Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 1 minor 61 references

Agentic Publication Protocol: An Attempt to Modernize Scientific Publication

T0 review · 2 major / 1 minor · reviewed 2026-06-29 · grok-4.3

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A protocol packages scientific papers as version-controlled repositories so AI agents can explain results, reproduce experiments, and guide follow-up research.

desk verdict This is a design proposal for an agent-friendly repo format with AGENTS.md that identifies a real gap but supplies no implementation, tests, or validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2606.27386 v1 pith:W4ZJVY6K submitted 2026-06-15 cs.DL cs.AI

Sirui Lu , Xiao-Liang Qi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.DLcs.AI
keywords agenticpublicationscientificpublishingLLMagentsreproducibilityrepositoryformatresearchtacitknowledgeversioncontrol
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper outlines the Agentic Publication Protocol as a way to move beyond static manuscripts that omit much of the practical knowledge needed to work with a result. Under the protocol a repository becomes the published object and includes an AGENTS.md file that tells an AI agent how to describe the work, run the code, and suggest next steps. The authors argue this format can preserve tacit know-how such as implementation choices and failed paths that current papers leave out. If the approach works, readers could interact with published work through agents rather than reading alone, lowering the barrier to reproduction and extension.

What carries the argument

The AGENTS.md file that defines the paper agent and its interaction skills for explanation and reproduction.

What would settle it

A test in which independent agents given only an APP-formatted repository are asked to reproduce the paper's main results and either succeed at rates comparable to human readers or fail systematically on the same steps.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The Agentic Publication Protocol treats a version-controlled repository as the publication object and uses an AGENTS.md file together with optional skills to define a paper agent that can explain the work, reproduce key results when possible, and support follow-up research.

Load-bearing premise

Current large language model agents can interpret AGENTS.md files and associated artifacts well enough to perform explanation, reproduction, and research-support tasks with little extra human help.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Published work becomes executable by agents without requiring readers to reconstruct missing details from the text alone.
  • Tacit decisions about code, data handling, and edge cases get recorded in a form agents can use directly.
  • Follow-up experiments can start from the same agent instructions rather than from a fresh reading of the manuscript.
  • Reproducibility checks can be run by agents against the same repository format used for publication.
  • Evaluation of a paper can include measuring how well its defined agent performs the listed tasks.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Preprint servers could automatically generate or validate AGENTS.md files for new submissions.
  • Citation practices might shift toward crediting both the original repository and successful agent reproductions.
  • Training data for future agents could be drawn from successful interactions recorded under this protocol.
  • Review processes could incorporate automated checks of whether an agent's reproduction matches the claimed results.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes the Agentic Publication Protocol (APP), a lightweight repository-based publication format that packages a paper with code, data, environment specifications, reproducibility instructions, and an AGENTS.md file (plus optional skills) so that LLM-based paper agents can explain the work, reproduce key results when feasible, and support follow-up research. It outlines design principles, protocol details, relevant agent skills, development tools for evaluating and improving the protocol, and a broader discussion of scientific research in the agent era.

Significance. If the protocol can be shown to work reliably, it would offer a concrete mechanism for publishing operational scientific know-how alongside static manuscripts, potentially improving reproducibility and enabling automated agents to build directly on published artifacts. The design is timely and provides a structured approach to agent-paper interaction that could influence future standards in digital libraries and reproducible research.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that APP enables a paper agent to 'explain the work, reproduce key results when possible, and support follow-up research' with the AGENTS.md format rests on the untested assumption that current or near-future LLM agents can interpret these artifacts and execute the tasks with minimal additional human effort; no implementation, benchmark, or error analysis is supplied to support this.
  2. [Section describing development tools] Section describing development tools: Although the manuscript states that it describes 'development tools for evaluating and improving the protocol and associated agent skills,' no actual evaluation results, benchmarks, or demonstrations of agent performance on APP-formatted repositories are reported, leaving the feasibility of the protocol unverified.
minor comments (1)
  1. Including a concrete example of an AGENTS.md file (perhaps in an appendix) would make the protocol specification more actionable for readers.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript proposing the Agentic Publication Protocol. The report correctly identifies that the work is a conceptual proposal without accompanying empirical evaluations. We address each major comment below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The central claim that APP enables a paper agent to 'explain the work, reproduce key results when possible, and support follow-up research' with the AGENTS.md format rests on the untested assumption that current or near-future LLM agents can interpret these artifacts and execute the tasks with minimal additional human effort; no implementation, benchmark, or error analysis is supplied to support this.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript advances a proposed format whose practical effectiveness with LLM agents remains untested. The abstract describes intended capabilities rather than demonstrated performance. We will revise the abstract to state explicitly that APP is a proposed protocol and that validation through implementations and benchmarks is left for future work. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section describing development tools] Although the manuscript states that it describes 'development tools for evaluating and improving the protocol and associated agent skills,' no actual evaluation results, benchmarks, or demonstrations of agent performance on APP-formatted repositories are reported, leaving the feasibility of the protocol unverified.

