让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

Self-Driving Chemical Laboratories (SDCLs) are moving chemical experimentation toward embodied automation, where machines must perceive laboratory scenes, reason about experimental states, and act under physical, procedural, and safety constraints. Although Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) are increasingly considered as embodied brains for such systems, existing laboratory benchmarks mainly focus on safety, anomaly detection, or general scientific understanding, leaving their execution-oriented embodied capabilities underexplored. To fill this gap, we introduce BEAKER, a Benchmark for evaluating Embodied Actionability, Knowledge, Experimentation, and Reasoning in SDCLs. BEAKER contains 1,000 expert-curated question-answer samples across 11 image and video task types, covering key judgments required for chemical laboratory execution, including affordance grounding, trajectory planning, equipment, state, and safety recognition, apparatus setup, operation and step reasoning, and temporal procedure reasoning. All questions and annotations are manually created and reviewed by chemistry and embodied Artificial Intelligence (AI) experts, without AI-assisted generation or annotation. We evaluate 28 general-purpose, science-oriented, chemistry-specialized, and embodied MLLMs in an offline, single-turn setting. Results show that current models can follow coarse experimental procedures in videos, but still struggle to ground actions into operable regions and feasible trajectories, to recognize fine-grained laboratory apparatus, states, and safety norms, and to order steps in mid-length procedures. BEAKER thus reveals a clear gap between coarse procedural understanding and the precise, action-grounded perception required for laboratory execution, providing a diagnostic benchmark for future MLLMs in SDCLs.

AI agents are playing an increasingly important role in physics research. However, existing physics benchmarks only evaluate fixed questions, isolated sub-tasks, or paper reproduction with given solutions, and rarely check research quality alongside correctness. We introduce FrontierPhysics, an end-to-end benchmark with 56 tasks made by 42 physicists based on their own research, covering nine domains across theoretical, computational, and experimental physics. Each task requires agents to review the literature, develop a research plan, conduct research and experiments, and produce structured outputs and scientific manuscripts. Combining deterministic verifiers with expert-authored rubrics, FrontierPhysics evaluates whether agents' research is correct and publishable. Across 22 models in 26 configurations, no configuration passes more than 46 of its 168 rollouts. Manual review of agent trajectories shows that frontier agents' main weaknesses are insufficiently rigorous reasoning and limited expert intuition, rather than gaps in physics knowledge or execution errors.

Humanoid robots have the potential to automate a wide range of physical tasks. Progress toward generalist humanoid autonomy, however, remains constrained by a data bottleneck: mapping pixels and free-form language to low-level joint commands requires paired supervision, and no corpus of such data exists at sufficiently large scale. Some approaches rely on human teleoperation and wearable capture devices, which require at least an hour of human time to produce an hour of data. We present HALO, a humanoid autonomy system powered by a pipeline that synthesizes vision-language-motion data across a thousand procedurally generated homes. The corpus scales with compute rather than human labor. HALO acquires a repertoire of physical skills, including sitting on chairs, navigating to named objects, stepping sideways through half-open doors, crouching and crawling beneath tables, and pushing boxes. It orchestrates these skills to solve composite, long-horizon tasks. Without ever seeing a real home during training, HALO transfers zero-shot to the physical world, achieving a 91% success rate across 360 trials in six unmapped real-world environments. See https://apple-aiml-research.github.io/ml-halo/ for code and videos.

Knowing that a pedestrian is occluded is useful to a robot even when the detector cannot recover the hidden pixels, but occlusion estimators are normally trained on occlusion annotations that deployment settings rarely have. We show that occlusion can be read off two distance estimates a camera-only pipeline already computes. Apparent height is largely unchanged by occlusion, because the detected box still spans the whole person; monocular metric depth is pulled toward the occluder, because the nearest surface inside the box is what a depth map reports. Only their ordering matters, so no focal length, stature, or depth scale is needed, provided the depth model's error is close to a pure gain, a condition that can be checked without labels. The score detects heavy occlusion on KITTI with AUC 0.909 (0.888 over all annotated pedestrians, including those the detector misses), requires no training and no occlusion labels, and is not a proxy for range: within fixed distance bands it holds AUC 0.894-0.925 while true distance alone sits near chance. On synthetic CARLA scenes with measured visibility it reaches 0.819, against 0.644 for distance alone. We arrived here after measuring three standard architectural responses to occlusion, depth fusion, occlusion-simulating augmentation, and attention, none of which improved detection outside its training distribution in the configurations we tested, and after finding that a detector trained on German roads loses half its accuracy on self-annotated street scenes in Lagos, Nigeria. Signals that need no local annotation are worth more in settings that benchmarks do not represent.

