arXiv:2608. 16900v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Language-model agents increasingly produce quantum-science results; we ask whether the same agentic paradigm can also scrutinize them in an auditable, reproducible, and cost-transparent form.
arXiv:2607. 25834v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Quantum computers are moving from research laboratories to industrial machines accessible via the cloud and integrated into high-performance computing facilities.
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.
arXiv:2608. 07743v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Identifying a meaningful quantum speedup requires more than matching a classical problem to a familiar quantum primitive: the claim must preserve the task, respect access and output models, expose required promises, and remain within a defensible complexity scope.
arXiv:2606. 29687v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We report a machine-verified resolution of a problem open for over a decade in quantum optimization: the Farhi, Goldstone and Gutmann (FGG) conjecture that depth-$p$ Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) on the ring of disagrees attains approximation ratio $(2p+1)/(2p+2)$ exactly.
arXiv:2510. 18003v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight.
arXiv:2608. 14625v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Academic peer review is under mounting strain: NeurIPS 2025 received 21,575 submissions, ICLR 2025 received 11,603, and ICML 2025 received 12,107.
arXiv:2607. 01223v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: When should an AI system's answer be trusted?
arXiv:2608. 13706v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Existing defenses against hallucination in retrieval-augmented and multi-agent pipelines remain partial: evidence is trusted despite modality disagreement, debate verifies an aggregate report rather than individual claims, and such verification occurs only after drafting, leaving inter-agent errors undetected until the final text.
arXiv:2604. 12198v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Autonomous LLM agents now produce complete research artifacts in machine-learning sandboxes, but real computational physics is harder: experiments are first-principles calculations against re-runnable physical ground truth, and meaningful new work almost always builds on a key existing paper.
arXiv:2606. 04602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As agents grow more capable, legal-domain LLM agents promise to turn document-heavy matters into reviewable work products -- yet reliable deployment faces three obstacles: no large-scale evidence on how today's strongest model-and-harness combinations behave on end-to-end legal matters; no agent architecture adapted to the legal vertical, only general-purpose harnesses; and, in a setting that keeps shifting with new facts, authorities, and deadlines, no mechanism for systems to learn from their own outcomes.
arXiv:2606. 18021v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI systems deployed in legal workflows hallucinate at rates that aggregate metrics report at ~52%, but this average conceals where errors concentrate and in which direction they run, leaving compliance officers without an actionable signal for trustworthy deployment.
arXiv:2606. 06941v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) now solve a wide range of expert-level exams at or above human level, yet remain brittle on specialised, evidence-intensive domains such as law.