RERUN

The scout finds. A person decides.

Twice a day an AI goes looking for research that shares its code and data. Nothing goes live until a person says yes.

Last scan 2 hours ago74 papers readNever runs anyone's code
  1. ReadsPapers with open code, from GitHub, ReScience C and Hugging Face
  2. ChecksTwo AIs must pick the same number from the paper
  3. WaitsA person approves it before anyone can forecast

Most papers can't be retraced

Each slip is a paper. A no isn't a judgement on the research, only that the Lab can't test it fairly.

1

Ready for review

Two AIs found the same number.

26

No licence

We can't publish without one.

17

Needs a graphics card

The Lab has plain processors.

8

Wrong language

Only Python and R run here.

3

No code to run

No code link in the paper.

3

No data included

Nothing to run the code on.

1

Too big

Too slow for a short run.

15

Still being checked

Another look next scan.

Popularity only sets the order a person reviews in. It can't touch a verdict.

Waiting for review

  • Hugging Face PapersPython

    Can tiny AI tools figure out why search results disagree as well as giant AI models, but much cheaper and faster?

    5/10 ai, 4 upvotes

    Everyone gets confusing or contradictory search results, and cheaper conflict detection could make AI answers quicker and less costly.

    Number to check
    67.0
    Licence
    Apache-2.0
    Run command
    uv pip install -e '.[dev,plot]' && bash scripts/download_data.sh && .venv/bin/dmconflict evaluate --split test
    The full claim and the scout's notes

    On the CONFLICTS benchmark (406 test queries), 11 small 'decision models' typed why retrieved sources disagree. Asked directly with one choice question, they reached 50.0–67.0% accuracy; 10 of 11 matched or beat Gemini 2.5 Flash (61.3%) at far lower cost and latency, while Gemini 3.8 Flash led at 70.0%. Routing each small model's least-confident quarter of queries to Gemini 3.8 Flash tied it for 8 of 11 models at 25–37% of the LLM's cost, and downstream answers were as good as with LLM-typed conflicts. Suggested by the scout agent.

    AI note: Eval code re-scores stored JSONL outputs already in the repo, so no API key is needed and reruns are fully deterministic. Requires uv/pip, network for scripts/download_data.sh (CONFLICTS dataset, checksum-verified, Apache-2.0, © Google). Statement values are paper-reported ranges; extractor targets the Liquid d1 Ultra row in comparison_test.md.

    • Open licence: Apache-2.0.
    • Mostly Python (76% of the code).
    • No sign it needs a graphics card.
    • Small enough to re-run.
    • The number 67.0 appears in the paper's text, read from https://arxiv.org/pdf/2610.36915.

    Only the site's owner can approve a suggestion.

Every paper turned down, and why (58)