arXiv Computation and Language

Same Problem, Different Field: Cross-Domain Solution Import via Domain-Stripped Computational Fingerprints

arXiv AI
Jul 24

Evaluating and Guarding Citation Faithfulness in Agentic Scientific Synthesis

arXiv:2607. 20527v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders.

By Taewan Goo, Junsik Kim, Kyulhee Han, GwonYul Jo, Jong-Soo Kim, Tae-Hyung Kim
arXiv AI
Jul 8

Prompt-to-Paper: Agentic AI System for Bioinformatics

arXiv:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.

By Ramsha Kamran, Maheera Amjad, Zartasha Mustansar, Arsalan Shaukat, Salma Sherbaz, Muhammad U. S. Khan
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 4

Distilled Rapid Embedding Transfer (DRET): Parameter-Efficient Biomedical Domain Adaptation via Priority-Based Embedding Transfer

The paper introduces Distilled Rapid Embedding Transfer (DRET), a parameter‑efficient method that injects biomedical domain knowledge from large specialized models into a smaller general‑purpose model without retraining on the original specialized corpora. DRET evolves through iterative strategies—tokenizer‑merge (DRET 1.x), hybrid embedding averaging (DRET 2.0), priority‑based embedding transfer (DRET 3.x), and further refinements (DRET 4.x)—and demonstrates that a 66‑million‑parameter DistilBERT can achieve competitive or superior performance on token‑level PICO classification compared to much larger models, while remaining lightweight. The authors validate the embedding‑level transfer with cosine similarity, semantic‑shift, and t‑SNE analyses, highlighting DRET’s potential for scalable, resource‑efficient biomedical text mining.

By Girish Sundaram, Daniel Berleant
arXiv AI
Sep 18

BioPhys-Bridge: A Benchmark for Interdisciplinary Scientific Reasoning in Physics-Grounded Biological Research

BioPhys-Bridge is a newly released benchmark dataset designed to evaluate language models on evidence‑grounded scientific reasoning within biophysical literature. Each of its 500 cases includes evidence blocks, stable IDs, quantitative values, units, equations, assumptions, mechanisms, and next‑step decisions, covering six biological domains and nine physical model families. The dataset enforces strict quality gates and has already been evaluated against several models, with DeepSeek‑V4‑Flash achieving the highest evidence‑ID F1 score of 0.360.

By Qingyang Xu
arXiv AI
Jun 24

BioMedArena: An Open-source Toolkit for Building and Evaluating Biomedical Deep Research Agents

arXiv:2605. 06177v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reproducing and comparing deep research agents today is hard: the same backbone evaluated on the same benchmark can report different accuracies across papers because the harness and tool registry differ, and integrating a new model into a comparable evaluation surface costs weeks of model-specific engineering.

By Jinge Wu, Hongjian Zhou, Mingde Zeng, Jiayuan Zhu, Junde Wu, Jiazhen Pan, Ayush Noori, Sean Wu, Honghan Wu, Fenglin Liu, David A. Clifton
arXiv AI
Sep 4

SHELF: A Synthetic Harness for Multi-Task Bibliographic Benchmarking

SHELF is a Python system that creates synthetic, controlled benchmark data for evaluating large language models on bibliographic tasks such as classification, clustering, retrieval, pair classification, and instruction retrieval. It generates 62,899 model-written documents based on Library of Congress vocabularies and compares methods like TF, TF‑IDF, BM25, popular encoders, and zero‑shot decoders, reporting performance metrics such as 0.8887 for subject classification and 0.2605 for genre‑form classification. The tool also allows independent variation of bibliographic facets and can produce unseen documents beyond a model’s training cutoff, with results indicating that model rankings transfer more reliably than absolute scores when compared to other benchmarks.

By Michael J. Bommarito II