    Authors: The section outlines the intended design of evaluation tools but does not report results, as the paper's scope is the definition of the protocol rather than its empirical assessment. We will revise the section to clarify that the tools are proposed for subsequent evaluation efforts and that no performance data or demonstrations are included in the current manuscript. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: standalone design proposal with no derivations or self-referential claims

full rationale

The manuscript is a design document proposing the Agentic Publication Protocol (APP) as a repository format using AGENTS.md and skills. It contains no equations, fitted parameters, predictions, or load-bearing self-citations. The central claim is a definitional proposal whose utility depends on external assumptions about future LLM agents, but this is not circularity within the paper's own chain. No steps reduce to inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 1 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The proposal rests on the untested assumption that LLM agents can reliably act on the provided files and introduces new entities without independent evidence of their effectiveness.

assumptions (1)
  • domain assumption LLM agents can be effectively instructed via structured files to perform scientific tasks such as result explanation and reproduction.
    This capability is presupposed for the protocol to deliver its intended benefits.
invented entities (2)
  • AGENTS.md file
    purpose: Define instructions for a paper-specific agent
    New file format and convention introduced by the protocol.
  • Agentic Publication Protocol (APP)
    purpose: Standardized repository format for agent-accessible publications
    Core new construct proposed in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Agentic Publication Protocol: An Attempt to Modernize Scientific Publication." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4ZJVY6K

@misc{pith2026260627386,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Agentic Publication Protocol: An Attempt to Modernize Scientific Publication},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4ZJVY6K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2606.27386}
}
read the original abstract

Scientific publication is still organized primarily around static manuscripts, even though much of scientific progress depends on tacit know-how: how to run code, reproduce figures, interpret edge cases, choose useful follow-up directions, and avoid failed paths. Large language model agents create an opportunity to publish not only knowledge, but also operational know-how in a form that future readers and researchers can directly use. This paper outlines the Agentic Publication Protocol (APP), a lightweight repository format for packaging a paper together with code, data, environment information, reproducibility instructions, and an agent-facing instruction file. APP treats a version-controlled repository as the publication object and uses \texttt{AGENTS.md} and optional skills to define a paper agent that can explain the work, reproduce key results when possible, and support follow-up research. We describe the design principles and details of the protocol, as well as the agent skills useful for publishing papers under the protocol. We also describe development tools for evaluating and improving the protocol and associated agent skills. Finally, we provide a broader discussion of the future of scientific research in the agent era.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27386 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Repository structure of an APP publication. The repository contains the paper, human-facing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Publication workflow supported by APP skills. (a) Overall workflow from a working paper repository [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Automatic APP evaluation and improvement workflow. Development skills first help find suitable [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Average compare-app aspect scores over the 11 public papers. corresponding skills. For example, a researcher interested in publishing a paper in APP can build the paper agent by herself, or with the publish-paper workflow, and evaluate it using the development skills p…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Schematic illustration of the qualitative change in the research network introduced by agentification. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2016, Nature, 533, 452, doi: 10.1038/533452a

    Monya Baker. 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility.Nature, 533(7604):452–454, 2016. doi: 10.1038/533452a

    work page doi:10.1038/533452a 2016

  2. [2]

    Roger D. Peng. Reproducible research in computational science.Science, 334(6060):1226–1227, 2011. doi: 10.1126/science.1213847

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1213847 2011

  3. [3]

    An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11):2584–2589,

    Victoria Stodden, Jennifer Seiler, and Zhaokun Ma. An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11):2584–2589,

  4. [4]

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.1708290115

    work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1708290115

  5. [5]

