AI for Science

As large language models (LLMs) show increasing promise on research-level physics reasoning tasks and agentic AI becomes more common, a practical question emerges: How does the interaction between researchers and agents affect the results? We study this using SCALAR (Structured Critic--Actor Loop for AI Reasoning), an Actor--Critic--Judge pipeline applied to quantum field theory and string theory problems. The Actor proposes solutions, the Critic provides iterative feedback, and an independent Judge evaluates the transcript against reference solutions. We vary the Actor persona, the Critic feedback strategy, and the Actor model family and scale. Multi-turn dialogue improves over single-shot attempts throughout, but both the mechanism of improvement and the value of different prompting choices depend strongly on the Actor--Critic pairing. Increasing the scale within one model family (e.g. from the 8B-parameter DeepSeek-R1 variant to DeepSeek-R1 70B) improves some easier-problem behavior, but does not remove the hardest bottleneck we observe. Critic feedback strategy matters most clearly in the asymmetric Actor--Critic setting (e.g., a lightweight Haiku Actor guided by a stronger Sonnet Critic), where constructive feedback improves mean-score outcomes. In same-family Actor--Critic settings, strategy effects are weaker: lenient feedback is sometimes favored, while strict and adversarial feedback are not beneficial. Taken together, SCALAR provides a controlled testbed for evaluating which interaction structures help or hinder AI-driven scientific discovery.

AI research agents have shown strong potential in automating literature search and manuscript refinement, yet most assume a clear and actionable initial input, operating only after a research question has been made explicit. In contrast, human research often begins with tacit friction, a sense of misalignment before a question can be formed. We introduce InciteResearch, a multi-agent framework designed to make a researcher's implicit understanding explicit, inspectable, and actionable. InciteResearch decomposes the logical chain of Socratic questioning and distributes it across the entire pipeline that: (1) Elicits a structured five-dimensional researcher profile state anchored by specific friction points from vague, even domain-unrelated inputs; (2) Violates hidden assumptions by maximizing the feasibility-novelty product with enforcing a 7-stage causal derivation trace; and (3) check whether the proposed method is a Necessary consequence of the reframed insight. We further introduce TF-Bench, the first benchmark for tacit-to-explicit research assistance that distinguishes domain-related from domain-unrelated inspirations across four scientific modes. On TF-Bench, InciteResearch achieves leapfrogging gains over a prompt-based baseline (novelty/impact from 3.671/3.806 to 4.250/4.397), shifting generated proposals from recombination to architectural insight. Our work demonstrates that AI can serve as an extension of thinking itself, rather than merely automating downstream execution.

The extent to which Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies can trigger generalized paradigm shifts in science is unclear. Although these technologies have revolutionized data collection and analysis in specific fields, their overall impact depends on the scope and ways of adoption. We analyze over 227 million scholarly works from the OpenAlex collection (1960-2024) spanning four scientific domains and 46 fields. To distinguish the use of AI as research method (AI adoption) from mentioning AI-related terms (AI engagement), we developed a two-step AI-assisted semantic classification pipeline, validated through human coding of 911 abstracts and a robustness check on 348,000 full-text articles (PLOS One). We document differences in the timing and extent of AI adoption across domains, with generalized exponential growth after 2015. The transformative nature of this growth, however, is less apparent. AI-supported research is confined to a few topics with strong ties to Computer Science and conventional statistical frameworks, suggesting limited epistemological transformation. It is also associated with an unwarranted citation premium and substantially higher retraction rates than non-AI-supported. Geographically, while wealthy countries lead in AI publications per capita, global South countries in a belt from Indonesia to Algeria lead in AI adoption relative to their national output, signaling a distinctive resource concentration pattern. The transformative capacity of AI in science thus remains untapped, and its rapid adoption underlines challenges in research openness, transparency, reproducibility, and ethics. We discuss how best research practices could boost the benefits of AI adoption and highlight areas that warrant closer scrutiny.