Preference-based reinforcement learning (PbRL) is the dominant framework for aligning AI systems to human preferences. However, evaluation protocols for such data were designed for text and have not been validated for speech. We present the first intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)-based, controlled cross-modal study of human and synthetic preference annotations, comparing text and audio evaluations of identical semantic content across 100 prompts. We show that achieving \textit{good} (audio) to \textit{near good} (text) agreement within either modality (ICC(2,$k$) $\approx$ .81 audio, .74 text) requires $\sim$9 raters and modalities show marked differences in how people report preferences: audio raters exhibit narrower decision thresholds, reduced length bias, and more user-oriented evaluation criteria, with near-chance cross-modality agreement. We demonstrate that synthetic ratings can be used to effectively predict inter-rater agreement, thus serving as an early signal for stimulus selection and proxy for human annotations. Together, these findings argue that evaluation protocols for audio preference data require modality-specific design rather than direct adaptation from text. Code, data, and the audio corpus are available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/sciminds/same-words-different-judgements

Automation is often justified as relief from dull, dirty, and dangerous work. I examine how these conditions relate to occupational AI exposure using 21 O*NET items across 754 US occupations. Higher exposure is associated with lower condition scores under a large language model (LLM) measure and AI Occupational Exposure (AIOE), with equal occupation weights and employment weights. Adjustment for physical demands, required education, training and experience, and wages reduces the composite association. The adjusted confidence intervals include zero for LLM exposure and remain below zero for AIOE. Separating repetition from restricted discretion also changes what the combined Dull score conveys. These comparisons show how item groupings and occupational characteristics shape the interpretation of exposure estimates. Occupational profiles offer a starting point for selecting contrasting research settings. Establishing desired automation or realized relief requires evidence about workers' preferences and specific interventions.

Toxicity remains a leading cause of early-stage drug development failure. Despite advances in molecular design and property prediction, the task of molecular toxicity repair, generating structurally valid molecular alternatives with reduced toxicity, has not yet been systematically defined or benchmarked. To fill this gap, we introduce ToxiMol, the first benchmark task for general-purpose Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) focused on molecular toxicity repair. We construct a standardized dataset covering 11 primary tasks and 660 representative toxic molecules spanning diverse mechanisms and granularities. We design a prompt annotation pipeline with mechanism-aware and task-adaptive capabilities, informed by expert toxicological knowledge. In parallel, we propose an automated evaluation framework, ToxiEval, which integrates toxicity endpoint prediction, synthetic accessibility, drug-likeness, and structural similarity into a high-throughput evaluation chain for repair success. We systematically assess 43 mainstream general-purpose MLLMs and conduct multiple ablation studies to analyze key issues, including evaluation metrics, candidate diversity, and failure attribution. Experimental results show that although current MLLMs still face significant challenges on this task, they begin to demonstrate promising capabilities in toxicity understanding, semantic constraint adherence, and structure-aware editing.

Error correcting codes are a fundamental component of communication systems, enabling reliable data transmission over noisy channels. Recently, neural decoders have demonstrated notable performance gains over classical iterative algorithms. In this paper, we propose a Generalized Belief Propagation Network (GBPNet) that preserves message-passing symmetry while enhancing the decoder's learning capability. The architecture uses cascaded variable-node updates and learned element-wise message scaling while retaining the Tanner graph structure. We also introduce two training strategies, progressive training and high-SNR training, that improve decoding accuracy. Experimental results on several linear codes show that GBPNet achieves lower bit error rates than conventional belief propagation and the evaluated state-of-the-art neural decoders.

In this work, we evaluate a simple inference-time scaling approach based on \textit{turn-level best-of-N sampling} (\method) for large language model (LLM) agents on complex, long-horizon tasks. We instantiate this using a \textit{generator-selector} framework with two LLMs; at each turn, a \emph{generator} model generates $N$ candidate actions and a \emph{selector} model selects one of them, which is then executed in the environment. This paper is closely related to the work of \cite{zainullina2025guided} who used critic models for guided search at inference time. Different from their work, we evaluate if off-the-shelf, open-weight LLMs can be effective at comparing different candidate actions directly. Experiments on long-horizon terminal tasks show that \method can lead to significant performance improvements, both in terms of accuracy (5--10\%) and consistency across repeated attempts. Analysis of agent trajectories reveal a shift in agent behaviour towards desirable patterns such as reduction in number of attempts to solve the task, improved task instruction following, debugging and testing.

