RemoteAgent: Bridging Vague Human Intents and Earth Observation with RL-based Agentic MLLMs

Earth Observation (EO) systems are essentially designed to support domain experts who often express their requirements through vague natural language rather than precise, machine-friendly instructions. Depending on the specific application scenario, these vague queries can demand vastly different levels of visual precision. Consequently, a practical EO AI system must bridge the gap between ambiguous human queries and the appropriate multi-granularity visual analysis tasks, ranging from holistic image interpretation to fine-grained pixel-wise predictions. While Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) demonstrate strong semantic understanding, their text-based output format is inherently ill-suited for dense, precision-critical spatial predictions. Existing agentic frameworks address this limitation by delegating tasks to external tools, but indiscriminate tool invocation is computationally inefficient and underutilizes the MLLM's native capabilities. To this end, we propose RemoteAgent, an agentic framework that strategically respects the intrinsic capability boundaries of MLLMs. To empower this framework to understand real user intents, we construct VagueEO, a human-centric instruction dataset pairing EO tasks with simulated vague natural-language queries. By leveraging VagueEO for reinforcement fine-tuning, we align an MLLM into a robust cognitive core that directly resolves image- and sparse region-level tasks. Consequently, RemoteAgent processes suitable tasks internally while intelligently orchestrating specialized tools via the Model Context Protocol exclusively for dense predictions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that RemoteAgent achieves robust intent recognition capabilities while delivering highly competitive performance across diverse EO tasks.

FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Reviews with Literature Positioning and Execution-Based Claim Verification

Peer review in machine learning is under growing pressure from rising submission volume and limited reviewer time. Most LLM-based reviewing systems read only the manuscript and generate comments from the paper's own narrative. This makes their outputs sensitive to presentation quality and leaves them weak when the evidence needed for review lies in related work or released code. We present FactReview, an evidence-grounded reviewing system that combines claim extraction, literature positioning, and execution-based claim verification. Given a submission, FactReview identifies major claims and reported results, retrieves nearby work to clarify the paper's technical position, and, when code is available, executes the released repository under bounded budgets to test central empirical claims. It then produces a concise review and an evidence report that assigns each major claim one of five labels: Supported, Supported by the paper, Partially supported, In conflict, or Inconclusive. In a case study on CompGCN, FactReview reproduces results that closely match those reported for link prediction and node classification, yet also shows that the paper's broader performance claim across tasks is not fully sustained: on MUTAG graph classification, the reproduced result is 88.4%, whereas the strongest baseline reported in the paper remains 92.6%. The claim is therefore only partially supported. More broadly, this case suggests that AI is most useful in peer review not as a final decision-maker, but as a tool for gathering evidence and helping reviewers produce more evidence-grounded assessments. The code is public at https://github.com/DEFENSE-SEU/Review-Assistant.