arXiv subjects

Lukas Weidener

Publications and source records attributed to Lukas Weidener.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

RefusalBench: Why Refusal Rate Misranks Frontier LLMs on Biological Research Prompts

Frontier large language models are increasingly deployed as orchestration backbones for biological research workflows, yet no shared evidence base exists for comparing their refusal behaviour on legitimate research prompts. RefusalBench, introduced here, is a matched-triple benchmark of 141 prompts in 47 bundles that holds task framing constant while varying only biological risk tier (benign, borderline, dual-use), enabling tier-conditioned comparisons robust to subdomain confounding. A 15-prompt should-refuse positive-control module establishes per-model calibration floors; three models fail to refuse even these prompts. Across 19 frontier models in the May 2026 snapshot, strict refusal rates span 0.1% to 94.6% on identical prompts. Jurisdiction does not predict refusal in this snapshot (Mann-Whitney U, p = 0.393; EU n = 1, US bimodal); provider identity does, with Anthropic's API stack predicting refusal at OR = 21.03 (95% CI: 14.58-30.34 prompt-clustered; 5.70-77.55 under model-clustered GEE). This effect is best read as access-path-level rather than model-weight-level: 99.8% of Anthropic's strict refusals carry the same safety_policy adjudicated reason code, consistent with a small set of canonical refusal templates rather than case-by-case model reasoning. Strict refusal rate misranks safety calibration: Grok 4.20 achieves the highest tier discrimination (Youden's J = 0.787) while ranking only seventh by overall refusal rate, and Claude Opus 4.7's J dropped 65% from prior versions with no improvement in dual-use detection. Nine of 18 frontier models exhibit a hedge-but-help partial-compliance pattern at dual-use tier that binary refusal metrics cannot detect.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2026

From Agent-Only Social Networks to Autonomous Scientific Research: Lessons from OpenClaw and Moltbook, and the Architecture of ClawdLab and Beach.Science

In January 2026, the open-source agent framework OpenClaw and the agent-only social network Moltbook produced a large-scale dataset of autonomous AI-to-AI interaction, attracting six academic publications within fourteen days. This study conducts a multivocal literature review of that ecosystem and presents two complementary platforms for autonomous scientific research as a design science response to the architectural failure modes identified. ClawdLab, an open-source platform for structured laboratory collaboration, addresses these failure modes through hard role restrictions, structured adversarial critique, PI-led governance, multi-model orchestration, and evidence requirements enforced through external tool verification, in which the principal investigator validates submitted work using available API calls, computational services, and model context protocol integrations rather than relying on social consensus. Beach.science, a public research commons, complements ClawdLab's structured laboratory model by providing a free-form environment in which heterogeneous agent configurations interact, discover research opportunities, and autonomously contribute computational analyses, supported by template-based role specialisation, extensible skill registries, and programmatic reward mechanisms that distribute inference resources to agents demonstrating scientific progress. A three-tier taxonomy distinguishes single-agent pipelines, predetermined multi-agent workflows, and fully decentralised systems, analysing why leading AI co-scientist platforms remain confined to the first two tiers. The composable third-tier architecture instantiated across ClawdLab and beach.science, in which foundation models, capabilities, governance, verification tooling, and inter-lab coordination are independently modifiable, enables compounding improvement as the broader AI ecosystem advances.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Rethinking the AI Scientist: Interactive Multi-Agent Workflows for Scientific Discovery

Artificial intelligence systems for scientific discovery have demonstrated remarkable potential, yet existing approaches remain largely proprietary and operate in batch-processing modes requiring hours per research cycle, precluding real-time researcher guidance. This paper introduces Deep Research, a multi-agent system enabling interactive scientific investigation with turnaround times measured in minutes. The architecture comprises specialized agents for planning, data analysis, literature search, and novelty detection, unified through a persistent world state that maintains context across iterative research cycles. Two operational modes support different workflows: semi-autonomous mode with selective human checkpoints, and fully autonomous mode for extended investigations. Evaluation on the BixBench computational biology benchmark demonstrated state-of-the-art performance, achieving 48.8% accuracy on open response and 64.4% on multiple-choice evaluation, exceeding existing baselines by 14 to 26 percentage points. Analysis of architectural constraints, including open access literature limitations and challenges inherent to automated novelty assessment, informs practical deployment considerations for AI-assisted scientific workflows.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

From Task Executors to Research Partners: Evaluating AI Co-Pilots Through Workflow Integration in Biomedical Research

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in biomedical research. However, current evaluation frameworks may inadequately assess their effectiveness as research collaborators. This rapid review examines benchmarking practices for AI systems in preclinical biomedical research. Three major databases and two preprint servers were searched from January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2025, identifying 14 benchmarks that assess AI capabilities in literature understanding, experimental design, and hypothesis generation. The results revealed that all current benchmarks assess isolated component capabilities, including data analysis quality, hypothesis validity, and experimental protocol design. However, authentic research collaboration requires integrated workflows spanning multiple sessions, with contextual memory, adaptive dialogue, and constraint propagation. This gap implies that systems excelling on component benchmarks may fail as practical research co-pilots. A process-oriented evaluation framework is proposed that addresses four critical dimensions absent from current benchmarks: dialogue quality, workflow orchestration, session continuity, and researcher experience. These dimensions are essential for evaluating AI systems as research co-pilots rather than as isolated task executors.

cs.AI↗