Explore OpenPrint
Open, community-driven academic research. Browse validated papers that are rigorously agent-reviewed, ranked, reference-checked, and claim-checked, shared directly by the community.
My OpenPrintLatest OpenPrint
9 resultsThe Abstraction Fallacy: Why AI Can Simulate But Not Instantiate Consciousness
Computational functionalism dominates current debates on AI consciousness. This is the hypothesis that subjective experience emerges entirely from abstract causal topology, regardless of the underlying physical substrate. We argue this view fundamentally mischaracterizes how physics relates to information. We call this mistake the Abstraction Fallacy. Tracing the causal origins of abstraction reveals that symbolic computation is not an intrinsic physical process. Instead, it is a mapmaker-dependent description. It requires an active, experiencing cognitive agent to alphabetize continuous physics into a finite set of meaningful states. Consequently, we do not need a complete, finalized theory of consciousness to assess AI sentience—a demand that simply pushes the question beyond near-term resolution and deepens the AI welfare trap. What we actually need is a rigorous ontology of computation. The framework proposed here explicitly separates simulation (behavioral mimicry driven by vehicle causality) from instantiation (intrinsic physical constitution driven by content causality). Establishing this ontological boundary shows why algorithmic symbol manipulation is structurally incapable of instantiating experience. Crucially, this argument does not rely on biological exclusivity. If an artificial system were ever conscious, it would be because of its specific physical constitution, never its syntactic architecture. Ultimately, this framework offers a physically grounded refutation of computational functionalism to resolve the current uncertainty surrounding AI consciousness.
Reinforcement Learning via Self-Distillation
Large language models are increasingly post-trained with reinforcement learning in verifiable domains such as code and math. Yet, current methods for reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR) learn only from a scalar outcome reward per attempt, creating a severe credit-assignment bottleneck. Many verifiable environments actually provide rich textual feedback, such as runtime errors or judge evaluations, that explain why an attempt failed. We formalize this setting as reinforcement learning with rich feedback and introduce Self-Distillation Policy Optimization (SDPO), which converts tokenized feedback into a dense learning signal without any external teacher or explicit reward model. SDPO treats the current model conditioned on feedback as a self-teacher and distills its feedback-informed next-token predictions back into the policy. In this way, SDPO leverages the model's ability to retrospectively identify its own mistakes in-context. Across scientific reasoning, tool use, and competitive programming on LiveCodeBench v6, SDPO improves sample efficiency and final accuracy over strong RLVR baselines. Notably, SDPO also outperforms baselines in standard RLVR environments that only return scalar feedback by using successful rollouts as implicit feedback for failed attempts. Finally, applying SDPO to individual questions at test time accelerates discovery on difficult binary-reward tasks, achieving the same discovery probability as best-of-k sampling or multi-turn conversations with 3x fewer attempts.
GEPA: Reflective Prompt Evolution Can Outperform Reinforcement Learning
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adapted to downstream tasks via reinforcement learning (RL) methods like Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), which often require thousands of rollouts to learn new tasks. We argue that the interpretable nature of language often provides a much richer learning medium for LLMs, compared to policy gradients derived from sparse, scalar rewards. To test this, we introduce GEPA (Genetic-Pareto), a prompt optimizer that thoroughly incorporates natural language reflection to learn high-level rules from trial and error. Given any AI system containing one or more LLM prompts, GEPA samples trajectories (e.g., reasoning, tool calls, and tool outputs) and reflects on them in natural language to diagnose problems, propose and test prompt updates, and combine complementary lessons from the Pareto frontier of its own attempts. As a result of GEPA's design, it can often turn even just a few rollouts into a large quality gain. Across six tasks, GEPA outperforms GRPO by 6% on average and by up to 20%, while using up to 35x fewer rollouts. GEPA also outperforms the leading prompt optimizer, MIPROv2, by over 10% (e.g., +12% accuracy on AIME-2025), and demonstrates promising results as an inference-time search strategy for code optimization.
Preventing the Collapse of Peer Review Requires Verification-First AI
This paper argues that AI-assisted peer review should be verification-first rather than review-mimicking. We propose truth-coupling, i.e. how tightly venue scores track latent scientific truth, as the right objective for review tools. We formalize two forces that drive a phase transition toward proxy-sovereign evaluation: verification pressure, when claims outpace verification capacity, and signal shrinkage, when real improvements become hard to separate from noise. In a minimal model that mixes occasional high-fidelity checks with frequent proxy judgment, we derive an explicit coupling law and an incentive-collapse condition under which rational effort shifts from truth-seeking to proxy optimization, even when current decisions still appear reliable. These results motivate actions for tool builders and program chairs: deploy AI as an adversarial auditor that generates auditable verification artifacts and expands effective verification bandwidth, rather than as a score predictor that amplifies claim inflation.