    University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009

    Michael Polanyi.The Tacit Dimension. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2009. ISBN 9780226672984. First published 1966; reissued with a new foreword by Amartya Sen

    2009

  6. [6]

    Hanchen Wang, Tianfan Fu, Yuanqi Du, Wenhao Gao, Kexin Huang, Ziming Liu, Payal Chandak, Shengchao Liu, Peter Van Katwyk, Andreea Deac, Anima Anandkumar, Karianne Bergen, Carla P. Gomes, Shirley Ho, Pushmeet Kohli, Joan Lasenby, Jure Leskovec, Tie-Yan Liu, Arjun Manrai, Debora Marks, Bharath Ramsundar, Le Song, Jimeng Sun, Jian Tang, Petar Veličković, Max...

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06221-2 2023

  7. [7]

    The Agentification of Scientific Research: A Physicist's Perspective

    Xiao-Liang Qi. The agentification of scientific research: A physicist’s perspective, 2026. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2604.14718. arXiv:2604.14718

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  8. [8]

    Spears, Derya Unutmaz, Kevin Weil, Steven Yin, and Nikita Zhivotovskiy

    Sébastien Bubeck, Christian Coester, Ronen Eldan, et al. Early science acceleration experiments with GPT-5, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2511.16072. arXiv:2511.16072

    work page arXiv 2025

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Can theoretical physics research benefit from language agents?, 2025

    Sirui Lu, Zhijing Jin, Terry Jingchen Zhang, et al. Can theoretical physics research benefit from language agents?, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2506.06214. arXiv:2506.06214

    2025

  2. [10]

    Boiko, Robert MacKnight, Ben Kline, and Gabe Gomes

    Daniil A. Boiko, Robert MacKnight, Ben Kline, and Gabe Gomes. Autonomous chemical research with large language models.Nature, 624(7992):570–578, 2023. doi: 10.1038/s41586-023-06792-0

    2023 doi

  3. [11]

    Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, et al

    Andres M. Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, et al. Augmenting large language models with chemistry tools.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(5):525–535, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s42256-024-00832-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00832-8

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    VASPilot: MCP-facilitated multi-agent intelligence for autonomous VASP simulations, 2025

    Jiaxuan Liu, Tiannian Zhu, Caiyuan Ye, et al. VASPilot: MCP-facilitated multi-agent intelligence for autonomous VASP simulations, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2508.07035. arXiv:2508.07035

    2025

  5. [13]

    Juraj Gottweis, Wei-Hung Weng, Alexander Daryin, Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Petar Sirkovic, Artiom Myaskovsky, Felix Weissenberger, Keran Rong, Ryutaro Tanno, Khaled Saab, Dan Popovici, Jacob Blum, Fan Zhang, Katherine Chou, Avinatan Hassidim, Burak Gokturk, Amin Vahdat, Pushmeet Ko...

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Li, Emily B

    Michael Y. Li, Emily B. Fox, and Noah D. Goodman. Automated statistical model discovery with language models, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17879. arXiv:2402.17879

    2024

  7. [15]

    Brenner, Vincent Cohen-Addad, and David Woodruff

    Michael P. Brenner, Vincent Cohen-Addad, and David Woodruff. Solving an open problem in theoretical physics using AI-assisted discovery, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2603.04735. arXiv:2603.04735

    2026

  8. [16]

    Single-minus graviton tree amplitudes are nonzero, 2026

    Alfredo Guevara, Alexandru Lupsasca, David Skinner, et al. Single-minus graviton tree amplitudes are nonzero, 2026. URLhttps://cdn.openai.com/pdf/graviton.pdf. OpenAI preprint PDF. 13

    2026

  9. [17]

    Trinh, Garrett Bingham, et al

    Tony Feng, Trieu H. Trinh, Garrett Bingham, et al. Towards autonomous mathematics research, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10177. arXiv:2602.10177

    2026

  10. [18]

    AI co-mathematician: Accelerating mathematicians with agentic AI, 2026

    Daniel Zheng, Ingrid von Glehn, Yori Zwols, et al. AI co-mathematician: Accelerating mathematicians with agentic AI, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.06651. arXiv:2605.06651

    2026 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Advancing mathematics research with AI-driven formal proof search, 2026

    George Tsoukalas, Anton Kovsharov, Sergey Shirobokov, et al. Advancing mathematics research with AI-driven formal proof search, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.22763. arXiv:2605.22763

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry, May 2026

    OpenAI. An OpenAI model has disproved a central conjecture in discrete geometry, May 2026. URL https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-conjecture/. Research announcement, with links to proof and companion remarks

    2026

  13. [21]

    Bloom, W

    Noga Alon, Thomas F. Bloom, W. T. Gowers, Daniel Litt, Will Sawin, Arul Shankar, Jacob Tsimer- man, Victor Wang, and Melanie Matchett Wood. Remarks on the disproof of the unit distance conjecture, 2026. URL https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/74c24085-19b0-4534-9c90-465b8e29ad73/ unit-...

