探索全球前沿学术脉络

X+Slides: Benchmarking Audience-Conditioned Slide Generation

arXiv:2606.19256v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automatically generating slide decks from source documents is an important application of large language models (LLMs). Existing benchmarks primarily assess slide completeness and technical depth, while overlooking the target audience as a critical real-world factor. For instance, specialists demand rigorous proofs, whereas decision-makers prioritize actionable conclusions. To bridge this gap, we introduce X+Slides, a benchmark specifically designed for audience-conditioned slide generation. Built on a diverse corpus spanning 113 topics and seven presentation scenes, X+Slides employs a dynamic evaluation framework constructed from 8,133 deduplicated, source-grounded probes. By assigning audience-specific utility weights to the same source-grounded probes, X+Slides reports four complementary metrics: Audience Coverage measures how much audience-essential information is conveyed, Domain-wise Coverage shows which information types are covered, Efficiency measures delivered utility per unit of attention cost, and Correctness verifies whether slide claims are supported by the source. Experiments on DeepPresenter, SlideTailor, and NotebookLM show that current systems can recover a substantial but still incomplete part of audience-essential information: at $\tau_A=0.7$, DeepPresenter reaches a best Audience Coverage of 0.714, SlideTailor reaches 0.594, and the NotebookLM ablation reaches 0.853 while showing clear grounding differences. These results indicate that visual quality and broad topic coverage should not be treated as evidence support without source-grounded evaluation.

MedCollab: IBIS-Guided Multi-Agent Collaboration with Hierarchical Disease Relation Chains for Clinical Diagnosis

arXiv:2603.01131v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Clinical diagnosis is a gradual process of evidence integration, in which physicians move from symptoms and medical history to examinations, competing hypotheses, disease relations, and treatment decisions. Large language models have advanced medical text understanding and generation. Yet their clinical use remains limited by weak evidence grounding, opaque reasoning, and inconsistent links among differential diagnosis, final diagnosis, diagnostic basis, and treatment planning. We introduce MedCollab, a multi-agent framework for full-cycle clinical diagnosis and report generation. MedCollab coordinates specialist and examination agents according to patient records. It structures agent deliberation with an Issue-Based Information System (IBIS) protocol, so that each diagnostic position is supported by patient-specific evidence and medical knowledge. It also builds Hierarchical Disease Relation Chains (HDRC) to connect accepted hypotheses through progression, complication, and comorbidity relations. During multi-round deliberation, a verifier-guided consensus module evaluates evidence support, medical plausibility, and logical conflicts. It then adjusts agent contributions and filters unsupported reasoning. Experiments on ClinicalBench and MIMIC-IV show that MedCollab outperforms leading LLMs and medical multi-agent baselines in diagnostic accuracy, evidence consistency, and clinical reasoning quality. These results indicate that structured and auditable collaboration can produce more faithful and clinically coherent diagnostic reports.

No Hidden Prompts Needed! You Can Game AI Peer Review with Presentation-Only Revisions

As AI-generated reviews move from experimental tools into peer-review infrastructure, most robustness concerns have focused on explicit attacks such as hidden instructions and prompt injection. We study a harder and more policy-relevant failure mode: no hidden text, no prompt injection, and no changes to methods, experiments, figures, equations, proofs, or numerical results. The attacker modifies only presentation-level content, such as the abstract, contribution framing, related work, discussion, and narrative structure. We introduce adversarial repackaging: a closed-loop attack that uses AI-reviewer feedback to search for presentation-level revisions while keeping the scientific evidence fixed. Across three mainstream AI reviewers, adversarial repackaging achieves a 75.1% attack success rate and a mean score gain of +1.21/10. The effect is not explained by ordinary prose polishing. We also reveal that strategies that change how the reviewer interprets the paper, such as related-work repositioning and analytical discussion expansion, substantially outperform surface edits such as local polishing, table formatting, and algorithm boxes. Our analysis reveals two deeper structural failure modes. First, AI reviewers are easier to impress than to convince: highlighting strengths reliably increases perceived merit, while attempts to dissolve weaknesses frequently backfire. Second, AI reviewers can confuse the appearance of addressing a limitation with actually resolving it, allowing unchanged evidence to be reinterpreted as stronger scientific contribution. These results show that the deployment risk is not only malicious hidden instructions, but the emergence of paper presentation itself as an optimization surface. We release a contamination-free rolling benchmark and attack framework for testing whether AI reviewers remain anchored to scientific content under presentation-only edits.