Artificial intelligence offers powerful new tools for scientific discovery, but the interaction paradigms required to effectively harness these systems remain underexplored. In this paper, we present findings from a formative user study with 11 expert mathematicians who used AlphaEvolve, an evolutionary coding agent, to tackle advanced problems in their fields of expertise. We identify and characterize a distinct workflow we term intentmaking, the iterative process of discovering, defining, and refining one's experimental goals through active system interaction. We frame this as a natural extension to sensemaking, the cognitive process of building an understanding of complex or novel data. We suggest that users enter a cycle of intentmaking (defining and updating their experiment) and sensemaking (interpreting the results) which repeats many times during the course of an investigation. Our documentation of these themes suggests an approach to designing AI tools for scientific discovery that goes beyond the existing question/answer model of many current systems, treating them as collaborative instruments rather than opaque black-box assistants.

Self-play reinforcement learning has shown strong performance in domains with formally verifiable structure, such as mathematics and coding, where both problem generation and reward computation can be grounded in explicit rules. Extending this paradigm to scientific literature is more challenging: the relationships among multi-modal elements within and across documents are rarely made explicit in text, which makes automatic generation of relational reasoning questions difficult and weakens the reliability of reward signals. We propose SPARK (Self-Play with Asymmetric Reward from Knowledge Graphs), a framework that automatically constructs a unified knowledge graph (KG) from multi-document scientific literature and uses it as the structural basis for self-play. KG paths over multimodal nodes serve as a source for generating relational reasoning questions, and structured facts stored in the KG provide a basis for verifiable reward computation. A single small vision-language model (sVLM) alternates between Proposer and Solver roles under information asymmetry against a fixed KG, a design that we believe can be naturally extended toward online adaptation in future work. We evaluate SPARK on public benchmarks and a self-constructed cross-document multi-hop QA dataset. Results show that SPARK consistently outperforms flat-corpus-based self-play baselines, and the performance gap widens as hop count increases, suggesting that KG-structure grounding contributes to relational multi-hop reasoning beyond what unstructured corpus grounding can provide.

To unleash the full potential of AI for Science, we must untether the agents from a purely digital environment. The agent's ability to control and explore in real-world labs is essential because the physical lab remains foundational to scientific discovery. While some tasks can be performed on a computer (e.g., data analysis, running simulated experiments), Eureka moments could occur at any time while operating lab instruments (e.g., when a scientist notices unexpected clues, intuition may prompt a real-time course change). Although autonomous labs are on the rise, which expose programmable APIs to control scientific instruments via software, bridging the gap between increasingly powerful AI agents and automated lab equipment requires innovation that draws insights from computer systems. We propose a new paradigm called ``Experiment-as-Code (EaC) Labs,'' where a core concept is to encode experiments as declarative configurations that can be compiled down to device-level APIs. AI agents come up with hypotheses and experiments, written as an ensemble of declarative configurations. The systems layer performs program analysis, safety checks, resource assignment, and job orchestration. Finally, programmatic experimentation occurs via actuating the device APIs. This is a general stack that is science-, lab-, and instrument-independent, representing a novel synthesis across the physical, systems, and intelligence layers to unleash the next breakthrough in AI for Science.

Modern searches for physics beyond the Standard Model produce rapidly expanding literature containing heterogeneous information, including textual analyses, numerical datasets, and graphical exclusion limits. Integrating these distributed sources remains a time-consuming and manual process for physicists. We present HEP-CoPilot, a retrieval-augmented multi-agent AI framework for the exploration and interpretation of high-energy physics literature. The system unifies textual information from publications, structured experimental data from HEPData, and reconstructed physics plots within a multimodal retrieval and reasoning architecture. By combining retrieval-augmented language models with coordinated agent workflows, it enables evidence-grounded reasoning over experimental analyses and structured interpretation of collider results. We evaluate the framework on recent CMS searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. Case studies show that HEP-CoPilot can retrieve relevant measurements, reconstruct exclusion limits directly from HEPData records, and perform cross-paper comparisons of experimental constraints. This enables consistent, physics-aware comparison across analyses without manual data integration. These results demonstrate that retrieval-augmented AI systems can function as scientific co-pilots for particle physics, facilitating navigation of complex literature, structuring heterogeneous evidence, and accelerating the interpretation pipeline for new physics searches.

