4x.github.io/Rethinking_Figures/index_en.html.
#04Nov 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.
#05Nov 5, 2026
cs.CL
Label-Wording Augmentation in a Typed-Decision Encoder: Gains on Unfamiliar Words, Not on Abbreviations or Codes
Vladimir Beskorovainyi
Typed-decision models score options that the caller supplies at request time, so their accuracy depends on label wording that the model's developer does not control. We compare two releases of a 307M-parameter multilingual cross-encoder, Ru-Jev, trained on thirteen Russian-language tasks; the later release adds an augmentation that presents labels in several surface forms. Holding questions fixed and varying only how eighteen routing labels are worded, we evaluate ten label vocabularies, produced by three separate processes and checked for overlap with the training data, with five candidates per question and, for eight of them, also with eighteen. On held-out vocabularies made of ordinary or borrowed words (English-derived jargon, office slang, department names), the augmented release is more accurate in every setting, by up to 0.24. Eleven of these fourteen gains survive a Holm correction (slang with eighteen candidates and descriptive sentences with five do not), and for jargon on all labels the label-level interval excludes zero in both settings. On abbreviations and opaque codes it gives no usable gain: on abbreviations it is not better, and worse on the clean slice, and on opaque codes both releases stay at or below chance once labels related to training options are removed. In most cells where accuracy rises, the risk-coverage area falls, but with eighteen candidates confident errors rise on jargon and slang. On two datasets neither release saw, accuracy moves by -8.4 and +5.6 points. We also report four evaluation hazards from comparing the two releases.