arXiv:2609.13009v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks, including those featured in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026), suggest that frontier language models still struggle with advanced physics, a demanding test of their scientific reasoning and quantitative problem-solving abilities. Yet this impression does not always align with domain experts' experiences using these models in their work. We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts, focusing on text-only problems with verifiable final answers. For each subfield of physics, faculty and graduate researchers with relevant expertise carefully review problem statements, reference solutions, and model responses to distinguish genuine model errors from grader errors, incorrect reference solutions, and ambiguous or underspecified questions. Most audited cases initially evaluated as incorrect reflect these benchmarking issues rather than errors in the models' physics reasoning. We then ask experts to address these benchmarking issues by correcting erroneous reference solutions and repairing or excluding flawed questions. We find that GPT-5.6-Sol's measured mean@4 rises from 47.3% to 78.7% on HLE-Physics and from 61.0% to 87.2% on CMT-Benchmark, while its corrected pass@4 reaches 94.4% on the 54 retained CritPt challenges. Corrected scores are computed on the retained evaluation subsets following expert review. Scores on the audited subsets of UGPhysics, PRISM-Physics, and PHYBench also rise substantially after correction. These findings suggest that current benchmarks substantially understate frontier models' ability to solve well-posed physics problems. Near-saturation on these closed-ended tasks highlights the need for more demanding, expert-validated evaluations.

arXiv:2609.12579v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: On-policy self-distillation (OPSD) scores student-generated prefixes with a solution-conditioned self-teacher, yet transfers supervision only through next-token probabilities. We ask whether the aligned final-layer discrepancy offers a useful second channel, and how to test that channel without confusing its geometry with auxiliary strength. SCOPE-OPSD projects the privileged teacher-student residual onto a frozen rank-64 factor estimated from residual covariance and language-model-head Fisher sensitivity. It reuses the forwards already required by OPSD and adds neither rollouts nor inference-time modules. A matched Random control preserves the structured factor's rank and nonzero spectrum and uses per-arm gradient-RMS calibration, isolating the effect of the data-dependent orientation. Across the complete 25/50/75/100-step trajectories for Qwen3-1.7B, 4B, and 8B, Structured is never below Pure OPSD, with strict gains in 11 of the 12 model-checkpoint combinations and an exact tie at 4B step 25. Structured also exceeds matched Random in 10 of the 12 combinations. At step 75 on Qwen3-1.7B, Structured exceeds matched Random by 1.39 Macro Avg@12 points in each of two independent training reruns. A cross-fitted diagnostic also shows 4.40 times greater held-out privileged-gap capture than the matched random orientation. The results support a compact, Fisher-conditioned privileged subspace for short-budget OPSD.

arXiv:2605.20025v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automating scientific discovery requires more than generating papers from ideas. Real research is iterative: hypotheses are challenged from multiple perspectives, experiments fail and inform the next attempt, and lessons accumulate across cycles. Existing autonomous research systems often model this process as a linear pipeline: they rely on single-agent reasoning, stop when execution fails, and do not carry experience across runs. We present AutoResearchClaw, a multi-agent autonomous research pipeline built on five mechanisms: structured multi-agent debate for hypothesis generation and result analysis, a self-healing executor with a \textsc{Pivot}/\textsc{Refine} decision loop that transforms failures into information, verifiable result reporting that prevents fabricated numbers and hallucinated citations, human-in-the-loop collaboration with seven intervention modes spanning full autonomy to step-by-step oversight, and cross-run evolution that converts past mistakes into future safeguards. On ARC-Bench, a 25-topic experiment-stage benchmark, AutoResearchClaw outperforms AI Scientist v2 by 54.7%. A human-in-the-loop ablation across seven intervention modes reveals that precise, targeted collaboration at high-leverage decision points consistently outperforms both full autonomy and exhaustive step-by-step oversight. We position AutoResearchClaw as a research amplifier that augments rather than replaces human scientific judgment. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/AutoResearchClaw.