While Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly envisioned as intelligent assistants for personalized learning, systematic head-to-head evaluations in authentic learning scenarios remain scarce. This study presents an empirical comparison of three state-of-the-art LLMs on a tutoring task simulating a realistic learning setting. Using a dataset containing a student's responses to ten mixed-format questions with correctness labels, each model was asked to (i) analyze the quiz to identify underlying knowledge components, (ii) infer the student's mastery profile, and (iii) generate targeted guidance for improvement. To mitigate subjectivity and evaluator bias, Gemini was employed as a virtual judge to perform pairwise comparisons across multiple dimensions: accuracy, clarity, actionability, and appropriateness. Results analyzed via the Bradley-Terry model reveal that GPT-4o is generally preferred, producing feedback that is more informative and better structured than its counterparts, whereas DeepSeek-V3 and GLM-4.5 demonstrate intermittent strengths but lower consistency. These findings highlight the feasibility of deploying LLMs as advanced teaching assistants for individualized support and provide methodological insights for subsequent empirical research on LLM-driven personalized learning.

With the rapid growth of academic publications, peer review has become an essential yet time-consuming responsibility within the research community. Large Language Models (LLMs) have increasingly been adopted to assist in the generation of review comments; however, current LLM-based review tasks lack a unified evaluation benchmark to rigorously assess the models' ability to produce comprehensive, accurate, and human-aligned assessments, particularly in scenarios involving multimodal content such as figures and tables. To address this gap, we propose \textbf{MMReview}, a comprehensive benchmark that spans multiple disciplines and modalities. MMReview includes multimodal content and expert-written review comments for 240 papers across 17 research domains within four major academic disciplines: Artificial Intelligence, Natural Sciences, Engineering Sciences, and Social Sciences. We design a total of 13 tasks grouped into four core categories, aimed at evaluating the performance of LLMs and Multimodal LLMs (MLLMs) in step-wise review generation, outcome formulation, alignment with human preferences, and robustness to adversarial input manipulation. Extensive experiments conducted on 16 open-source models and 5 advanced closed-source models demonstrate the thoroughness of the benchmark. We envision MMReview as a critical step toward establishing a standardized foundation for the development of automated peer review systems.

Multiagent collaboration has emerged as a promising framework for enhancing the reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs). Despite improvements in reasoning, the approach introduces substantial computational overhead resulting from iterative agent interactions. Furthermore, engaging in unnecessary debates increases the risk of generating erroneous responses. To address these challenges, we propose Debate Only When Necessary (DOWN), an adaptive multiagent debate framework that selectively activates debate based on the confidence score of the agent's initial response. Debate is activated only for queries requiring further deliberation, during which agents refine their outputs by referencing peer responses and associated confidence scores. Evaluations on benchmarks show that DOWN improves efficiency by up to six times while preserving or even outperforming the performance of existing methods. Further analysis indicates that DOWN effectively mitigates the risk of error propagation stemming from the unnecessary debate process. These findings demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in delivering high-performance LLM solutions at a lower computational cost.

Academic paper review is a critical yet time-consuming task within the research community. With the increasing volume of academic publications, automating the review process has become a significant challenge. The primary issue lies in generating comprehensive, accurate, and reasoning-consistent review comments that align with human reviewers' judgments. In this paper, we address this challenge by proposing ReviewAgents, a framework that leverages large language models (LLMs) to generate academic paper reviews. We first introduce a novel dataset, Review-CoT, consisting of 142k review comments, designed for training LLM agents. This dataset emulates the structured reasoning process of human reviewers-summarizing the paper, referencing relevant works, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and generating a review conclusion. Building upon this, we train LLM reviewer agents capable of structured reasoning using a relevant-paper-aware training method. Furthermore, we construct ReviewAgents, a multi-role, multi-LLM agent review framework, to enhance the review comment generation process. Additionally, we propose ReviewBench, a benchmark for evaluating the review comments generated by LLMs. Our experimental results on ReviewBench demonstrate that while existing LLMs exhibit a certain degree of potential for automating the review process, there remains a gap when compared to human-generated reviews. Moreover, our ReviewAgents framework further narrows this gap, outperforming advanced LLMs in generating review comments.

Recent advancements have positioned AI, and particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), as transformative tools for scientific research, capable of addressing complex tasks that require reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. Their exceptional capabilities suggest their potential as scientific research assistants but also highlight the need for holistic, rigorous, and domain-specific evaluation to assess effectiveness in real-world scientific applications. This paper describes a multifaceted methodology for Evaluating AI models as scientific Research Assistants (EAIRA) developed at Argonne National Laboratory. This methodology incorporates four primary classes of evaluations. 1) Multiple Choice Questions to assess factual recall; 2) Open Response to evaluate advanced reasoning and problem-solving skills; 3) Lab-Style Experiments involving detailed analysis of capabilities as research assistants in controlled environments; and 4) Field-Style Experiments to capture researcher-LLM interactions at scale in a wide range of scientific domains and applications. These complementary methods enable a comprehensive analysis of LLM strengths and weaknesses with respect to their scientific knowledge, reasoning abilities, and adaptability. Recognizing the rapid pace of LLM advancements, we designed the methodology to evolve and adapt so as to ensure its continued relevance and applicability. This paper describes the methodology state at the end of February 2025. Although developed within a subset of scientific domains, the methodology is designed to be generalizable to a wide range of scientific domains.

