Mohammed Basharath Ullah, Summaiya Unnisa Begum, Mohammed Nadeem Ullahcs.AI cs.LG
Data centers are increasingly optimized by artificial intelligence and, at the same time, increasingly loaded by it. The literature treats these as two unrelated problems: control studies model workload as an exogenous arrival process, while sustainability studies model infrastructure as a fixed multiplier. We screen roughly 194 papers retrieved through a documented protocol, code 63 of them, and report what the coding shows. Of 28 primary control-oriented studies, 18 are validated in simulation alone and 5 reach physical hardware or a production facility; none account for water withdrawal, and none account for embodied carbon. Reported savings intervals across four technique families overlap almost completely, which means the field cannot presently rank its own methods. Ten recurring gaps are scored for consequence and tractability, and we set out CLEAR-DC, a framework coupling a control-policy branch to a workload-demand branch through an explicit elasticity term, reads out net rather than direct benefit, and emits a schema-conformant record covering energy, carbon, water, embodied share and validation venue. The framework is an architectural and methodological proposal, not a trained system; the contribution we defend empirically is the corpus analysis and the reporting schema derived from it. Coding sheet, derived statistics and all result artifacts: https://github.com/Kimalice/AI-for-Energy-Optimization-in-Data-Centers-Closing-the-Optimizer-Load-Loop
Nuzhat Khan, Ab Al-Hadi Ab Rahman, Shahriyar Masud Rizvi +5cs.CV cs.LG
Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for text recognition using machine vision has significantly improved, particularly when handling heterogeneous textual data. Traditional OCR models struggle with script variations, writing styles, and degraded documents. Advancements in technology are leading to new AI models with improved architecture for handling multiple languages and complex data formats. Despite this progress, a comprehensive evaluation of OCR advancements remains limited. Based on the established preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, this literature review presents an extensive assessment of OCR research to trace the evolution of AI models over the past decade. It explores the transition in AI models, application domains, data types, linguistic coverage, and challenges. Through a detailed analysis of 97 selected studies published during January 2015 - January 2025, key OCR models are identified, and their performance, strengths, and limitations are analyzed. The findings highlight how OCR technologies have evolved to address structured and unstructured text, scene text recognition, and multilingual processing. Unresolved challenges include limited resources for underrepresented languages, high variability in handwritten text, visual similarity among characters, and constraints in real-time OCR applications. To address these issues, several promising approaches are proposed. Key suggestions include self-supervised learning, multimodal AI, automated machine learning (AutoML), AI-assisted postprocessing, tiny machine learning (TinyML), and the creation of joint corpora for script matching. The future recommendations aim to enhance OCR accuracy and tackle the challenges identified for real-time industrial applications. This study will guide future research and establish a foundation for OCR field.
Academic surveys play a central role in organizing rapidly expanding scholarly literature, yet their construction requires extensive paper analysis, coherent knowledge organization, fine-grained citation support, and reliable manuscript assembly. Existing Deep Research and automated survey generation systems address parts of this process, but typically do not coordinate paper understanding, literature organization, evidence-grounded drafting, and manuscript validation through a shared, revisable state. We introduce DAS, a stateful agentic framework for generating publication-oriented academic surveys. Its key idea is to separate reusable paper analysis from topic-specific manuscript construction. DAS builds on DAS-2M, a dynamically updated metadata lake containing survey-oriented representations of approximately two million papers. Its agents maintain explicit literature, organization, writing, and finalization states through candidate-grounded taxonomy planning, reverse paper-to-section routing, and hierarchical claim and citation planning. Semantic review reactivates only the affected writing states for repair and reevaluation, forming a scoped closed loop with deterministic validation. We further introduce DAS-Bench, a 30-topic benchmark, together with DAS-Eval, which assesses scholarly citation quality, taxonomic synthesis, hierarchical discourse, and manuscript assembly reliability through 16 criteria. Among systems evaluated on all 30 topics, DAS achieves the highest average in all four dimensions, with an overall score of 4.34 compared with 4.03 for the strongest competitor, and the same ordering is preserved on the matched 21-topic CS subset. Blinded expert evaluation further prefers DAS to Naive RAG on 27 of 30 topics and to AutoSurvey on 19 of 21 shared CS topics. The project page is available at https://zhikaixu24.github.io/projects/DAS/.
