The holy grail for scientists is to focus on their research to enhance and produce scientific discoveries while offloading time-consuming tasks. So-called artificial intelligence (AI) co-scientists are helping to make this possible. These collaborative AI systems are designed to assist human researchers by accelerating scientific discovery, enhancing collaboration, analyzing data, and going beyond human intuition. An AI co-scientist performs various scientific tasks, especially in areas like hypothesis generation, experimental design, verification, and literature review. It uses the results to learn to improve its ability to generate and refine hypotheses.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance in data-rich domains such as programming, but their reliability in engineering tasks remains limited. Circuit analysis -- requiring multimodal understanding and precise mathematical reasoning -- highlights these challenges. Although Gemini 2.5 Pro improves diagram interpretation and analog-circuit reasoning, it still struggles to consistently produce correct solutions when given both text and circuit diagrams. At the same time, engineering education needs scalable AI tools capable of generating accurate solutions for tasks such as automated homework feedback and question-answering. This paper presents an enhanced, end-to-end circuit problem solver built on Gemini 2.5 Pro. We first benchmark Gemini on a representative set of undergraduate circuit problems and identify two major failure modes: 1) circuit-recognition hallucinations, particularly incorrect source polarity detection, and 2) reasoning-process hallucinations, such as incorrect current directions. To address recognition errors, we integrate a fine-tuned YOLO detector and OpenCV processing to isolate voltage and current sources, enabling Gemini to re-identify source polarities from cropped images with near-perfect accuracy. To reduce reasoning errors, we introduce an ngspice-based verification loop in which Gemini generates a .cir file, ngspice simulates the circuit, and discrepancies trigger iterative regeneration with optional human-in-the-loop review. Across 83 problems, the proposed pipeline achieves a 97.59% success rate (81 correct solutions), substantially outperforming Gemini 2.5 Pro's original 79.52% accuracy. This system extends LLM capabilities for multimodal engineering problem-solving and supports the creation of high-quality educational datasets and AI-powered instructional tools.

Which factors determine AI's propensity to support military intervention? While the use of AI in high-stakes decision-making is growing exponentially, we still lack systematic analysis of the key drivers embedded in these models. This paper conducts a conjoint experiment in which large language models (LLMs) from leading providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google) are asked to decide on military intervention across 128 vignettes, with each vignette run 10 times. This design enables a systematic assessment of AI decision-making in military contexts. The results are remarkably consistent across models: all models place substantial weight on the probability of success and domestic support, prioritizing these factors over civilian casualties, economic shock, or international sanctions. The paper then tests whether LLMs are sensitive to context by introducing different motivations for intervention. The scoring is indeed context-dependent; however, probability of victory remains the most important factor in all scenarios. Finally, the paper evaluates numerical sensitivity and finds that models display some responsiveness to the scale of civilian casualties but no detectable sensitivity to the size of the economic shock.

Would artificial intelligence (AI) cut interest rates or adopt conservative monetary policy? Would it deregulate or opt for a more controlled economy? As AI use by economic policymakers, academics, and market participants grows exponentially, it is becoming critical to understand AI preferences over economic policy. However, these preferences are not yet systematically evaluated and remain a black box. This paper makes a conjoint experiment on leading large language models (LLMs) from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google, asking them to evaluate economic policy under multi-factor constraints. The results are remarkably consistent across models: most LLMs exhibit a strong preference for high growth, low unemployment, and low inequality over traditional macroeconomic concerns such as low inflation and low public debt. Scenario-specific experiments show that LLMs are sensitive to context but still display strong preferences for low unemployment and low inequality even in monetary-policy settings. Numerical sensitivity tests reveal intuitive responses to quantitative changes but also uncover non-linear patterns such as loss aversion.

We introduce the first version of the AI Consumer Index (ACE), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier AI models can perform everyday consumer tasks. ACE contains a hidden heldout set of 400 test cases, split across four consumer activities: shopping, food, gaming, and DIY. We are also open sourcing 80 cases as a devset with a CC-BY license. For the ACE leaderboard we evaluated 10 frontier models (with websearch turned on) using a novel grading methodology that dynamically checks whether relevant parts of the response are grounded in the retrieved web sources. GPT 5 (Thinking = High) is the top-performing model, scoring 56.1%, followed by o3 Pro (Thinking = On) at 55.2% and GPT 5.1 (Thinking = High) at 55.1%. Model scores differ across domains, and in Shopping the top model scores under 50\%. We find that models are prone to hallucinating key information, such as prices. ACE shows a substantial gap between the performance of even the best models and consumers' AI needs.

Previous research has reported that large language models (LLMs) demonstrate poor performance on the Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) exams. However, recent reasoning models have achieved strong results on graduate-level academic and professional examinations across various disciplines. In this paper, we evaluate state-of-the-art reasoning models on a set of mock CFA exams consisting of 980 questions across three Level I exams, two Level II exams, and three Level III exams. Using the same pass/fail criteria from prior studies, we find that most models clear all three levels. The models that pass, ordered by overall performance, are Gemini 3.0 Pro, Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5, Grok 4, Claude Opus 4.1, and DeepSeek-V3.1. Specifically, Gemini 3.0 Pro achieves a record score of 97.6% on Level I. Performance is also strong on Level II, led by GPT-5 at 94.3%. On Level III, Gemini 2.5 Pro attains the highest score with 86.4% on multiple-choice questions while Gemini 3.0 Pro achieves 92.0% on constructed-response questions.

