#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.CL
Understanding AI from the Inside: The State of Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety
Fazl Barez, Tung-Yu Wu, Hunar Batra and 24 more
Neural networks are likely to be among the most consequential artefacts in human history. As these systems become more capable and autonomous, their potential to cause societal harm also grows, making AI safety one of the defining challenges of our time. Yet we continue to build increasingly powerful systems without fully understanding how they work, how they will behave in unfamiliar situations, or how to reliably control them. Mechanistic interpretability offers a path towards understanding these systems by studying their internal representations and computations, with the aim of evaluating, predicting, and controlling behaviour. We survey mechanistic interpretability for AI safety in order to answer the question: Does understanding how models work actually make them safer? We place mechanistic interpretability in the broader context of interpretability research and compare its mechanistic evidence with behavioural evaluation. We introduce the foundations of mechanistic interpretability, including features, polysemanticity, transformer computation, and circuits, and survey methods for feature extraction and analysis, circuit discovery and causal verification, explaining intermediate representations in natural language, learning dynamics, and training-data attribution. Beyond surveying existing methods, we propose a unified framework for evaluating mechanistic interpretability claims and characterise six research orientations by their goals, assumptions, and trade-offs. Finally, we examine how mechanistic understanding can support AI safety, including knowledge editing, steering, and monitoring, and assess its limitations, failure modes, open problems, and relationship to behavioural safety measures. We also release a repository of code notebooks with worked examples that reproduce key findings from surveyed methods, allowing readers to build intuition through hands-on experimentation.
#04Nov 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.
#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.