arXiv:2603.07521v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This work investigates large-scale sketch recognition from a graph-native perspective, where free-hand sketches are directly modeled as structured graphs rather than raster images or stroke sequences. We propose SketchGraphNet, a hybrid graph neural architecture that integrates local message passing with a memory-efficient global attention mechanism, without relying on auxiliary positional or structural encodings. To support systematic evaluation, we construct SketchGraph, a large-scale benchmark comprising 3.44 million graph-structured sketches across 344 categories, with two variants (A and R) to reflect different noise conditions. Each sketch is represented as a spatiotemporal graph with normalized stroke-order attributes. On SketchGraph-A and SketchGraph-R, SketchGraphNet achieves Top-1 accuracies of 83.62% and 87.61%, respectively, under a unified training configuration. MemEffAttn further reduces peak GPU memory by over 40% and training time by more than 30% compared with Performer-based global attention, while maintaining comparable accuracy.

arXiv:2603.08281v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As AI-assisted grant proposals outpace manual review capacity in a kind of ``Malthusian trap'' for the research ecosystem, this paper investigates the capabilities and limitations of LLM-based grant reviewing for high-stakes evaluation. Using six EPSRC proposals, we develop a perturbation-based framework probing LLM sensitivity across six quality axes: funding, timeline, competency, alignment, clarity, and impact. We compare three review architectures: single-pass review, section-by-section analysis, and a 'Council of Personas' ensemble emulating expert panels. The section-level approach significantly outperforms alternatives in both detection rate and scoring reliability, while the computationally expensive council method performs no better than baseline. Detection varies substantially by perturbation type, with alignment issues readily identified but clarity flaws largely missed by all systems. Human evaluation shows LLM feedback is largely valid but skewed toward compliance checking over holistic assessment. We conclude that current LLMs may provide supplementary value within EPSRC review but exhibit high variability and misaligned review priorities. We release our code and any non-protected data.