    2026

  14. [22]

    The AI scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery, 2024

    Chris Lu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, et al. The AI scientist: Towards fully automated open-ended scientific discovery, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2408.06292. arXiv:2408.06292

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-level automated scientific discovery via agentic tree search,

    Yutaro Yamada, Robert Tjarko Lange, Cong Lu, Shengran Hu, Chris Lu, Jakob Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-level automated scientific discovery via agentic tree search,

  16. [24]

    arXiv:2504.08066

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08066. arXiv:2504.08066

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Agent laboratory: Using LLM agents as research assistants

    Samuel Schmidgall, Yusheng Su, Ze Wang, et al. Agent laboratory: Using LLM agents as research assistants. InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, 2025. URL https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-emnlp.320/

    2025

  18. [26]

    From paper to program: Accelerating quantum many-body algorithm development via a multi- stage LLM-assisted workflow, 2026

    Yi Zhou. From paper to program: Accelerating quantum many-body algorithm development via a multi- stage LLM-assisted workflow, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.04089. arXiv:2604.04089

    2026 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Towards verifiable and self-correcting AI physicists for quantum many-body simulations, 2026

    Ken Deng, Xiangfei Wang, Guijing Duan, et al. Towards verifiable and self-correcting AI physicists for quantum many-body simulations, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2604.00149. arXiv:2604.00149

    2026 arXiv

  20. [28]

    McMahon, and Eun-Ah Kim

    Peter Cha, Paul Ginsparg, Felix Wu, Juan Carrasquilla, Peter L. McMahon, and Eun-Ah Kim. Attention- based quantum tomography.Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 3(1):01LT01, 2022. doi: 10.1088/2632-2153/ac362b. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2006.12469. arXiv:2006.12469

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Free-space model for a balloon-based quantum network, 2024

    Ilektra Karakosta-Amarantidou, Raja Yehia, and Matteo Schiavon. Free-space model for a balloon-based quantum network, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2412.03356. arXiv:2412.03356

    2024

  22. [30]

    Perlin, Zain H

    Michael A. Perlin, Zain H. Saleem, Martin Suchara, and James C. Osborn. Quantum circuit cutting with maximum likelihood tomography.npj Quantum Information, 7:64, 2021. doi: 10.1038/s41534-021-00390-6. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2005.12702. arXiv:2005.12702

    2021 doi

  23. [31]

    Particle partition entanglement of one dimensional spinless fermions.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2017(8):083109,

    Hatem Barghathi, Emanuel Casiano-Diaz, and Adrian Del Maestro. Particle partition entanglement of one dimensional spinless fermions.Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2017(8):083109,

    2017

  24. [32]

    URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10587

    doi: 10.1088/1742-5468/aa819a. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10587. arXiv:1703.10587

    doi arXiv

  25. [33]

    Multiple-basis representation of quantum states, 2024

    Adrián Pérez-Salinas, Patrick Emonts, Jordi Tura, and Vedran Dunjko. Multiple-basis representation of quantum states, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03110. arXiv:2411.03110

    2024

  26. [34]

    Optimal strategies of quantum metrology with a strict hierarchy.Physical Review Letters, 130:070803, 2023

    Qiushi Liu, Zihao Hu, Haidong Yuan, and Yuxiang Yang. Optimal strategies of quantum metrology with a strict hierarchy.Physical Review Letters, 130:070803, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.070803. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2203.09758. arXiv:2203.09758

    2023 doi

  27. [35]

    OAM-induced lattice rotation reveals a fractional optimum in fault- tolerant GKP quantum sensing, 2026

    Simanshu Kumar and Nandan S Bisht. OAM-induced lattice rotation reveals a fractional optimum in fault- tolerant GKP quantum sensing, 2026. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2605.13271. arXiv:2605.13271. 14

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Certifying the quantum fisher information from a given set of mean values: a semidefinite programming approach.Quantum, 7:1152, 2023

    Guillem Müller-Rigat, Anubhav Kumar Srivastava, Stanisław Kurdziałek, Grzegorz Rajchel-Mieldzioć, Maciej Lewenstein, and Irénée Frérot. Certifying the quantum fisher information from a given set of mean values: a semidefinite programming approach.Quantum, 7:1152, 2023. doi: 10...

