AI Research Preference Models

AI research agents automate the cycle of proposing, implementing, and evaluating experiments, opening a path toward recursive self-improvement. Yet their ability to propose experiments outpaces their capacity to execute them in real environments, making outcome prediction a key capability for sustained self-improvement under limited experimental budgets. We investigate language models as Research World Models (RWMs), which predict the outcomes of candidate interventions across research environments. Our evaluation draws on over 2,600 experimental records from nine research environments spanning pretraining, post-training, and inference, representing more than 171,000 H100 GPU-hours of experimentation. Research knowledge acquired from real experimental experience improves RWM predictions of unseen interventions within the same environment (Spearman +0.27), and can be reused across environments. For example, using only pretraining experience from OLMo3, Marin, and Nanochat, an RWM reduces selection regret in the Qwen3 environment by 78% compared with zero-experience setting. These benefits extend to multi-round Autoresearch under a fixed selection budget: RWMs with in-env and cross-env research knowledge increase the best gain achieved by 15.8% and 11.6%, respectively. Ablations across 13 language models used as RWMs show that adding research knowledge can improve intervention ranking more than changing models or increasing reasoning effort alone. These findings support language models as RWMs and motivate accumulating experimental data for future RWM training.

Existing research has identified three structural performance bottlenecks in AI research agents: (1) synchronous single-GPU execution constrains sample throughput, limiting the benefit of search; (2) a generalization gap where validation-based selection causes overfitting and performance to degrade over extended search horizons; and (3) the limited capability of fixed, single-turn LLM operators imposes a ceiling on search performance. We introduce AIRA$_2$, which addresses these bottlenecks through three architectural choices: an asynchronous multi-GPU worker pool that increases experiment throughput linearly; a Hidden Consistent Evaluation protocol that delivers a reliable evaluation signal; and ReAct agents that dynamically scope their actions and debug interactively. On MLE-bench-30, AIRA$^{\dagger}_{2}$ achieves a mean Percentile Rank of 81.5% at 24 hours and 83.1% at 72 hours, outperforming the strongest baseline, which achieves 72.7%. On AIRS-Bench, AIRA$_2$ exceeds human state-of-the-art on 6 out of 20 diverse research tasks. Ablations confirm that each architectural component is necessary, that performance follows a predictable scaling law that transfers across LLM backbones, and that the "overfitting" reported in prior work was driven by evaluation noise rather than true data memorization.

Evaluating research ideas generated by LLMs is difficult because their scientific value cannot be fully determined by objective criteria, and no single reference answer specifies what counts as a good idea. To address this challenge, we introduce Ideation Arena, a battle style platform that evaluates research ideas through pairwise human assessment. Ideation Arena evaluates ideas generated by 14 frontier LLMs and 5 research agent architectures built on 2 base models. To ensure a common starting point, Ideation Arena builds shared literature contexts from papers familiar to the participating researchers and provides the same contexts to all LLMs and agents. We collect over 6,000 double blind pairwise comparisons from 105 active computer science researchers and construct an Elo rating leaderboard of proposal-stage expert preferences in computer science under a shared closed-context protocol. We validate the rankings through interrater agreement and robustness analyses, showing that the leaderboard remains stable under changes in annotator composition and domain coverage. Our results show substantial variation in agent effectiveness, with some frameworks improving ideation quality over their backbones and others offering little benefit or even underperforming their base models. We further construct Ideation Arena Eval, a benchmark for assessing whether automated evaluators align with human preferences in research ideation. Experiments with current LLM judges show that they still cannot reliably reproduce expert preferences, with the best judge reaching 72.56% Soft Accuracy on Overall Quality. Our code, data, and leaderboards are available at https://github.com/foss12138/Research-Ideation-Arena.