Frontier scientific reasoning is rapidly emerging as a key foundation for advancing AI agents in automated scientific discovery. Deep research agents offer a promising approach to this challenge. These models develop robust problem-solving capabilities through post-training on information-seeking tasks, which are typically curated via knowledge graph construction or iterative web browsing. However, these strategies face inherent limitations in frontier science, where domain-specific knowledge is scattered across sparse and heterogeneous academic sources, and problem solving requires sophisticated computation and reasoning far beyond factual recall. To bridge this gap, we introduce SciResearcher, a fully automated agentic framework for frontier-science data construction. SciResearcher synthesizes diverse conceptual and computational tasks grounded in academic evidence, while eliciting information acquisition, tool-integrated reasoning, and long-horizon capabilities. Leveraging the curated data for supervised fine-tuning and agentic reinforcement learning, we develop SciResearcher-8B, an agent foundation model that achieves 19.46% on the HLE-Bio/Chem-Gold benchmark, establishing a new state of the art at its parameter scale and surpassing several larger proprietary agents. It further achieves 13-15% absolute gains on SuperGPQA-Hard-Biology and TRQA-Literature benchmarks. Overall, SciResearcher introduces a new paradigm for automated data construction for frontier scientific reasoning and offers a scalable path toward future scientific agents.

Intelligence Processing Units (IPU) have proven useful for many AI applications. In this paper, we evaluate them within the emerging field of \emph{AI for simulation}, where traditional numerical simulations are supported by artificial intelligence approaches. We focus specifically on a program for training machine learning models supporting a \emph{computational fluid dynamics} application. We use custom TensorFlow provided by the Poplar SDK to adapt the program for the IPU-POD16 platform and investigate its ease of use and performance scalability. Training a model on data from OpenFOAM simulations allows us to get accurate simulation state predictions in test time. We show how to utilize the \emph{popdist} library to overcome a performance bottleneck in feeding training data to the IPU on the host side, achieving up to 34% speedup. Due to communication overheads, using data parallelism to utilize two IPUs instead of one does not improve the throughput. However, once the intra-IPU costs have been paid, the hardware capabilities for inter-IPU communication allow for good scalability. Increasing the number of IPUs from 2 to 16 improves the throughput from 560.8 to 2805.8 samples/s.

Existing research infrastructure is fundamentally document-centric, providing citation links between papers but lacking explicit representations of methodological evolution. In particular, it does not capture the structured relationships that explain how and why research methods emerge, adapt, and build upon one another. With the rise of AI-driven research agents as a new class of consumers of scientific knowledge, this limitation becomes increasingly consequential, as such agents cannot reliably reconstruct method evolution topologies from unstructured text. We introduce Intern-Atlas, a methodological evolution graph that automatically identifies method-level entities, infers lineage relationships among methodologies, and captures the bottlenecks that drive transitions between successive innovations. Built from 1,030,314 papers spanning AI conferences, journals, and arXiv preprints, the resulting graph comprises 9,410,201 semantically typed edges, each grounded in verbatim source evidence, forming a queryable causal network of methodological development. To operationalize this structure, we further propose a self-guided temporal tree search algorithm for constructing evolution chains that trace the progression of methods over time. We evaluate the quality of the resulting graph against expert-curated ground-truth evolution chains and observe strong alignment. In addition, we demonstrate that Intern-Atlas enables downstream applications in idea evaluation and automated idea generation. We position methodological evolution graphs as a foundational data layer for the emerging automated scientific discovery.

We introduce SPUR, a comprehensive benchmark for scientific experimental image perception, understanding, and reasoning, comprising 4,264 question-answering (QA) pairs derived from 1,084 expert-curated images. SPUR features three key innovations: (1) Panel-Level Fine-Grained Perception: evaluating the visual perception of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) across three dimensions (numerical, morphological, and information localization) on six fine-grained panel types; (2) Cross-Panel Relation Understanding: utilizing complex images with an average of 14.3 panels per sample to evaluate MLLMs' ability to decipher intricate cross-panel relations; (3) Expert-Level Reasoning: assessment of qualitative and quantitative reasoning across five experimental paradigms to determine if models can infer conclusions from evidence as human experts do. Comprehensive evaluation of 20 MLLMs and four multimodal Chain-of-Thought (MCoT) methods reveals that current models fall significantly short of the expert-level requirements for scientific image interpretation, underscoring a critical bottleneck in AI for Science (AI4S) research.