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    Learning quantum processes with quantum statistical queries

    Chirag Wadhwa and Mina Doosti. Learning quantum processes with quantum statistical queries. Quantum, 9:1739, 2025. doi: 10.22331/q-2025-05-12-1739. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2310.02075. arXiv:2310.02075

    2025 doi

  30. [38]

    Boris Sokolov, Matteo A. C. Rossi, Guillermo García-Pérez, and Sabrina Maniscalco. Emergent entanglement structures and self-similarity in quantum spin chains.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 380(2227):20200421, 2022. doi: 10.1098/rsta.2020.0421. URLhttps://a...

    2022 doi

  31. [39]

    Topological two-dimensional floquet lattice on a single superconducting qubit.Physical Review Letters, 126:163602, 2021

    Daniel Malz and Adam Smith. Topological two-dimensional floquet lattice on a single superconducting qubit.Physical Review Letters, 126:163602, 2021. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.163602. URLhttps: //arxiv.org/abs/2012.01459. arXiv:2012.01459

    2021 doi

  32. [40]

    Why linked data is not enough for scientists

    Sean Bechhofer, Iain Buchan, David De Roure, et al. Why linked data is not enough for scientists. Future Generation Computer Systems, 29(2):599–611, 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.future.2011.08.004

    2013 doi

  33. [41]

    Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, et al

    Mark D. Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship.Scientific Data, 3:160018, 2016. doi: 10.1038/sdata.2016.18

    2016 doi

  34. [42]

    Binder 2.0 – reproducible, interactive, sharable environments for science at scale

    Project Jupyter, Matthias Bussonnier, Jessica Forde, Jeremy Freeman, Brian Granger, Tim Head, Chris Holdgraf, Kyle Kelley, Gladys Nalvarte, Andrew Osheroff, M Pacer, Yuvi Panda, Fernando Pérez, Benjamin Ragan-Kelley, and Carol Willing. Binder 2.0 – reproducible, interactive, s...

    2018 doi

  35. [43]

    Improving reproducibility in machine learning research (a report from the NeurIPS 2019 reproducibility program).Journal of Machine Learning Research, 22 (164):1–20, 2021

    Joelle Pineau, Philippe Vincent-Lamarre, Koustuv Sinha, Vincent Larivière, Alina Beygelzimer, Florence d’Alché Buc, Emily Fox, and Hugo Larochelle. Improving reproducibility in machine learning research (a report from the NeurIPS 2019 reproducibility program).Journal of Machin...

    2019

  36. [44]

    Artifact review and badging – current (version 1.1)

    Association for Computing Machinery. Artifact review and badging – current (version 1.1). ACM publications policy, August 2020. URL https://www.acm.org/publications/policies/ artifact-review-and-badging-current. Accessed 2026-06-10

    2020

  37. [45]

    Hugging Face Papers

    Hugging Face. Hugging Face Papers. Website, 2026. URLhttps://huggingface.co/papers. Hosts the paper–code index formerly maintained by Papers with Code;https://huggingface.co/papers; accessed 2026-06-10

    2026

  38. [46]

    The last human-written paper: Agent-native research artifacts, 2026

    Jiachen Liu, Jiaxin Pei, Jintao Huang, Chenglei Si, Ao Qu, Xiangru Tang, Runyu Lu, Lichang Chen, Xiaoyan Bai, Haizhong Zheng, Carl Chen, Zhiyang Chen, Haojie Ye, Yujuan Fu, Zexue He, Zijian Jin, Zhenyu Zhang, Shangquan Sun, Maestro Harmon, John Dianzhuo Wang, Jianqiao Zeng, Ji...