Christopher Braun, Julian Raible, Marco F. Hubercs.LG cs.AI
In modern industry, keeping complex systems reliable, safe, and efficient hinges on Prognostics and Health Management (PHM). Machine Learning (ML) has largely driven advancements in diagnostics and prognostics, yet purely data-driven models face inherent limitations, such as poor generalization, an inability to infer causal relationships, and a lack of interpretability. Physics-Informed Machine Learning (PIML) helps mitigate these limitations by incorporating prior physical knowledge directly into the ML pipeline, thereby fostering growing interest in its application to PHM. This work investigates how PIML is being leveraged in the context of PHM through a systematic literature review of 212 studies. The review introduces a four-class classification scheme, consisting of observational bias, inductive bias, learning bias, and hybrid approaches, and further categorizes studies by PHM task. Across all four classes, the reviewed studies consistently demonstrate improved predictive performance over conventional baselines across a broad range of assets, although the literature is heavily skewed toward lithium-ion batteries and bearings, and dominated by problem-specific solutions. Overall, the review indicates that physics-informed approaches already provide tangible benefits, whereas claims of improvements concerning some of the aforementioned limitations lack sufficient supporting evidence. Future research should prioritize transferable design patterns, benchmarks comparing integration strategies, and uncertainty-aware models that are lightweight and robust enough for online deployment in real-world settings.
We investigate how well large language models (LLMs) can assist with literature reviews for scientific research. We perform a controlled study of eight expert-conceived research projects across the areas of physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. Each project has a defined background and goal, and human experts and AI prompters are asked to perform identical literature review tasks in parallel. We compare the relevant literature selected by humans with that selected by mid-2025 LLMs (ChatGPT-4o, ChatGPT Deep Research, and Gemini). We find the overlap between human- and AI-selected references to be small ($<$6\%), indicating that AI models do not yet reproduce a competent expert search on their own, though they have the potential to complement literature searches by humans. We then assess the reliability and completeness of AI-generated candidate references, distinguishing two types of hallucination: fabrications (references to nonexistent papers) and metadata mismatches (real papers with one or more incorrect fields). We find that while fabricated references make up 3\% of the AI-generated references, 64\% are real papers with at least one incorrect field (title, author, year, journal, DOI, or link), indicating that the mid-2025 models require systematic verification. However, the performance is significantly improved for the 2026 model ChatGPT Pro 5.5, with a single-project test showing zero fabrication or metadata mismatches.
Andreas W. Aspe, Jonas Jalili Pedersen, Andreas Ohrt Johansen +4cs.CV cs.AI
This review provides an overview of recent advancements in automated segmentation methods on Computed Tomography (CT) for two types of cardiac fat: Epicardial adipose Tissue (EAT) and Pericardial Adipose Tissue (PAT). These fat deposits, separated by the pericardium, have been linked to various cardiovascular diseases, with EAT receiving the most research attention. Their complex anatomical context makes manual quantification highly time-consuming and prone to considerable inter-observer variability. Automated methods effectively address these complications, offering a more efficient and consistent solution. This study encompasses a broad range of methods, spanning AI as well as non-AI approaches. Additionally, it presents the remaining challenges, including the need for larger annotated public datasets and optimized attenuation thresholds for contrast-enhanced CT. It is demonstrated that automated methods are able to achieve segmentation results comparable to the quality of human annotation, proving their potential as a clinical tool for discovering new biomarkers and enhancing patient outcomes.
