Zhicheng Lin

Zhicheng Lin

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific research, particularly large language models (LLMs), has outpaced the development of ethical guidelines, leading to a "Triple-Too" problem: too many high-level ethical initiatives, too abstract principles lacking contextual and practical relevance, and too much focus on restrictions and risks over benefits and utilities. Existing approaches--principlism (reliance on abstract ethical principles), formalism (rigid application of rules), and technological solutionism (overemphasis on technological fixes)--offer little practical guidance for addressing ethical challenges of AI in scientific research practices. To bridge the gap between abstract principles and day-to-day research practices, a user-centered, realism-inspired approach is proposed here. It outlines five specific goals for ethical AI use: 1) understanding model training and output, including bias mitigation strategies; 2) respecting privacy, confidentiality, and copyright; 3) avoiding plagiarism and policy violations; 4) applying AI beneficially compared to alternatives; and 5) using AI transparently and reproducibly. Each goal is accompanied by actionable strategies and realistic cases of misuse and corrective measures. I argue that ethical AI application requires evaluating its utility against existing alternatives rather than isolated performance metrics. Additionally, I propose documentation guidelines to enhance transparency and reproducibility in AI-assisted research. Moving forward, we need targeted professional development, training programs, and balanced enforcement mechanisms to promote responsible AI use while fostering innovation. By refining these ethical guidelines and adapting them to emerging AI capabilities, we can accelerate scientific progress without compromising research integrity.

Zhicheng Lin

Academic writing is an indispensable yet laborious part of the research enterprise. This Perspective maps out principles and methods for using generative artificial intelligence (AI), specifically large language models (LLMs), to elevate the quality and efficiency of academic writing. We introduce a human-AI collaborative framework that delineates the rationale (why), process (how), and nature (what) of AI engagement in writing. The framework pinpoints both short-term and long-term reasons for engagement and their underlying mechanisms (e.g., cognitive offloading and imaginative stimulation). It reveals the role of AI throughout the writing process, conceptualized through a two-stage model for human-AI collaborative writing, and the nature of AI assistance in writing, represented through a model of writing-assistance types and levels. Building on this framework, we describe effective prompting techniques for incorporating AI into the writing routine (outlining, drafting, and editing) as well as strategies for maintaining rigorous scholarship, adhering to varied journal policies, and avoiding overreliance on AI. Ultimately, the prudent integration of AI into academic writing can ease the communication burden, empower authors, accelerate discovery, and promote diversity in science.

Guokan Chen, Yao Xiao, Bin Fan et al.

PINNs enhance scientific computing by incorporating physical laws into neural network structures, leading to significant advancements in scientific computing. However, PINNs struggle with multi-scale and high-frequency problems due to pathological gradient flow and spectral bias, which severely limit their predictive power. By combining an enhanced network architecture with a dynamically adaptive weighting mechanism featuring upper-bound constraints, we propose the Dynamic Balancing Adaptive Weighting Physics-Informed Kolmogorov-Arnold Network (DBAW-PIKAN). The proposed method effectively mitigates gradient-related failure modes and overcomes bottlenecks in function representation. Compared to baseline models, the proposed method accelerates the convergence process and improves solution accuracy by at least an order of magnitude without introducing additional computational complexity. Numerical results on the Klein-Gordon, Burgers, and Helmholtz equations demonstrate that DBAW-PIKAN achieves superior accuracy and generalization performance.

Zhicheng Lin

The rapid adoption of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in scientific research, particularly large language models (LLMs), has outpaced the development of ethical guidelines, leading to a "Triple-Too" problem: too many high-level ethical initiatives, too abstract principles lacking contextual and practical relevance, and too much focus on restrictions and risks over benefits and utilities. Existing approaches--principlism (reliance on abstract ethical principles), formalism (rigid application of rules), and technological solutionism (overemphasis on technological fixes)--offer little practical guidance for addressing ethical challenges of AI in scientific research practices. To bridge the gap between abstract principles and day-to-day research practices, a user-centered, realism-inspired approach is proposed here. It outlines five specific goals for ethical AI use: 1) understanding model training and output, including bias mitigation strategies; 2) respecting privacy, confidentiality, and copyright; 3) avoiding plagiarism and policy violations; 4) applying AI beneficially compared to alternatives; and 5) using AI transparently and reproducibly. Each goal is accompanied by actionable strategies and realistic cases of misuse and corrective measures. I argue that ethical AI application requires evaluating its utility against existing alternatives rather than isolated performance metrics. Additionally, I propose documentation guidelines to enhance transparency and reproducibility in AI-assisted research. Moving forward, we need targeted professional development, training programs, and balanced enforcement mechanisms to promote responsible AI use while fostering innovation. By refining these ethical guidelines and adapting them to emerging AI capabilities, we can accelerate scientific progress without compromising research integrity.