    2026 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Davis, Yaohui Zhang, Jonathan K

    Jiacheng Miao, Joe R. Davis, Yaohui Zhang, Jonathan K. Pritchard, and James Zou. Paper2Agent: Reimagining research papers as interactive and reliable AI agents, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2509.06917. arXiv:2509.06917

    2025

  40. [48]

    Introducing the Model Context Protocol

    Anthropic. Introducing the Model Context Protocol. https://www.anthropic.com/news/ model-context-protocol, November 2024. Open standard for connecting AI assistants to data sources and tools; accessed 2026-06-10. 15

    2024

  41. [49]

    Paper2Code: Automating code generation from scientific papers in machine learning

    Minju Seo, Jinheon Baek, Seongyun Lee, and Sung Ju Hwang. Paper2Code: Automating code generation from scientific papers in machine learning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2026. URLhttps://openreview.net/forum?id=3DcaUTjdKc. arXiv:2504.17192

    2026

  42. [50]

    Exploring the use of AI authors and reviewers at Agents4Science.Nature Biotechnology, 44:11–14, 2026

    Federico Bianchi, Owen Queen, Nitya Thakkar, Eric Sun, James Zou, et al. Exploring the use of AI authors and reviewers at Agents4Science.Nature Biotechnology, 44:11–14, 2026. doi: 10.1038/s41587-025-02963-8. URLhttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-025-02963-8

    2026 doi

  43. [51]

    McFarland, and James Zou

    Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Hancheng Cao, Binglu Wang, Daisy Yi Ding, Xinyu Yang, Kailas Vodrahalli, Siyu He, Daniel Scott Smith, Yian Yin, Daniel A. McFarland, and James Zou. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis...

    2024 doi

  44. [52]

    Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky, and Robert West

    Giuseppe Russo Latona, Manoel Horta Ribeiro, Tim R. Davidson, Veniamin Veselovsky, and Robert West. The AI review lottery: Widespread AI-assisted peer reviews boost paper scores and acceptance rates, 2024. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02150. arXiv:2405.02150

    2024

  45. [53]

    Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers.Nature Human Behaviour, 9:2599–2609, 2025

    Weixin Liang, Yaohui Zhang, Zhengxuan Wu, et al. Quantifying large language model usage in scientific papers.Nature Human Behaviour, 9:2599–2609, 2025. doi: 10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8. URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-025-02273-8

    2025 doi

  46. [54]

    Scientific production in the era of large language models.Science, 390(6779):1240–1243, 2025

    Keigo Kusumegi, Xinyu Yang, Paul Ginsparg, et al. Scientific production in the era of large language models.Science, 390(6779):1240–1243, 2025. doi: 10.1126/science.adw3000. URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1126/science.adw3000

    2025 doi

  47. [55]

    Generative AI in scientific publishing: Disruptive or destructive?Nature Reviews Urology, 21:1–2, 2024

    Riccardo Bertolo and Alessandro Antonelli. Generative AI in scientific publishing: Disruptive or destructive?Nature Reviews Urology, 21:1–2, 2024. doi: 10.1038/s41585-023-00836-w. URLhttps: //doi.org/10.1038/s41585-023-00836-w

    2024 doi

  48. [56]

    ICML 2023 clarification on large language model policy.https://icml.cc/Conferences/2023/ llm-policy, 2023

    ICML. ICML 2023 clarification on large language model policy.https://icml.cc/Conferences/2023/ llm-policy, 2023. Accessed 2026-06-10

    2023

  49. [57]

    Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use

    Editorial. Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use. Nature, 613:612, 2023. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00191-1. Editorial

    2023 doi

  50. [58]

    Holden Thorp

    H. Holden Thorp. ChatGPT is fun, but not an author.Science, 379(6630):313, 2023. doi: 10.1126/ science.adg7879

    2023

  51. [59]

    NeurIPS 2025 policy on the use of large language models.https://neurips.cc/Conferences/ 2025/LLM, 2025

    NeurIPS. NeurIPS 2025 policy on the use of large language models.https://neurips.cc/Conferences/ 2025/LLM, 2025. Accessed 2026-06-10

    2025

  52. [60]

    Policies on large language model usage at ICLR 2026

    ICLR 2026 Program Chairs. Policies on large language model usage at ICLR 2026. https: //blog.iclr.cc/2025/08/26/policies-on-large-language-model-usage-at-iclr-2026/ , August

    2026

  53. [61]

    Accessed 2026-06-10. 16

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed June 29, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.