The rapid growth of AI conference submissions is putting new pressure on peer review. AI reviewer systems are increasingly proposed as support, but prior work leaves unresolved what responsibility their outputs should carry when they can surface useful critiques yet remain risky as independent judgments. We frame this as a responsibility-boundary problem. Using 600 ICLR 2026 submissions, 2,231 human reviews, and 3,600 AI reviews, we operationalize this boundary through usable feedback, rating calibration, panel breadth, and grounded synthesis. AI can prepare critiques and organize evidence, while scoring, independent panel judgment, high-level synthesis, and final responsibility remain human-led. A GLM-5.2 validation on 100 NeurIPS 2022 papers with pre-ChatGPT reviews reproduces the workflow and calibration patterns. Motivated by this boundary, we develop Review Copilot, a workflow in which AI suggestions are inspected, edited, or rejected by human reviewers. In an initial controlled reviewer-in-the-loop study, Human+AI reviews improve actionability, evidence support, and professionalism relative to standalone baselines, while scores and recommendations remain human-authored. A user study of 275 reviewers across 411 papers further supports its practical usefulness. Together, these results support a review paradigm in which AI expands evidence-grounded critique while humans retain judgment, synthesis, and accountability.

This survey asks how far AI Scientist systems are from changing the world, and argues that their impact should be evaluated not by whether they produce plausible papers, but by whether they produce auditable research trajectories that can be inspected, reproduced, and challenged. We first provide a definition of AI Scientists, distinguish them from adjacent scientific AI systems, and organize the field around four core capabilities: knowledge acquisition, hypothesis generation, experimental validation, and evolution. We further synthesize representative systems by autonomy, execution grounding, auditability, human control, and evidence level. The resulting picture shows a field moving from prompt-to-paper automation toward auditable research laboratories, where executable grounding, provenance, and human-governed autonomy become central. We conclude by identifying open challenges toward trustworthy AI-driven science and providing a roadmap for integrating AI Scientists into the future landscape of scientific discovery.

High-quality scientific illustrations are essential for communicating complex scientific and technical concepts, yet existing automated systems remain limited in editability, stylistic controllability, and efficiency. We present AutoFigure-Edit, an end-to-end system that generates fully editable scientific illustrations from long-form scientific text while enabling flexible style adaptation through user-provided reference images. By combining long-context understanding, reference-guided styling, and native SVG editing, it enables efficient creation and refinement of high-quality scientific illustrations. To facilitate further progress in this field, we release the video at https://youtu.be/10IH8SyJjAQ, the full codebase at https://github.com/ResearAI/AutoFigure-Edit and provide a live demo for easy access and interactive use at https://autofigure.cc/.

Role-playing agents (RPAs) powered by large language models (LLMs) have been widely utilized in dialogue systems for their capability to deliver personalized interactions. Current evaluations of RPAs mainly focus on personality fidelity, tone imitation, and knowledge consistency, while overlooking emotional fidelity, a key factor that affects user experience. To this end, we propose a benchmark called EmoCharacter to assess emotional fidelity of RPAs in dialogues. EmoCharacter includes two benchmark datasets (single-turn and multi-turn dialogues), three evaluation settings, and six metrics to measure the emotional fidelity between RPAs and the characters they portray. Based on EmoCharacter, we conduct extensive evaluations on RPAs powered by seven widely used LLMs with representative role-playing methods. Our empirical findings reveal that: (1) Contrary to intuition, current role-playing methods often reduce the emotional fidelity of LLMs in dialogues; (2) Enhancing the general capabilities of LLMs does not necessarily improve the emotional fidelity of RPAs; (3) Fine-tuning or In-Context Learning based on real dialogue data can enhance emotional fidelity.