scientific publishing teams

Abstract: Large language models are increasingly being used in different stages of scientific knowledge production, including the suggestion of references. These models can operate at different levels of reasoning effort and provide summaries of their reasoning processes. This raises two questions: Does increasing reasoning effort improve the verifiability of generated references, and do the resulting reasoning summaries reveal how the model's behavior changes with greater effort? We examined summaries from GPT-5.5 as it generated scholarly references for 1,000 papers under paired low- and high-effort settings. Generated references were matched to external bibliographic records, and reasoning summaries were scored for four predefined features and explored for additional features discovered by GPT-5.5. High effort increased the mean paper-level resolver-verified reference rate from 78.3% to 84.8%, and produced longer reasoning summaries. All four predefined features received higher scores under high effort. The discovered features changed less uniformly: some appeared equally often in both conditions, whereas others were more common under high effort. Within each effort condition, neither feature set showed a consistent increase in verification rates with higher scores.

Abstract: The rapid growth of scientific literature makes survey writing increasingly challenging, motivating automatic survey generation. Yet, existing systems must search an open space of papers and an open space of concepts with no trace of how the community itself has navigated them, leading to incomplete scope, weak taxonomies, and unreliable citations. Our core insight is that author-written Related Work sections contain the human judgments needed to address both limitations: authors curate the citations relevant to their contributions and explain how the cited works relate, yielding paths for scope reconstruction and relational evidence for organization. We propose InsightRAG. Its insight-guided retrieval follows author-supported citation relations to reconstruct a verified research scope and structure the resulting relational evidence. It aggregates these judgments under a minimum-conflict objective into a taxonomy that reflects recurring author-written perspectives in the retrieved literature, guides generation, and bounds each section's evidence. Results on ten topics show gains in scope reconstruction, taxonomy quality, citation support, and reference reliability.

Abstract: Figures are essential for scientific communication, and the field of Visual Question Answering (VQA) aims to test the figure understanding capabilities of large multimodal models (LMMs). Here, we investigate the accuracy of several low-cost LMMs on domain-specific VQA tasks for astronomical images of the sky. As instrument for this task we build a domain-specific VQA dataset comprising 2001 partially-synthetic figures divided evenly between contour plots, real telescope images drawn from NASA's SkyView, and "fake" sky images which share the axes and angular scales of the real images but draw their colors from a gaussian mixture model, alongside 47357 questions. Each figure is released as pristine and with realistic page-aging degradations mimicking the historical astronomical corpus. Testing three low-cost proprietary LMMs, we find models frequently fail to answer domain-specific questions at high accuracy. An initial comparison with 104 human-verified, astrometrically tagged figures from historical journal publications shows similar median errors in angular extent. All code is available on GitHub: https://github.com/jnaiman/SkyImagesWASP2026 and dataset is available on HuggingFace: https://huggingface.co/datasets/ReadingTimeMachine/astro_sky_image_vqa.

Abstract: This paper presents our system for Track 2 of the NLPCC 2026 Shared Task 10 on citation-level faithfulness in AI-assisted scientific reporting. Given an atomic scientific claim and the structured full text of its cited paper, the task requires both a four-way relation label and up to three evidence paragraph identifiers. The label head ensembles a paragraph-aware cross-encoder with a document-level DeBERTa-large classifier, followed by class-wise decision calibration. Probability-level fusion is motivated by an out-of-fold tendency to over-predict Topical Match. The evidence head combines paragraph scores from top-20 and top-30 joint models with BM25 scores. The system runs fully offline without external retrieval or LLM prompting. On the final leaderboard, our system achieved 82.9898 overall (89.5491 Macro-F1 and 76.4305 Joint@3), ranking second in Track 2. Ablations and error analysis show that model complementarity and calibration drive the label gains. Gold-evidence inference changes label Macro-F1 negligibly, whereas evidence ranking remains important for Joint@3.