Agentic large language model systems have demonstrated strong capabilities. However, their reliance on language as the universal interface fundamentally limits their applicability to many real-world problems, especially in scientific domains where domain-specific foundation models have been developed to address specialized tasks beyond natural language. In this work, we introduce Eywa, a heterogeneous agentic framework designed to extend language-centric systems to a broader class of scientific foundation models. The key idea of Eywa is to augment domain-specific foundation models with a language-model-based reasoning interface, enabling language models to guide inference over non-linguistic data modalities. This design allows predictive foundation models, which are typically optimized for specialized data and tasks, to participate in higher-level reasoning and decision-making processes within agentic systems. Eywa can serve as a drop-in replacement for a single-agent pipeline (EywaAgent) or be integrated into existing multi-agent systems by replacing traditional agents with specialized agents (EywaMAS). We further investigate a planning-based orchestration framework in which a planner dynamically coordinates traditional agents and Eywa agents to solve complex tasks across heterogeneous data modalities (EywaOrchestra). We evaluate Eywa across a diverse set of scientific domains spanning physical, life, and social sciences. Experimental results demonstrate that Eywa improves performance on tasks involving structured and domain-specific data, while reducing reliance on language-based reasoning through effective collaboration with specialized foundation models.

AI-for-Science (AI4Science) is increasingly transforming scientific discovery by embedding machine learning models into prediction, simulation, and hypothesis generation workflows across domains. However, the effectiveness of these models is fundamentally constrained by the AI-readiness of scientific data, for which no scalable and systematic evaluation mechanism currently exists. In this work, we propose SciHorizon-DataEVA, a novel agentic system to scalable AI-readiness evaluation of heterogeneous scientific data. At the evaluation-criteria level, we introduce the Sci-TQA2 principles, which organize AI-readiness into four complementary dimensions: Governance Trustworthiness, Data Quality, AI Compatibility, and Scientific Adaptability. Each dimension is decomposed into measurable atomic elements that enable fine-grained and executable assessment. To operationalize these principles at scale, we develop Sci-TQA2-Eval, a hierarchical multi-agent evaluation approach orchestrated through a directed, cyclic workflow. Our Sci-TQA2-Eval dynamically constructs dataset-aware evaluation specifications by combining lightweight dataset profiling, applicability-aware metric activation, and knowledge-augmented planning grounded in domain constraints and dataset-paper signals. These specifications are executed through an adaptive, tool-centric evaluation mechanism with built-in verification and self-correction, enabling scalable and reliable assessment across heterogeneous scientific data. Extensive experiments on scientific datasets spanning multiple domains demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of SciHorizon-DataEVA for principled AI-readiness evaluation.

Agentic AI systems are increasingly being integrated into scientific workflows, yet their behavior under realistic conditions remains insufficiently understood. We evaluate CMBAgent across two workflow paradigms and eighteen astrophysical tasks. In the One-Shot setting, access to domain-specific context yields an approximately ~6x performance improvement (0.85 vs. ~0 without context), with the primary failure mode being silent incorrect computation - syntactically valid code that produces plausible but inaccurate results. In the Deep Research setting, the system frequently exhibits silent failures across stress tests, producing physically inconsistent posteriors without self-diagnosis. Overall, performance is strong on well-specified tasks but degrades on problems designed to probe reasoning limits, often without visible error signals. These findings highlight that the most concerning failure mode in agentic scientific workflows is not overt failure, but confident generation of incorrect results. We release our evaluation framework to facilitate systematic reliability analysis of scientific AI agents.

