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/.
Noy Sternlicht, Simra Shahid, Peter Jansen, Daniel S. Weld, Pao Siangliulue, Tom Hope
AI-based ideation systems are often evaluated on the novelty of their ideas, and that judgment is increasingly delegated to large language models. Such judges are typically built ad hoc and validated, if at all, on human-authored papers rather than on the generated ideas they are meant to score. So, how do novelty judges perform? Not well. We present a systematic controlled study of novelty evaluation design choices. We build an evaluation set automatically, mining OpenReview for passages where reviewers explicitly affirm or dispute a paper's originality and keeping only submissions with unanimous agreement at the extremes of their research area; we pair these with ideas from a vanilla LLM generator. Across six judges, we find that seemingly small prompt design choices have large consequences; e.g., simply telling the judge that reviewers found one idea novel and the other not can change its verdict on more than half of the identical idea pairs it is shown, shifting pairwise accuracy by over 50 points and occasionally pushing it below chance. The same change helps one judge and hurts another. Retrieval and larger reasoning budgets help little, and two purpose-built novelty evaluators are outperformed by our cheapest prompted baseline. These results raise questions about reported novelty gains of automated ideation systems, and call for robust novelty evaluation methods.
Hiba Arnaout Technische Universität Darmstadt, Noy Sternlicht Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tom Hope Hebrew University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Iryna Gurevych Institute for Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence and Technology, Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence and Technische Universität Darmstadt
Understanding the impact of scientific publications is crucial for identifying breakthroughs and guiding future research. Traditional metrics based on citation counts often miss the nuanced ways a paper contributes to its field. In this work, we propose a new task: generating nuanced, expressive, and time-aware impact summaries that capture both praise (confirmation citations) and critique (correction citations) through the evolution of fine-grained citation intents. We introduce an evaluation framework tailored to this task, showing moderate to strong human correlation on subjective metrics such as insightfulness. Expert feedback from professors reveals a strong interest in these summaries and suggests future improvements. Data and code are made available.
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
Noy Sternlicht Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Tom Hope Hebrew University, Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence
A hallmark of human innovation is recombination—the creation of novel ideas by integrating elements from existing concepts and mechanisms. In this work, we introduce CHIMERA, the first large-scale Knowledge Base (KB) of recombination examples automatically mined from the scientific literature. CHIMERA enables empirical analysis of how scientists recombine concepts and draw inspiration from different areas, and enables training models that propose cross-disciplinary research directions. To construct this KB, we define a new information extraction task: identifying recombination instances in papers. We curate an expert-annotated dataset and use it to fine-tune an LLM-based extraction model, which we apply to a broad corpus of AI papers. We also demonstrate generalization to a biological domain. We showcase the utility of CHIMERA through two applications. First, we analyze patterns of recombination across AI subfields. Second, we train a scientific hypothesis generation model using the KB, showing that it can propose directions that researchers rate as inspiring.
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