Abstract
AI systems are becoming participants in the evaluation and use of scientific research. They encounter citation counts, download statistics and lists of popular articles developed around human readers, but the collective consequences of these signals for artificial readers remain uncertain. This paper adapts the Music Lab design to a market for academic attention. In the first experiment, 1,000 AI agents choose papers from the titles and abstracts of all 114 regular research articles published in the American Economic Review in 2025. The experiment has five independent-choice communities and five social-influence communities, each with 100 sequential agents. Only agents in the social-influence condition observe earlier selections within their community. Agents may select any number of papers. Social-information communities select 17.2 percent fewer papers per agent, concentrate their choices more heavily, and collectively cover 73 papers, compared with 90 independently. Between-community variation is greater under social information. In a second experiment with 200 agents across twenty social communities, randomly assigning papers five initial selections raises their subsequent selection rate by 45.55 percentage points (95% CI: 41.20 to 49.90). Choices have modest correspondence with external citations and little correspondence with download counts. The results show how a simple information rule shapes the volume, breadth and distribution of scientific attention in an artificial population.
Explore similar work
May 27, 2026cs.CL
AI research agents now support large-scale AI-assisted scientific discovery. We examine whether AI-generated ideas broaden scientific exploration or primarily reinforce existing work. Using five agent frameworks and five large language models, we generate 219,655 ideas for different scientific fields. Across experiments, four consistent patterns emerge. First, AI-generated ideas are more concentrated than human-authored papers within the same research area. Second, they remain much closer to starting literature than later human follow-on work does. Third, AI-generated ideas align less with future human research. Last, AI-generated ideas are located in lower-impact regions of the historical scientific landscape. Overall, current AI research agents appear better suited to local elaboration than to broadening scientific exploration.
Yixuan Tang, Yi Yang
1*ISOM, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Mar 15, 2026cs.CL
Scientific discovery depends on expert judgement and foresight, which we call scientific taste: the ability to judge and propose research ideas with potential for long-term scientific impact. Whether AI can learn this ability remains an open question. Here we provide evidence that artificial intelligence can learn judgement and ideation. We introduce Reinforcement Learning from Community Feedback (RLCF), a training paradigm that uses large-scale signals from scientific community as supervision. We first train Scientific Judge on field- and time-matched pairs of high- vs. low-citation papers to judge ideas. We then train a Scientific Thinker, to propose research ideas with high potential impact. Experiments show that the 30B Scientific Judge variant outperforms strong LLM baselines (e.g., GPT-5.4 Thinking), while Scientific Judge generalizes across future-year papers, unseen fields, and other community metrics. Furthermore, Scientific Thinker proposes research ideas with higher potential impact than baselines. These results suggest that AI can learn scientific taste, marking an important step towards AI systems that could help accelerate scientific discovery.
Jingqi Tong, Mingzhe Li, Hangcheng Li +20
Fudan University · Shanghai Innovation Institute · OpenMOSS Team +2
Oct 7, 2026cs.MA
Deployments of research agents are moving to populations of thousands that share one pool of compute, while most current systems organize one project at a time or leave the population unorganized. We argue that such a population will acquire an organization whether or not its designers provide one, so designers should provide it explicitly, and that the multi-agent systems community holds the tools to do so. We propose a society of agents, a population of persistent agents under explicit institutions, and develop it for science as a society of researchers built on six principles. Principal investigators compete for compute through requests for proposals, independent review, and grants; a human governor, the mayor, allocates resources and assigns no tasks. In a running society of ten thousand researchers, asked only to improve the pretraining of language models, one lab reported a way to reach the same quality with about 30% less compute, a result the labs that tested it do not yet agree on. We close with six open problems for the agents community.
Ali Asaria, Deep Gandhi, Tony Salomone
Transformer Lab Canada