The vast and underexplored ocean plays a critical role in regulating global climate and supporting marine biodiversity, yet artificial intelligence has so far delivered limited impact in this domain due to a fundamental data bottleneck. Specifically, ocean data are highly fragmented across disparate sources and inherently exhibit multi-modal, high-noise, and weakly labeled characteristics, lacking unified schemas and semantic alignment. Although Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have achieved remarkable success in general domains, their application to ocean science remains severely constrained by the absence of large-scale, well-aligned multimodal datasets tailored to marine environments. To bridge this gap, we introduce OceanPile, a large-scale multimodal corpus designed for ocean foundation models. It comprises three key components: OceanCorpus, a unified collection integrating sonar data, underwater imagery, marine science visuals, and scientific text from diverse authoritative sources; OceanInstruction, a high-quality instruction dataset synthesized via a novel pipeline guided by a hierarchical Ocean Concept Knowledge Graph; and OceanBenchmark, a manually curated evaluation benchmark for rigorous assessment. We establish a multi-stage quality control process to ensure scientific validity and alignment across modalities. Experimental validation demonstrates significant performance improvements for models trained on our data. All datasets are publicly released to advance the field of marine artificial intelligence and empower domain-specific MLLMs.

Multi-agent systems built from teams of large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for collaborative scientific reasoning and problem-solving. These systems require agents to coordinate under shared constraints, such as GPUs or credit balances, where cooperative behavior matters. Behavioral economics provides a rich toolkit of games that isolate distinct cooperation mechanisms, yet it remains unknown whether a model's behavior in these stylized settings predicts its performance in realistic collaborative tasks. Here, we benchmark 41 open-weight LLMs across six behavioral economics games and show that game-derived cooperative profiles robustly predict downstream performance in AI-for-Science tasks, where teams of LLM agents collaboratively analyze data, build models, and produce scientific reports under shared budget constraints. Models that effectively coordinate in games and invest in multiplicative team production (rather than greedy strategies) produce better scientific reports across three outcomes, accuracy, quality, and completeness. These associations hold after controlling for multiple factors, indicating that cooperative disposition is a distinct, measurable property of LLMs not reducible to general ability. Our behavioral games framework thus offers a fast diagnostic for screening cooperative fitness before costly multi-agent deployment.

The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task. With the increasing interest in AI scientists and AI involvement in scientific idea generation and paper writing, it also becomes increasingly important that this task be automatable and reliable, lest both human attention and compute tokens be wasted on ideas that have already been explored. Due to the challenge of quantifying ground-truth novelty, however, existing novelty metrics for scientific papers generally validate their results against noisy, confounded signals such as citation counts or peer review scores. These proxies can conflate novelty with impact, quality, or reviewer preference, which in turn makes it harder to assess how well a given metric actually evaluates novelty. We therefore propose an axiomatic benchmark for scientific novelty metrics. We first define a set of axioms that a well-behaved novelty metric should satisfy, grounded in human scientific norms and practice, then evaluate existing metrics across ten tasks spanning three domains of AI research. Our results reveal that no existing metric satisfies all axioms consistently, and that metrics fail on systematically different axioms, reflecting their underlying architectures. Additionally, we show that combining metrics of complementary architectures leads to consistent improvements on the benchmark, with per-axiom weighting achieving 90.1% versus 71.5% for the best individual metric, suggesting that developing architecturally diverse metrics is a promising direction for future work. We release the benchmark code as supplementary material to encourage the development of more robust scientific literature novelty metrics.

This article argues that the most important significance of the AI revolution, especially the rise of large language models, lies not simply in automation, but in a fundamental change in how complex information and human know-how are carried, replicated, and shared. From this perspective, AI for Science is especially important because it may transform not only the efficiency of research, but also the structure of scientific collaboration, discovery, publishing, and evaluation. The article outlines a gradual path from AI as a research tool to AI as a scientific collaborator, and discusses how AI is likely to fundamentally reshape scientific publication. It also argues that continuous learning and diversity of ideas are essential if AI is to play a meaningful role in original scientific discovery.

