Paper Reconstruction Evaluation: Evaluating Presentation and Hallucination in AI-written Papers

This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents. While AI-driven paper writing has become a growing concern, rigorous evaluation of the quality and potential risks of AI-written papers remains limited, and a unified understanding of their reliability is still lacking. We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal additional resources, and the result is subsequently compared against the original paper. PaperRecon disentangles the evaluation of the AI-written papers into two orthogonal dimensions, Presentation and Hallucination, where Presentation is evaluated using a rubric and Hallucination is assessed via agentic evaluation grounded in the original paper source. For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025. Our experiments reveal a clear trade-off: while both ClaudeCode and Codex improve with model advances, ClaudeCode achieves higher presentation quality at the cost of more than 10 hallucinations per paper on average, whereas Codex produces fewer hallucinations but lower presentation quality. This work takes a first step toward establishing evaluation frameworks for AI-driven paper writing and improving the understanding of its risks within the research community.

Jr. AI Scientist and Its Risk Report: Autonomous Scientific Exploration from a Baseline Paper

Understanding the current capabilities and risks of AI Scientist systems is essential for ensuring trustworthy and sustainable AI-driven scientific progress while preserving the integrity of the academic ecosystem. To this end, we develop Jr. AI Scientist, a state-of-the-art autonomous AI scientist system that mimics the core research workflow of a novice student researcher: Given the baseline paper from the human mentor, it analyzes its limitations, formulates novel hypotheses for improvement, validates them through rigorous experimentation, and writes a paper with the results. Unlike previous approaches that assume full automation or operate on small-scale code, Jr. AI Scientist follows a well-defined research workflow and leverages modern coding agents to handle complex, multi-file implementations, leading to scientifically valuable contributions. For evaluation, we conducted automated assessments using AI Reviewers, author-led evaluations, and submissions to Agents4Science, a venue dedicated to AI-driven scientific contributions. The findings demonstrate that Jr. AI Scientist generates papers receiving higher review scores than existing fully automated systems. Nevertheless, we identify important limitations from both the author evaluation and the Agents4Science reviews, indicating the potential risks of directly applying current AI Scientist systems and key challenges for future research. Finally, we comprehensively report various risks identified during development. We hope these insights will deepen understanding of current progress and risks in AI Scientist development.

Language-guided Detection and Mitigation of Unknown Dataset Bias

Dataset bias is a significant problem in training fair classifiers. When attributes unrelated to classification exhibit strong biases towards certain classes, classifiers trained on such dataset may overfit to these bias attributes, substantially reducing the accuracy for minority groups. Mitigation techniques can be categorized according to the availability of bias information (\ie, prior knowledge). Although scenarios with unknown biases are better suited for real-world settings, previous work in this field often suffers from a lack of interpretability regarding biases and lower performance. In this study, we propose a framework to identify potential biases as keywords without prior knowledge based on the partial occurrence in the captions. We further propose two debiasing methods: (a) handing over to an existing debiasing approach which requires prior knowledge by assigning pseudo-labels, and (b) employing data augmentation via text-to-image generative models, using acquired bias keywords as prompts. Despite its simplicity, experimental results show that our framework not only outperforms existing methods without prior knowledge, but also is even comparable with a method that assumes prior knowledge.