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.

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.

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.

Current generative AI alignment relies on a myopic paradigm that prioritizes immediate conversational satisfaction. By relying on short-horizon feedback, this approach ignores the profound, longitudinal externalities of persistent human-AI interaction, which can lead to adverse outcomes such as cognitive atrophy, social erosion, and diminished human agency. To address this, we propose a paradigm shift toward long-horizon alignment that accounts for how AI reshapes human experience over time. To this end, we map the tensions between near-term utility and long-term costs of AI use across four facets of human well-being to reveal outcomes that current reward models fail to capture. Ultimately, we advocate for moving beyond simple preference optimization toward alignment strategies that actively foster long-term human well-being by navigating these complex temporal scales.