Peer review is essential for scientific progress, but it faces challenges such as reviewer shortages and growing workloads. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential for providing assistance, research has reported significant limitations in the reviews they generate. While the insights are valuable, conducting the analysis is challenging due to the considerable time and effort required, especially given the rapid pace of LLM developments. To address the challenge, we developed an automatic evaluation pipeline to assess the LLMs' paper review capability by comparing them with expert-generated reviews. By constructing a dataset consisting of 676 OpenReview papers, we examined the agreement between LLMs and experts in their strength and weakness identifications. The results showed that LLMs lack balanced perspectives, significantly overlook novelty assessment when criticizing, and produce poor acceptance decisions. Our automated pipeline enables a scalable evaluation of LLMs' paper review capability over time.

Distracted driving remains a significant global challenge with severe human and economic repercussions, demanding improved detection and intervention strategies. While previous studies have extensively explored single-modality approaches, recent research indicates that these systems often fall short in identifying complex distraction patterns, particularly cognitive distractions. This systematic review addresses critical gaps by providing a comprehensive analysis of machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) techniques applied across various data modalities - visual,, sensory, auditory, and multimodal. By categorizing and evaluating studies based on modality, data accessibility, and methodology, this review clarifies which approaches yield the highest accuracy and are best suited for specific distracted driving detection goals. The findings offer clear guidance on the advantages of multimodal versus single-modal systems and capture the latest advancements in the field. Ultimately, this review contributes valuable insights for developing robust distracted driving detection frameworks, supporting enhanced road safety and mitigation strategies.

Outlier detection (OD), also known as anomaly detection, is a critical machine learning (ML) task with applications in fraud detection, network intrusion detection, clickstream analysis, recommendation systems, and social network moderation. Among open-source libraries for outlier detection, the Python Outlier Detection (PyOD) library is the most widely adopted, with over 8,500 GitHub stars, 25 million downloads, and diverse industry usage. However, PyOD currently faces three limitations: (1) insufficient coverage of modern deep learning algorithms, (2) fragmented implementations across PyTorch and TensorFlow, and (3) no automated model selection, making it hard for non-experts. To address these issues, we present PyOD Version 2 (PyOD 2), which integrates 12 state-of-the-art deep learning models into a unified PyTorch framework and introduces a large language model (LLM)-based pipeline for automated OD model selection. These improvements simplify OD workflows, provide access to 45 algorithms, and deliver robust performance on various datasets. In this paper, we demonstrate how PyOD 2 streamlines the deployment and automation of OD models and sets a new standard in both research and industry. PyOD 2 is accessible at [https://github.com/yzhao062/pyod](https://github.com/yzhao062/pyod). This study aligns with the Web Mining and Content Analysis track, addressing topics such as the robustness of Web mining methods and the quality of algorithmically-generated Web data.

Pretrained large Language Models (LLMs) are able to answer questions that are unlikely to have been encountered during training. However a diversity of potential applications exist in the broad domain of reasoning systems and considerations such as latency, cost, available compute resource and internet connectivity are relevant in determining an appropriate approach. We consider the setting where some local compute capacity is available at inference time but internet connectivity is not. Similar to a general-purpose LLM, we assume that our much smaller Reasoning Models may be asked arbitrary questions from unknown distributions, so we focus on evaluation in an unseen setting. We train our models to answer diverse questions by instilling an ability to reason over a retrieved context. We acquire context from two knowledge sources; a Wikipedia corpus queried using a multi-hop dense retrieval system with novel extensions, and from rationales generated from a larger Language Model optimised to run in a lower resource environment. Our main contributions: We propose novel methods to show that our model is capable of answering contextualised questions without memorisation. We establish a comprehensive set of baseline results on unseen evaluation datasets. We show that the addition of novel retrieval-augmented training datasets (RATD) to the training regime of the Reasoning Model significantly improves results. We demonstrate further significant improvement through the application of methods for combining knowledge from two sources. The first method (RR) involves training a novel Rationale Ranking model to score both generated rationales and retrieved contexts with respect to relevance and truthfulness. We use the scores to derive combined contexts. We also show that utilising the RATD datasets enables our model to become proficient at utilising combined noisy contexts.

Experimental evaluation is crucial in AI research, especially for assessing algorithms across diverse tasks. Many studies often evaluate a limited set of algorithms, failing to fully understand their strengths and weaknesses within a comprehensive portfolio. This paper introduces an Item Response Theory (IRT) based analysis tool for algorithm portfolio evaluation called AIRT-Module. Traditionally used in educational psychometrics, IRT models test question difficulty and student ability using responses to test questions. Adapting IRT to algorithm evaluation, the AIRT-Module contains a Shiny web application and the R package airt. AIRT-Module uses algorithm performance measures to compute anomalousness, consistency, and difficulty limits for an algorithm and the difficulty of test instances. The strengths and weaknesses of algorithms are visualised using the difficulty spectrum of the test instances. AIRT-Module offers a detailed understanding of algorithm capabilities across varied test instances, thus enhancing comprehensive AI method assessment. It is available at https://sevvandi.shinyapps.io/AIRT/ .