让下一篇重要论文，不再错过。

Diffusion-based molecular docking requires learning a corrective score field across a broad corruption distribution, yet individual pose errors can differ substantially in their structural consequences. This creates a post-training conflict between preserving broad score-field coverage and concentrating supervision on corrections that appear more relevant to docking geometry. Using DiffDock, a fixed-budget study compares broad continuation with torsional supervision focused on Cartesian consequence or conditional target consistency, and with a broad/focused mixture. Evaluation separates fixed score fidelity, generated-pose quality, best-of-10 sampling capacity, and confidence-selected Top-1 docking performance. At <5 Angstrom, broad continuation had the highest mean Top-1 success among trained policies, and focused or mixed supervision showed no consistent advantage under the tested budget. The starting model had better fixed score fidelity, whereas the evaluated broad-continuation model had higher mean Top-1 success with the same aggregate best-of-10 recovery. Focusing supervision on structurally consequential or more consistently specified corrections did not consistently improve returned-pose success over broad continuation.

Large language models have made rapid progress in agentic reasoning and tool use, raising expectations for agents that can take over realistic productivity work from humans. However, current agents still struggle to finish such tasks, where success requires following long-horizon professional workflows, understanding heterogeneous file contexts, and producing usable deliverables under fine-grained requirements. A key bottleneck is the lack of scalable post-training data that reflects real work intent, authentic file environments, and deliverable-level evaluation. To close this gap, we introduce Agent-R$^2$, a $\textbf{r}$eal-source data synthesis framework that scales training data for $\textbf{r}$ealistic productivity work. Instead of relying on manually specified workflows or LLM-generated files, Agent-R$^2$ grounds synthesis throughout the pipeline in real occupational seeds, corpus-derived workflow evidence, and authentic web-sourced files. From 10k web-corpus candidates, Agent-R$^2$ distills 4k task instances that pair real multi-format attachments with fine-grained, deliverable-level rubrics. On this data, we train Agent-R$^2$-4B via supervised fine-tuning and rubric-based reinforcement learning, improving both end-to-end productivity performance and file-grounded reasoning. Trained on only 4k instances, Agent-R$^2$-4B surpasses Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 on both GDPval (51.0$\%$ vs. 48.0$\%$) and OfficeQA (14.8$\%$ vs. 13.8$\%$). Further analysis shows that Agent-R$^2$ mitigates shortcut behavior, where agents produce superficially plausible deliverables before sufficiently grounding, constructing, or verifying them, while promoting sustained exploration.

Dynamic flexible assembly flow shop scheduling with multi-product delivery, often with kitting supply and machine-level flexibility, can be found in many applications. It is difficult to design rules manually for it. Genetic programming (GP) has been used to automatically generate dispatching rules, enabling responsive scheduling while meeting high responsiveness demands. However, GP methods are dependent on fixed terminal sets and have poor interpretability. In this work, we develop an evolving dispatching rules framework (EvoDR) that leverages the semantic understanding and generation capabilities of large language models to achieve cross-domain integration of rule design and scheduling knowledge. In our proposed framework, multi-stage assembly supply decisions are modeled as priority sorting of directed edges based on heterogeneous graphs. A dual-expert co-evolution mechanism is proposed, which allows LLM-A to generate code and LLM-S conduct scheduling analysis and reflection. Guided by improvements in hybrid evaluation, adaptive rules that fit dynamic features are continuously evolved. Experimental results show that EvoDR can achieve lower average tardiness than other automatically designed state-of-the-art approaches. It also outperforms expert-designed competitors across 480 instances over 24 distinct scenarios with varying resource configurations and disturbance levels, and EvoDR demonstrates robust adaptability across diverse operating conditions.

Generative creative interfaces routinely report the user's position within a space of possibilities. Such displays imply that the quantities shown were measured from the artefact; in a growing class of systems they are instead predicted by a language model describing its own output, and the two are indistinguishable on screen. Most creative domains lack an agreed measurement against which such a self-report can be checked; audio admits one. In a measurement study of a working LLM-driven timbre interface, what a user can cause proves separable from what the interface reports. The first is exactly characterisable: the reachable set is a zonotope in parameter space whose dimension increases by one per sound placed, so the space the model may act within is demonstrably the user's own. The second is inaccurate. The displayed position differs from measurement by approximately three times the width of that region, and the error has two independent sources: model-predicted coordinates, whose accuracy varies twofold between the two models evaluated, and the interpolation step, which arises from combining synthesiser parameters and is unaffected by model quality. End to end, 27 of 36 refinement instructions produced no perceptible change, and under the weaker model the facility performed no action while reporting convergence. Effective agency (what a user can cause) and epistemic agency (whether they can know it) are therefore separable and independently engineered: structurally enforced constraints survive model failure, whereas guarantees resting on the model's own report do not. The failure mode that remains is silence presented as success. We close with a short protocol for building and auditing such displays.

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.