We present HyScale, a long-context training system for learned sparse attention. Learned sparse attention is a promising architecture for million-token contexts, widely adopted in production since DeepSeek-V3.2. Selection, however, grows into the training bottleneck. For each query, it scores every previous token whereas sparse attention reads only $k$; worse, current systems materialize a full score table and repeat selection during recomputation. Our key insight is that the output of selection is not an activation, but rather a set of indices. Building on it, HyScale introduces FlashTopK and selection replay. FlashTopK finds each query's exact top-$k$ on the fly without a score table, while selection replay reuses forward-pass selection in recomputation. Together with holistic system optimizations tackling end-to-end challenges, HyScale speeds up GLM-5.1 training on 1M-token sequences by $2.07\times$ over Megatron-LM on 512 H20 GPUs. It also speeds up the CSA layers of DeepSeek-V4-Flash and the QSA layers of Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by $2.01\times$ and $1.57\times$ at 1M tokens on 32 H800 GPUs.

Graph neural networks (GNNs) deployed as cloud services can be *stolen* through *model-extraction attacks*, which train a surrogate from query responses to reproduce the target's behaviour, and a growing line of ownership defenses tries to prevent or trace such theft. The title of this paper asks two questions: *how hard is it to steal a GNN?*, and *can we stop it?* Prior work cannot answer either, because experiments use inconsistent datasets, threat models, and metrics. We introduce *GraphIP-Bench*, a unified benchmark which evaluates both sides under a single black-box protocol. It integrates twelve extraction attacks, twelve defenses spanning watermarking, output-perturbation, and query-pattern-detection families, ten public graphs covering homophilic, heterophilic, and large-scale regimes, three GNN backbones, and three graph-learning tasks, and it reports fidelity, task utility, ownership verification, and computational cost on shared splits, queries, and budgets. We further add a joint attack-and-defense track which runs every attack on every defended target and measures watermark verification on the resulting surrogate, which exposes the protection that a defense retains after extraction. The empirical picture is short: stealing a GNN is easy at medium query budgets and most defenses do not change this; several watermarks verify reliably on the protected model but lose most of their verification signal on the extracted surrogate, which exposes a gap that single-model evaluations miss; and heterophilic graphs are systematically harder to steal, while a cross-architecture mismatch between target and surrogate reduces but does not prevent extraction. We release *GraphIP-Bench* with reproducible scripts and configurations, and integrate the attacks and defenses into the PyGIP library.

As LLMs improve, data agents are emerging as a new interface for analytics, while semantic query processing engines use LLMs to operate over structured and unstructured data. Existing benchmarks largely evaluate agents and semantic query engines in isolation, leaving it unclear whether agents can decide when and how to use semantic operators in end-to-end analysis. We introduce AvalancheBench, a multimodal enterprise analytics benchmark that generates observed data from latent world specifications and evaluates data agents on their ability to recover that world. The benchmark's 3 validated tasks contain 58 questions spanning text, images, and documents. Questions are provided together as a multi-part analytical brief and may share intermediate results, exposing the avalanche effect: errors can propagate through legitimate dependencies, and inappropriate reuse can cause otherwise unrelated questions to fail. AvalancheBench measures analytical fidelity, monetary cost, and capability-adjusted token cost (CATC), a new metric that weights token use by model capability to separate technical efficiency from provider pricing. We evaluate 5 model-harness configurations across 3 agent harnesses using Snowflake Cortex AISQL as the engine, with the best configuration reaching macro analytical fidelity of 0.82. Agents fail primarily in constructing the analysis: failing to recover facts that require semantic computation costs 45.1% of lost points, yet incorrect operator outputs account for only 2.5%, versus 36.3% from agents misusing or avoiding semantic operators. Misinterpreting requirements costs the most, at 51.5%. Errors also spread between questions: 29% of lost points come from reusing another question's results. Finally, monetary cost and CATC produce different Pareto frontiers, distinguishing economically attractive configurations from those that are technically resource efficient.

Automated identification of individual animals is moving from small curated studies toward shared benchmarks and reusable foundation models. This progress is useful, but current evaluation leaves the evidence behind a match unresolved, i.e., high retrieval accuracy does not show whether a model used animal features or identity-correlated shortcuts. We address this with Counterfactual Foreground Retrieval (CFR), an evidence-aware evaluation protocol. CFR evaluates the same query-gallery task under different views: full image, foreground-only, and shortcut-only. The full-image measures standard retrieval performance; the foreground-only measures foreground-supported retrieval; and shortcut-only view measure how much identity signal is recoverable from background, or silhouette. This turns a retrieval score into an evidence profile: how well the model performs on the original images, how much of that performance remains when only the animal is visible, and how much identity signal remains recoverable when the animal is removed. We release around 0.5M masks for 34 datasets and code for mask generation and CFR evaluation.