Auto Research for Materials: Auditable AI-Scientist Workflows with Held-Out Transfer

Autonomous research systems are increasingly capable of executing long research workflows, yet automation alone does not ensure that the resulting process remains scientifically grounded. We introduce AutoResearch, a two-stage system that connects Idea Generation with Idea Execution to address both how research ideas are formed and how they are reliably established through experimentation. In Idea Generation, AutoResearch continuously integrates emerging research signals with accumulated domain knowledge, identifies transferable mechanistic insights, and uses multi-model generation and cross-review to produce grounded, testable research plans. In Idea Execution, coordinated agents decompose these plans into experiments, iteratively implement and diagnose them, and employ independent evidence-based review before accepting research conclusions. Across representative settings in cross-modal retrieval, systems optimization, and benchmark-driven machine learning, AutoResearch turns generated ideas into measurable progress, detects and corrects unreliable experimental results, and makes evidence-conditioned decisions to continue, revise, or terminate research directions. For example, on RSICD benchmark, an AutoResearch-generated idea improves mean Recall from 32.84 to 34.69, while recording only 5 audit-confirmed issue events compared with 11-27 for other autonomous research systems. These results demonstrate a research process in which meaningful insight is grounded before experimentation and conclusions are grounded before acceptance: Insight In, Hallucination Out.

We study auto research as a closed empirical loop driven by external measurement. Each submitted trial carries a hypothesis, an executable code edit, an evaluator-owned outcome, and feedback that shapes the next proposal. The output is not a generated paper or a single model checkpoint, but an auditable trajectory of proposals, code diffs, experiments, scores, and failure labels. We instantiate this loop with specialist agents that partition recipe surfaces and share measured lineage across trials. The central empirical finding is that lineage feedback lets agents turn evaluator outcomes, including crashes, budget overruns, size failures, and accuracy-gate misses, into later program-level recipe edits rather than one-shot suggestions. Across 1,197 headline-run trials plus 600 Parameter Golf control trials after one-time setup and launch, humans did not choose proposals, edit recipes, override scores, or repair failed trials during the search. In the three headline runs, the same submitted-trial loop reduces Parameter Golf validation bpb by $0.81\%$, raises NanoChat-D12 CORE by $38.7\%$, and reduces CIFAR-10 Airbench96 wallclock by $4.59\%$, with each task measured by its own external evaluator and legality checks. The trace includes a strict architecture-domain audit of 157 headline-run submissions and program rewrites such as a NanoChat attention-kernel path change. Within this scope the loop autonomously writes code, submits experiments, absorbs feedback, applies and combines known techniques inside each environment, and improves public starting recipes.

Autoresearch improves machine-learning code by proposing changes, running full training jobs, and keeping changes that improve the metric. The efficiency of this loop depends not only on generating ideas, but also on the agent's ability to decide, before spending a training run, whether a proposed modification is likely to work. We study how the reliability of this pre-execution judgment changes over the course of an autoresearch trajectory. In public AutoSOTA logs (Li et al., 2026; Tsinghua FIB Lab, 2026), the fraction of helpful modifications falls from 70% in the first two iterations to 43% by iteration 6+. On 296 same-baseline modification pairs from 39 paper-derived AutoSOTA tasks, each containing one modification that improved the metric and one that did not, with measured outcomes hidden, an LLM judge given candidate rationales but no prior-attempt history reaches 79.5% accuracy on the pairs where strict consensus returns a verdict. On the full 366-pair benchmark, however, this ability weakens substantially late in the loop. As successful changes accumulate, selective accuracy - accuracy conditioned on a strict-consensus verdict - falls from 82.8% to 56.9%, while the judge remains willing to decide. We call this operational pattern the confidence cliff. Rehearse implements the loop change as a lightweight skill for autoresearch loops: propose several ideas, compare them before execution, run the most promising, and judge with a focused memory of similar past attempts and outcomes. This focused outcome memory raises late selective accuracy to 83.5%. Across 4,000 budgeted training runs over three loops, Rehearse improves the endpoint under the same training-run budget on nanochat, image classification, and time-series forecasting.