PRAISE: A Reproducible Workflow for Non-Programmer Scientists to Implement Published AI Models

AI models underpin data-centric applications from image and text processing to scientific discovery in biology, physics, and chemistry. Yet developing them remains heavily manual, requiring practitioners to design architectures, build training pipelines, and iteratively refine solutions, making it challenging for natural scientists without specialized AI engineering expertise to build the high-performing models their research demands. To reduce this burden and broaden access to AI for scientific discovery, agents that automatically build AI models have been proposed. However, the performance of these agents is largely limited by the parametric knowledge of their underlying large language models, which is static, often outdated, and sparse on practical AI model engineering know-how. To address this limitation, we introduce AIBuildAI-2, a knowledge-enhanced agent with an external, evolving knowledge system for automatically building AI models. The knowledge system of AIBuildAI-2 is hierarchical, organizing curated AI development knowledge into high-level knowledge instructions over topical categories and low-level knowledge documents under each category, from which the agent dynamically loads only the context relevant to its current state and the AI task being solved, grounding each design and implementation decision in concrete, externally verifiable expertise. The system is initialized by collecting and cleaning AI-development-related documents from the web and organizing them into the corresponding categories, and continually evolves from the agent's own experience by distilling each completed run on an AI task into structured takeaways that are written back into the knowledge system. AIBuildAI-2 achieves state-of-the-art results, ranking first on MLE-Bench with a 70.7% medal rate and placing in the top 6.6% among 4,370 human-expert teams in a heart disease prediction competition.

Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.

The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI. While the community has made significant progress in automating individual components of the scientific process, a system that autonomously navigates the entire research lifecycle -- from conception to publication -- has remained out of reach. Here, we present the strongest demonstration to date toward automating the entire process end-to-end. We present The AI Scientist, which creates research ideas, writes code, runs experiments, plots and analyzes data, writes the entire scientific manuscript and performs its own peer review. Its ideas, execution, and presentation are of sufficient quality to produce a manuscript generated by an AI system that passes the first round of peer review at a major machine learning conference workshop. The workshop has an acceptance rate of 70 percent. Our system leverages modern foundation models within a complex agentic system. We evaluate The AI Scientist in two settings: a focused mode using human-provided code templates as an initial scaffold to conduct research on a specific topic, and a template-free, open-ended mode that leverages agentic search for wider scientific exploration. Both settings produce diverse ideas and automatically test, report on, and evaluate them. This achievement demonstrates AI's growing capacity for scientific contribution and signifies a potential paradigm shift in how research is conducted. As with any impactful new technology, there could be significant risks, including taxing overwhelmed review systems and adding noise to scientific literature. However, if developed responsibly, such autonomous systems could greatly accelerate scientific discovery.