The increasing integration of machine learning in healthcare has highlighted critical challenges related to fairness, transparency, and health equity. Specifically, the use of multi-level fairness techniques, which combine multiple bias mitigation steps or techniques, show promise for reducing biases across different patient demographics, yet this approach remains underexplored in terms of its health equity outcomes. In this paper, we assess the current landscape of multi-level fairness in health informatics by focusing on its impact on equitable healthcare outcomes and evaluating how transparency and reporting standards contribute to these advancements. Through an examination of the existing literature, we identify key gaps in both the implementation of multi-level fairness techniques and the consistent reporting of health equity impacts. Furthermore, we analyze the role of reporting standards, including MINIMAR and TRIPOD, in improving model transparency and ensuring that machine learning models in healthcare address health disparities. These standards offer valuable benchmarks for reporting on ML models, yet we identify key opportunities for enhancing how these reports capture fairness and equity outcomes. The paper concludes by providing recommendations that focus on improving transparency in reporting, advocating for the broader adoption of multi-level fairness techniques, and ensuring that health equity is explicitly prioritized in future research efforts.
Human-AI teaming has received increasing attention in the literature. However, the range of studies conducted in multiple domains make it difficult to understand what types of teams are being studied, and in what ways are they similar/different from one another. In this study, we analyse 53 papers on human-AI teams and categorise them into five main clusters based on psychological taxonomies of teaming; AI Assistant, Ad-hoc Dependency, Ad-hoc Forced Dependency, Paired Equanimity, and Group Equanimity. Each cluster represents a unique combination of holistic team-level characteristics, indicating there are multiple disparate team types studied under the same definition. In turn, this raises the question of whether insights are truly transferable between papers. We conclude with guidance on how to identify the types of human-AI teams studied, a checklist for reporting a human-AI team in research work, and ways in which the field can be further synthesised.
Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspects of research utility depend on expert judgment rather than reference-overlap metrics. We introduce LitReview Arena, a battle-style evaluation platform with a structured protocol tailored to literature review quality: domain experts with AI paper-writing experience compare anonymized drafts, are matched to topics within their expertise, and provide dimension-wise outcomes over five literature-review-specific criteria. From this protocol, we collect approximately 3k expert judgments, each containing five dimension-wise outcomes, and show that even the strongest current systems win only 23.0% of decisive matches against human drafts on overall utility, while agentic LLMs such as Sonar Deep Research substantially outperform base language models by over 60%. We further find that existing LLM-as-a-judge methods are substantially misaligned with human experts (Spearman's rho=0.467), especially on synthesis-heavy criteria such as paper structure and research suggestions. Using the collected preference data, we provide an expert-calibrated evaluator, LitJudge, which improves alignment to Spearman's rho=0.78, comparable to inter-expert consistency; code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/VanellopeAsher/LitReview-Arena.
Jonathan Rystrøm, Chris Schmitz, Nathan Davies +3cs.CY cs.AI
Research on artificial intelligence (AI) in the public sector often treats "AI" as a single category, neglecting technical distinctions between different AI systems. But these distinctions affect how different systems impact core public values like accountability, procedural justice, and non-discrimination. This paper argues that public administration research would benefit from more technical precision on "AI" and makes three contributions to this end. First, we introduce a typology of five categories of AI systems: hand-coded, glass-box, black-box, general-purpose, and agentic systems. We calibrate the typology to public administration by grouping system types by their distinct implications for public values. Second, we evaluate technical precision in recent public administration research about AI by coding 91 highly-cited papers (2019-2025) using our typology. We find widespread imprecision: most papers (55\%) leave the studied system underspecified, 31\% motivate their work with a different system than they study, and 41\% make more general conclusions than the studied system supports. Finally, we give practical recommendations for future research. We highlight common pitfalls to avoid, and suggest that researchers should, at a minimum, provide enough technical detail to locate the studied system in our typology. To this end, we provide a practical guide -- a short set of diagnostic questions answerable from public information and without specialist technical knowledge.
