Daily Papers

Advances in AI-assisted research have introduced powerful tools for literature retrieval, hypothesis generation, experimentation, and manuscript preparation. However, systems remain fragmented and lack human-centred workflows. To address these gaps, we introduce AIssistant, an agentic, open-source Human-AI collaborative framework designed to simplify the end-to-end creation of scientific workflows. Since our development is still in an early stage, we present here the first experiments with AIssistant for perspective and review research papers in machine learning. Our system integrates modular tools and agents for literature synthesis, section-wise experimentation, citation management, and automatic LaTeX paper text generation, while maintaining human oversight at every stage to ensure accuracy, coherence, and scholarly rigour. We conducted a comprehensive evaluation across three layers: (1) Independent Human Review, following NeurIPS double-blind standards; (2) Automated LLM Review, using GPT-5 as a scalable human review proxy; and (3) Program Chair Oversight, where the chair monitors the entire review process and makes final validation and acceptance decisions. The results demonstrate that AIssistant improves drafting efficiency and thematic consistency. Nonetheless, Human-AI collaboration remains essential for maintaining factual correctness, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance. Despite its effectiveness, we identify key limitations, including hallucinated citations, difficulty adapting to dynamic paper structures, and incomplete integration of multimodal content.

Accurate text recognition for historical documents can greatly advance the study and preservation of cultural heritage. Existing vision-language models (VLMs), however, are designed for modern, standardized texts and are not equipped to read the diverse languages and scripts, irregular layouts, and frequent degradation found in historical materials. This paper presents CHURRO, a 3B-parameter open-weight VLM specialized for historical text recognition. The model is trained on CHURRO-DS, the largest historical text recognition dataset to date. CHURRO-DS unifies 155 historical corpora comprising 99,491 pages, spanning 22 centuries of textual heritage across 46 language clusters, including historical variants and dead languages. We evaluate several open-weight and closed VLMs and optical character recognition (OCR) systems on CHURRO-DS and find that CHURRO outperforms all other VLMs. On the CHURRO-DS test set, CHURRO achieves 82.3% (printed) and 70.1% (handwritten) normalized Levenshtein similarity, surpassing the second-best model, Gemini 2.5 Pro, by 1.4% and 6.5%, respectively, while being 15.5 times more cost-effective. By releasing the model and dataset, we aim to enable community-driven research to improve the readability of historical texts and accelerate scholarship.

Wikipedia is the largest open knowledge corpus, widely used worldwide and serving as a key resource for training large language models (LLMs) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Ensuring its accuracy is therefore critical. But how accurate is Wikipedia, and how can we improve it? We focus on inconsistencies, a specific type of factual inaccuracy, and introduce the task of corpus-level inconsistency detection. We present CLAIRE, an agentic system that combines LLM reasoning with retrieval to surface potentially inconsistent claims along with contextual evidence for human review. In a user study with experienced Wikipedia editors, 87.5% reported higher confidence when using CLAIRE, and participants identified 64.7% more inconsistencies in the same amount of time. Combining CLAIRE with human annotation, we contribute WIKICOLLIDE, the first benchmark of real Wikipedia inconsistencies. Using random sampling with CLAIRE-assisted analysis, we find that at least 3.3% of English Wikipedia facts contradict another fact, with inconsistencies propagating into 7.3% of FEVEROUS and 4.0% of AmbigQA examples. Benchmarking strong baselines on this dataset reveals substantial headroom: the best fully automated system achieves an AUROC of only 75.1%. Our results show that contradictions are a measurable component of Wikipedia and that LLM-based systems like CLAIRE can provide a practical tool to help editors improve knowledge consistency at scale.