In scientific research, analysis requires accurately interpreting complex multimodal knowledge, integrating evidence from different sources, and drawing inferences grounded in domain-specific knowledge. However, current artificial intelligence (AI) systems struggle to consistently demonstrate such capabilities. The complexity and variability of scientific tables and figures, combined with heterogeneous structures and long-context requirements, pose fundamental obstacles to scientific table \& figure analysis. To quantify these challenges, we introduce AnaBench, a large-scale benchmark featuring $63,178$ instances from nine scientific domains, systematically categorized along seven complexity dimensions. To tackle these challenges, we propose Anagent, a multi-agent framework for enhanced scientific table \& figure analysis through four specialized agents: Planner decomposes tasks into actionable subtasks, Expert retrieves task-specific information through targeted tool execution, Solver synthesizes information to generate coherent analysis, and Critic performs iterative refinement through five-dimensional quality assessment. We further develop modular training strategies that leverage supervised finetuning and specialized reinforcement learning to optimize individual capabilities while maintaining effective collaboration. Comprehensive evaluation across 170 subdomains demonstrates that Anagent achieves substantial improvements, up to $\uparrow 13.43\%$ in training-free settings and $\uparrow 42.12\%$ with finetuning, while revealing that task-oriented reasoning and context-aware problem-solving are essential for high-quality scientific table \& figure analysis. Our project page: https://xhguo7.github.io/Anagent/.
Xuehang Guo, Xingyao Wang, Zora Zhiruo Wang, Qingyun Wang, Graham Neubig, Heng Ji
Large language models (LLMs) have enabled powerful software engineering (SE) agents capable of navigating complex codebases and resolving real-world issues. However, these agents remain fundamentally episodic: they fail to retain, refine, and reuse experiences across tasks, repeatedly reconstructing context from scratch and reproducing similar mistakes. Even with memory support, they offer no remedy for the absence of a principled, task-agnostic \textit{memory utility}, making them difficult to evaluate rigorously or generalize across agents and settings. To tackle these limitations, we introduce MemOp, a closed-loop framework for memory augmentation in SE agents. MemOp grounds memory utility in \textit{validated downstream impact}, establishing utility as both a task-agnostic \textbf{evaluation benchmark} and an annotation-free \textbf{optimization signal}. Evaluating MemOp across four benchmarks, three programming languages, and two SE agents, under complementary \textit{single-episode} and \textit{cross-episode} memory augmentation, results demonstrate the \textbf{effectiveness} of MemOp, achieving absolute gains of up to $\uparrow5.25\%$ in success rate and $\uparrow4.63\%$ in resolve efficiency, while notably reducing deployment cost by $\geq10.33\%$. MemOp further exhibits \textbf{generalizability} across SE agents, memory backbones, and optimization algorithms, together with \textbf{transferability} of MemOp-trained memory model to unseen programming languages and SE activities. Our project page: https://xhguo7.github.io/MemOp/.
Yee Man Choi University of Waterloo, Xuehang Guo, Yi R. Fung, Qingyun Wang College of William and Mary
Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as powerful assistants for scientific writing. However, concerns remain about the quality and reliability of the generated text, including citation accuracy and faithfulness. While most recent work relies on methods such as LLM-as-a-Judge, the reliability of LLM-as-a-Judge alone is also in doubt. In this work, we reframe citation evaluation as a problem of citation attribution alignment, which assesses whether LLM-generated citations match those a human author would include for the same text. We propose CiteGuard, a retrieval-aware agent framework designed to provide more faithful grounding for citation validation. CiteGuard improves over the prior baseline by 10 percentage points and achieves up to 68.1% accuracy on the CiteME benchmark, approaching human performance (69.2%). It also identifies alternative valid citations and demonstrates generalization ability for cross-domain citation attribution.
尚无 AI 解读，展示原文摘要
cs.CL
Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) · 2026 · 正式发表