Muhammad Ali Chaudhry, Xinyuan Hao, Haifa Alwahabycs.AI cs.HC cs.IR
Our research focuses on evaluating literature reviews generated in short and long context settings of large language models (LLMs) to investigate the impact of context window on the quality of AI-generated literature reviews and the role of AI in supporting literature review writing. Twenty AI-generated literature reviews based on research sources from Semantic Scholar and Arxiv were evaluated by two researchers across 15 dimensions. Our findings reveal that AI-generated literature reviews require human oversight to meet academic publishing standards. As context windows increase, LLMs can incorporate broader information and maintain coherence across longer inputs, but they also exacerbate issues such as content repetition, omission of critical work, and a tendency towards descriptiveness over synthesis. Our work shows that AI-generated reviews can provide foundational overviews, but their output must be critically evaluated and refined by domain experts. Future research should consider integrating other LLMs and fine-tuned models in different domains with hybrid approaches that combine human expertise with AI capabilities to address the limitations identified in this study.
H. Sinan Bank, Daniel R. Herber, Thomas Bradleycs.AI cs.DL eess.SY
The March 2020 INCOSE INSIGHT special issue on AI and Systems Engineering (SE) became the most downloaded issue in the publication's history and launched a research community that now draws over 250 registrants to its annual workshop. In this article, we trace the progress in AI and SE across three phases (labeled here foundational, applied, and LLM inflection) based on the authors' reading of the field's core papers, and describe our opinions of where the community has converged and where critical gaps remain. Separately, a human-AI agreement literature review leveraging both human expertise and six AI models was performed to assess the relevance of 1,712 INCOSE INSIGHT articles and 889 SERC publications. The results identify five critical research gaps and offer guidance for practitioners navigating AI adoption, assurance, and workforce transformation in SE. We share the agreement data and the AI4SE/SE4AI Explorer web application so readers can compare their own relevance judgments with the human and AI raters.
Mohammed Q. Shormani, Muneef Yehia Alshawshcs.CY cs.AI
This paper aims to synthesize empirical research on AI tools used to support English as a second/foreign language (EL2) learners in Arab University classrooms (AUCs) between Jan 1st 2023 and Aug 31st 2025. We utilized 3 large datasets, namely Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus as the data sources. Using PRISMA-guided searches across these well-known databases, we included only published articles. The search process results in 184 studies, but only 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Findings unveil that EL2 learners have positive attitudes towards AI for drafting, revision, and practice. Empirical gains were most consistent for surface-level outcomes improvements in higher-order writing quality and speaking proficiency was mixed and often contingent on teacher mediation. The paper concludes by proposing a research agenda and practical guidelines for Arab universities seeking evidence-based AI integration in EL2 instruction. It also recommends scaffolded integration, teacher training, reflective tasks to reduce over-reliance on AI tools.
Sociotechnical alignment concerns the social desirability of AI behavior and is thus inherently normative, not merely technical. While NLP research increasingly addresses its technical aspects, it often leaves underspecified what such "social desirability" entails. We argue that this reflects a fundamental gap: the absence of a systematic way to specify how sociotechnical alignment defines, justifies, and evaluates socially desirable AI behavior. To address this gap, we introduce a human-centered framework for specifying sociotechnical alignment. We draw on social-scientific accounts of sociobehavioral desirability to ground the basis for behavioral desirability judgments and use this framework to analyze how alignment is specified in practice. Our systematic literature review identifies recurring patterns: normative concepts grounding desirability judgments are often unspecified or conflated with alignment targets for (desired) system behavior, target populations are underdefined, and design choices are rarely theoretically justified. These findings point to a lack of conceptual specificity that limits cumulative progress. We therefore offer recommendations that link social-scientific frameworks to alignment design choices, supporting more conceptually precise approaches to sociotechnical alignment.