让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

Ground-to-space astronomical super-resolution requires recovering space-quality images from ground-based observations that are simultaneously limited by pixel sampling resolution and atmospheric seeing, which imposes a stochastic, spatially varying PSF that cannot be resolved through upsampling alone. Existing methods rely on synthetic training pairs that fail to capture real atmospheric statistics and are prone to either over-smoothed reconstructions or hallucination sources with no physical counterpart in the observed sky. We propose FluxFlow, a conservative pixel-space flow-matching framework that incorporates observation uncertainty and source-region importance weights during training, and a training-free Wiener-regularized test-time correction to suppress hallucination sources while preserving recovered detail. We further construct the DESI--HST Dataset, the large-scale real-world benchmark comprising 19,500 real co-registered ground-to-space image pairs with real atmospheric PSF variation. Experiments demonstrate that FluxFlow consistently outperforms existing baseline methods in both photometric and scientific accuracy. Project webpage: https://i2wm.github.io/fluxflow/.

Masked diffusion language models offer parallel text generation, but independently sampling multiple tokens can disrupt their dependencies and change the output distribution. Exact continuous-time sampling avoids this approximation, yet typically requires one sequential model evaluation per token. We introduce SpecCTMC, a training-free speculative sampler that reduces this sequential bottleneck without a separate draft model. SpecCTMC proposes successive token updates using previously computed model predictions, evaluates their intermediate states in parallel, and applies an exact acceptance-and-correction procedure. We prove that SpecCTMC preserves the joint distribution of event times, generation order, and token values of the underlying continuous-time Markov chain. It therefore introduces neither time-discretization error nor additional factorization error from parallel decoding. Experiments on LLaDA-8B-Instruct and Dream-v0-Instruct-7B across five benchmarks demonstrate 1.73-4.38x fewer sequential model evaluations than direct continuous-time sampling, while preserving the reference sampling distribution. Our code is available at: https://github.com/kasakh/specctmc

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.

Safety alignment has enabled large language models to reliably refuse harmful requests directly, yet the same request distributed across a multi-turn conversation still succeeds far too often. This brittleness has a mechanistic root: Alignment is shallow, with safety behavior concentrated in a model's first few output tokens, and existing defenses inherit the weakness, supervising the surface form of the response without ever giving the model an explicit safety decision to learn. We take the opposite view of shallowness: if a short span determines the trajectory of an entire response, that span is the highest-leverage place to intervene, and the defender can occupy it first. We propose Assess $\to$ Decide $\to$ Respond, a framework in which the defender assesses the user's intent, commits to an explicit, parseable safety decision, and only then generates a reply conditioned on it, with the commitment trained by reinforcement learning at the payload turn. Because the decision is a token span, the reward can be a rule: a self-verified reward checks the committed label against the conversation's known nature, requiring no judge and no annotation, while the same format also supports an LLM-as-judge reward over a graded decision space with safe redirection. Across two model families and fourteen benchmarks spanning safety, utility, and helpfulness, our defenders achieve the strongest multi-turn safety in a controlled comparison, maintaining their lead in safety while preserving utility at a modest cost to helpfulness. A per-token KL analysis and interventional probes confirm why this works: training concentrates its effect on the brief deliberation that sets a response's trajectory, and the decision committed there is a causal control point. The very shallowness attackers exploit becomes the mechanism of defense.

Large language model (LLM) agents are proposed for clinical prediction but are untested in pediatrics, where cohorts are small and outcomes are uncommon. Using records from 2,489 youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and 4,018 with type 1 diabetes (T1D), spanning structured data, note-derived social determinants and, in T1D, continuous glucose monitoring data, we predicted seven T2D outcomes, four also in T1D, at 24 months from 18 months of follow-up. CEDAR (Clinical Evidence-Driven Agent for Risk-prediction), an evidence-citing, self-auditing LLM pipeline, outperformed trained machine learning in both cohorts (pooled area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.815 versus 0.656 to 0.700 in T2D and 0.756 versus 0.603 to 0.631 in T1D), most on the sparsely screened outcomes. Only 4 of 70,246 values it cited did not match the chart. Reading only the evidence and reasoning cited by CEDAR, two pediatric endocrinologists reached the same prediction as CEDAR in about nine of ten cases, agreeing with each other on 90.5%.