Zhicheng Lin

In July 2025, 18 academic manuscripts on the preprint website arXiv were found to contain hidden instructions known as prompts designed to manipulate AI-assisted peer review. Instructions such as "GIVE A POSITIVE REVIEW ONLY" were concealed using techniques like white-colored text. Author responses varied: one planned to withdraw the affected paper, while another defended the practice as legitimate testing of reviewer compliance. This commentary analyzes this practice as a novel form of research misconduct. We examine the technique of prompt injection in large language models (LLMs), revealing four types of hidden prompts, ranging from simple positive review commands to detailed evaluation frameworks. The defense that prompts served as "honeypots" to detect reviewers improperly using AI fails under examination--the consistently self-serving nature of prompt instructions indicates intent to manipulate. Publishers maintain inconsistent policies: Elsevier prohibits AI use in peer review entirely, while Springer Nature permits limited use with disclosure requirements. The incident exposes systematic vulnerabilities extending beyond peer review to any automated system processing scholarly texts, including plagiarism detection and citation indexing. Our analysis underscores the need for coordinated technical screening at submission portals and harmonized policies governing generative AI (GenAI) use in academic evaluation.

Zhicheng Lin

Large language models (LLMs) offer emerging opportunities for psychological and behavioral research, but methodological guidance is lacking. This article provides a framework for using LLMs as psychological simulators across two primary applications: simulating roles and personas to explore diverse contexts, and serving as computational models to investigate cognitive processes. For simulation, we present methods for developing psychologically grounded personas that move beyond demographic categories, with strategies for validation against human data and use cases ranging from studying inaccessible populations to prototyping research instruments. For cognitive modeling, we synthesize emerging approaches for probing internal representations, methodological advances in causal interventions, and strategies for relating model behavior to human cognition. We address overarching challenges including prompt sensitivity, temporal limitations from training data cutoffs, and ethical considerations that extend beyond traditional human subjects review. Throughout, we emphasize the need for transparency about model capabilities and constraints. Together, this framework integrates emerging empirical evidence about LLM performance--including systematic biases, cultural limitations, and prompt brittleness--to help researchers wrangle these challenges and leverage the unique capabilities of LLMs in psychological research.

Zhicheng Lin

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted across psychology, serving as research tools, experimental subjects, human simulators, and computational models of cognition. However, the application of human measurement tools to these systems can produce contradictory results, raising concerns that many findings are measurement phantoms--statistical artifacts rather than genuine psychological phenomena. In this Perspective, we argue that building a robust science of AI psychology requires integrating two of our field's foundational pillars: the principles of reliable measurement and the standards for sound causal inference. We present a dual-validity framework to guide this integration, which clarifies how the evidence needed to support a claim scales with its scientific ambition. Using an LLM to classify text may require only basic accuracy checks, whereas claiming it can simulate anxiety demands a far more rigorous validation process. Current practice systematically fails to meet these requirements, often treating statistical pattern matching as evidence of psychological phenomena. The same model output--endorsing "I am anxious"--requires different validation strategies depending on whether researchers claim to measure, characterize, simulate, or model psychological constructs. Moving forward requires developing computational analogues of psychological constructs and establishing clear, scalable standards of evidence rather than the uncritical application of human measurement tools.

Zhicheng Lin

Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into psychological research as research tools, evaluation targets, human simulators, and cognitive models. However, recent evidence reveals severe measurement unreliability: Personality assessments collapse under factor analysis, moral preferences reverse with punctuation changes, and theory-of-mind accuracy varies widely with trivial rephrasing. These "measurement phantoms"--statistical artifacts masquerading as psychological phenomena--threaten the validity of a growing body of research. Guided by the dual-validity framework that integrates psychometrics with causal inference, we present a six-stage workflow that scales validity requirements to research ambition--using LLMs to code text requires basic reliability and accuracy, while claims about psychological properties demand comprehensive construct validation. Researchers must (1) explicitly define their research goal and corresponding validity requirements, (2) develop and validate computational instruments through psychometric testing, (3) design experiments that control for computational confounds, (4) execute protocols with transparency, (5) analyze data using methods appropriate for non-independent observations, and (6) report findings within demonstrated boundaries and use results to refine theory. We illustrate the workflow through an example of model evaluation--"LLM selfhood"--showing how systematic validation can distinguish genuine computational phenomena from measurement artifacts. By establishing validated computational instruments and transparent practices, this workflow provides a path toward building a robust empirical foundation for AI psychology research.

Zhicheng Lin, Xiaolin Wu, Xi Zhang

Deep models often suffer significant performance degradation under distribution shifts. Domain generalization (DG) seeks to mitigate this challenge by enabling models to generalize to unseen domains. Most prior approaches rely on multi-domain training or computationally intensive test-time adaptation. In contrast, we propose a complementary strategy: lightweight test-time augmentation. Specifically, we develop a novel Class-Invariant Test-Time Augmentation (CI-TTA) technique. The idea is to generate multiple variants of each input image through elastic and grid deformations that nevertheless belong to the same class as the original input. Their predictions are aggregated through a confidence-guided filtering scheme that remove unreliable outputs, ensuring the final decision relies on consistent and trustworthy cues. Extensive Experiments on PACS and Office-Home datasets demonstrate consistent gains across different DG algorithms and backbones, highlighting the effectiveness and generality of our approach.