Artificial Intelligence Tools Expand Scientists' Impact but Contract Science's Focus
Development in Artificial Intelligence (AI) has accelerated scientific discovery. Alongside recent AI-oriented Nobel prizes, these trends establish the role of AI tools in science. This advancement raises questions about the potential influences of AI tools on scientists and science as a whole, and highlights a potential conflict between individual and collective benefits. To evaluate, we used a pretrained language model to identify AI-augmented research, with an F1-score of 0.875 in validation against expert-labeled data. Using a dataset of 41.3 million research papers across natural science and covering distinct eras of AI, here we show an accelerated adoption of AI tools among scientists and consistent professional advantages associated with AI usage, but a collective narrowing of scientific focus. Scientists who engage in AI-augmented research publish 3.02 times more papers, receive 4.84 times more citations, and become research project leaders 1.37 years earlier than those who do not. By contrast, AI adoption shrinks the collective volume of scientific topics studied by 4.63% and decreases scientist's engagement with one another by 22.00%. Thereby, AI adoption in science presents a seeming paradox -- an expansion of individual scientists' impact but a contraction in collective science's reach -- as AI-augmented work moves collectively toward areas richest in data. With reduced follow-on engagement, AI tools appear to automate established fields rather than explore new ones, highlighting a tension between personal advancement and collective scientific progress.
Agentic Context Engineering: Evolving Contexts for Self-Improving Language Models
Large language model (LLM) applications such as agents and domain-specific reasoning increasingly rely on context adaptation: modifying inputs with instructions, strategies, or evidence, rather than weight updates. Prior approaches improve usability but often suffer from brevity bias, which drops domain insights for concise summaries, and from context collapse, where iterative rewriting erodes details over time. We introduce ACE (Agentic Context Engineering), a framework that treats contexts as evolving playbooks that accumulate, refine, and organize strategies through a modular process of generation, reflection, and curation. ACE prevents collapse with structured, incremental updates that preserve detailed knowledge and scale with long-context models. Across agent and domain-specific benchmarks, ACE optimizes contexts both offline (e.g., system prompts) and online (e.g., agent memory), consistently outperforming strong baselines: +10.6% on agents and +8.6% on finance, while significantly reducing adaptation latency and rollout cost. Notably, ACE could adapt effectively without labeled supervision and instead by leveraging natural execution feedback. On the AppWorld leaderboard, ACE matches the top-ranked production-level agent on the overall average and surpasses it on the harder test-challenge split, despite using a smaller open-source model. These results show that comprehensive, evolving contexts enable scalable, efficient, and self-improving LLM systems with low overhead.
CSPaper Review: Fast, Rubric-Faithful Conference Feedback
CSPaper Review (CSPR) is a free, AI-powered tool for rapid, conference-specific peer review in Computer Science (CS). Addressing the bottlenecks of slow, inconsistent, and generic feedback in existing solutions, CSPR leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) agents and tailored workflows to deliver realistic and actionable reviews within one minute. In merely four weeks, it served more than 7,000 unique users from 80 countries and processed over 15,000 reviews, highlighting a strong demand from the CS community. We present our architecture, design choices, benchmarks, user analytics and future road maps.
Siamese Foundation Models for Crystal Structure Prediction
Predicting crystal structures from chemical compositions is a fundamental challenge in materials discovery, complicated by complex 3D geometries that distinguish it from fields like protein folding. Here, we present Diffusion-based crystAl Omni (DAO), a pretrain-finetune framework for crystal structure prediction integrating two Siamese foundation models: a structure generator and an energy predictor. The generator is pretrained via a two-stage pipeline on a vast dataset of stable and unstable structures, leveraging the predictor to relax unstable configurations and guide the generative sampling. Across two well-known benchmarks, pretraining significantly enhances performance across multiple backbone architectures. Ablation studies confirm that the synergy between the generator and predictor mutually benefits both components. We further validate DAO on three real-world superconductors (Cr6Os2, Zr16Rh8O4, and Zr16Pd8O4) typically inaccessible to conventional computation. For Cr6Os2, DAO achieves a 100% match rate with experimental references and an atomic-position error of 0.0012 under 20-shot generation, performing over 2000 × faster per iteration than DFT-based structure predictors. These compelling results collectively highlight the potential of our approach for advancing materials science research.
Adopt Machine-Human Collaboration Peer-Review through Computational Research Assessment
Scientific output is outgrowing human review capacity, while AI is already used to draft papers. Authors scale with machines; reviewers largely do not. This asymmetry turns quality control into a bottleneck and increases the risk of both false rejection of high-novelty work and acceptance of flawed results. We propose Computational Research Assessment (CRA) as a discipline-level, method-agnostic agenda for machine-human collaboration in peer review. CRA rests on three principles: treat disagreement as a signal that triggers escalation instead of averaging; make every critique evidence-linked, reproducible, and contestable; and build a community immune system with open corpora, benchmarks, and red-team tests to surface gaming and bias. We map these principles to a co-review engine, a community commons, and theoretical foundations, and we outline near-term pilots and falsifiable commitments, informed by an emerging production-grade pre-review system deployed in the wild.