Multi-modal large reasoning models (MLRMs) pose significant privacy risks by inferring precise geographic locations from personal images through hierarchical chain-of-thought reasoning. Existing privacy protection techniques, primarily designed for perception-based models, prove ineffective against MLRMs' sophisticated multi-step reasoning processes that analyze environmental cues. We introduce \textbf{ReasonBreak}, a novel adversarial framework specifically designed to disrupt hierarchical reasoning in MLRMs through concept-aware perturbations. Our approach is founded on the key insight that effective disruption of geographic reasoning requires perturbations aligned with conceptual hierarchies rather than uniform noise. ReasonBreak strategically targets critical conceptual dependencies within reasoning chains, generating perturbations that invalidate specific inference steps and cascade through subsequent reasoning stages. To facilitate this approach, we contribute \textbf{GeoPrivacy-6K}, a comprehensive dataset comprising 6,341 ultra-high-resolution images ($\geq$2K) with hierarchical concept annotations. Extensive evaluation across seven state-of-the-art MLRMs (including GPT-o3, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro) demonstrates ReasonBreak's superior effectiveness, achieving a 14.4\% improvement in tract-level protection (33.8\% vs 19.4\%) and nearly doubling block-level protection (33.5\% vs 16.8\%). This work establishes a new paradigm for privacy protection against reasoning-based threats.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become increasingly integrated into everyday life and information ecosystems, concerns about their implicit biases continue to persist. While prior work has primarily examined socio-demographic and left--right political dimensions, little attention has been paid to how LLMs align with broader geopolitical value systems, particularly the democracy--authoritarianism spectrum. In this paper, we propose a novel methodology to assess such alignment, combining (1) the F-scale, a psychometric tool for measuring authoritarian tendencies, (2) FavScore, a newly introduced metric for evaluating model favorability toward world leaders, and (3) role-model probing to assess which figures are cited as general role-models by LLMs. We find that LLMs generally favor democratic values and leaders, but exhibit increased favorability toward authoritarian figures when prompted in Mandarin. Further, models are found to often cite authoritarian figures as role models, even outside explicit political contexts. These results shed light on ways LLMs may reflect and potentially reinforce global political ideologies, highlighting the importance of evaluating bias beyond conventional socio-political axes. Our code is available at: https://github.com/irenestrauss/Democratic-Authoritarian-Bias-LLMs.

Existing data-driven approaches in modeling and predicting time series data include ARIMA (Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average), Transformer-based models, LSTM (Long Short-Term Memory) and TCN (Temporal Convolutional Network). These approaches, and in particular deep learning-based models such as LSTM and TCN, have shown great results in predicting time series data. With the advancement of leveraging pre-trained foundation models such as Large Language Models (LLMs) and more notably Google's recent foundation model for time series data, {\it TimesFM} (Time Series Foundation Model), it is of interest to investigate whether these foundation models have the capability of outperforming existing modeling approaches in analyzing and predicting time series data. This paper investigates the performance of using LLM models for time series data prediction. We investigate the in-context learning methodology in the training of LLM models that are specific to the underlying application domain. More specifically, the paper explores training LLMs through in-context, zero-shot and few-shot learning and forecasting time series data with OpenAI {\tt o4-mini} and Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite, as well as the recent Google's Transformer-based TimesFM, a time series-specific foundation model, along with two deep learning models, namely TCN and LSTM networks. The findings indicate that TimesFM has the best overall performance with the lowest RMSE value (0.3023) and the competitive inference time (266 seconds). Furthermore, OpenAI's o4-mini also exhibits a good performance based on Zero Shot learning. These findings highlight pre-trained time series foundation models as a promising direction for real-time forecasting, enabling accurate and scalable deployment with minimal model adaptation.

Deep research -- producing comprehensive, citation-grounded reports by searching and synthesizing information from hundreds of live web sources -- marks an important frontier for agentic systems. To rigorously evaluate this ability, four principles are essential: tasks should be (1) user-centric, reflecting realistic information needs, (2) dynamic, requiring up-to-date information beyond parametric knowledge, (3) unambiguous, ensuring consistent interpretation across users, and (4) multi-faceted and search-intensive, requiring search over numerous web sources and in-depth analysis. Existing benchmarks fall short of these principles, often focusing on narrow domains or posing ambiguous questions that hinder fair comparison. Guided by these principles, we introduce LiveResearchBench, a benchmark of 100 expert-curated tasks spanning daily life, enterprise, and academia, each requiring extensive, dynamic, real-time web search and synthesis. Built with over 1,500 hours of human labor, LiveResearchBench provides a rigorous basis for systematic evaluation. To evaluate citation-grounded long-form reports, we introduce DeepEval, a comprehensive suite covering both content- and report-level quality, including coverage, presentation, citation accuracy and association, consistency and depth of analysis. DeepEval integrates four complementary evaluation protocols, each designed to ensure stable assessment and high agreement with human judgments. Using LiveResearchBench and DeepEval, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of 17 frontier deep research systems, including single-agent web search, single-agent deep research, and multi-agent systems. Our analysis reveals current strengths, recurring failure modes, and key system components needed to advance reliable, insightful deep research. Our code is available at: https://github.com/SalesforceAIResearch/LiveResearchBench.