AI for science promises to accelerate the discovery process. The advent of large language models (LLMs) and agentic workflows enables the expediting of a growing range of scientific tasks. However, most of the current generation of agentic systems depend on static, hand-curated toolsets that hinder adaptation to new domains and evolving libraries. We present El Agente Forjador, a multi-agent framework in which universal coding agents autonomously forge, validate, and reuse computational tools through a four-stage workflow of tool analysis, tool generation, task execution, and iterative solution evaluation. Evaluated across 24 tasks spanning quantum chemistry and quantum dynamics on five coding agent setups, we compare three operating modes: zero-shot generation of tools per task, reuse of a curriculum-built toolset, and direct problem-solving with the coding agents as the baseline. We find that our tool generation and reuse framework consistently improves accuracy over the baseline. We also show that reusing a toolset built by a stronger coding agent can reduce API cost and substantially raises the solution quality for weaker coding agents. Case studies further demonstrate that tools forged for different domains can be combined to solve hybrid tasks. Taken together, these results show that LLM-based agents can use their scientific knowledge and coding capabilities to autonomously build reusable scientific tools, pointing toward a paradigm in which agent capabilities are defined by the tasks they are designed to solve rather than by explicitly engineered implementations.

Welcome to the ninth edition of the AI Index report. As AI continues to advance rapidly, the question becomes whether the systems built around it can keep up. Governance frameworks, evaluation methods, education systems, and the data infrastructure needed to track AI's impact are struggling to match the pace of the technology itself. That gap between what AI can do and how prepared we are to manage it runs through every chapter of this year's report. New in this edition, the report tracks how AI is being tested more ambitiously across reasoning, safety, and real-world task execution, and why those measurements are increasingly difficult to rely on. It also features new estimates of generative AI's economic value alongside emerging evidence of its labor market effects, an analytical framework on AI sovereignty, and a science chapter developed in collaboration with Schmidt Sciences. For the first time, the report features standalone chapters on AI in science and AI in medicine, reflecting AI's growing impact across these two domains.

Modern machine learning methods have been proposed to detect life in extraterrestrial samples, drawing on their ability to distinguish biotic from abiotic samples based on training models using natural and synthetic organic molecular mixtures. Here we show using Artificial Life that such methods are easily fooled into detecting life with near 100% confidence even if the analyzed sample is not capable of life. This is due to modern machine learning methods' propensity to be easily fooled by out-of-distribution samples. Because extra-terrestrial samples are very likely out of the distribution provided by terrestrial biotic and abiotic samples, using AI methods for life detection is likely to yield significant false positives.

The Production and Distributed Analysis (PanDA) system, originally developed for the ATLAS experiment at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), has evolved into a robust platform for orchestrating large-scale workflows across distributed computing resources. Coupled with its intelligent Distributed Dispatch and Scheduling (iDDS) component, PanDA supports AI/ML-driven workflows through a scalable and flexible workflow engine. We present an AI-assisted framework for detector design optimization that integrates multi-objective Bayesian optimization with the PanDA--iDDS workflow engine to coordinate iterative simulations across heterogeneous resources. The framework addresses the challenge of exploring high-dimensional parameter spaces inherent in modern detector design. We demonstrate the framework using benchmark problems and realistic studies of the ePIC and dRICH detectors for the Electron-Ion Collider (EIC). Results show improved automation, scalability, and efficiency in multi-objective optimization. This work establishes a flexible and extensible paradigm for AI-driven detector design and other computationally intensive scientific applications.

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.

Can AI systems trained on the existing scientific record forecast the advances that will follow? We introduce PreScience, a dataset and benchmark for scientific forecasting built around 98K recent AI research papers, together with companion papers covering author publication histories and citation links, yielding 502K papers in total. The resulting paper records include titles, abstracts, disambiguated author identities, influential references, topic labels, citation trajectories, and metadata snapshotted to respect temporal cutoffs. We instantiate seven exemplar tasks: five paper-anchored tasks -- contribution generation, collaborator prediction, prior work selection, citation count prediction, and future combination prediction -- and two aggregate topic trend forecasting variants. We develop baselines ranging from simple heuristics and embedding methods to frontier language models and agentic systems, and introduce LACER, an LLM-based metric for evaluating similarity of generated contribution descriptions that agrees better with human judgments than existing metrics. Finally, we compose task models to generate a 12-month synthetic corpus and find that the resulting papers are systematically less diverse and less novel than human-authored research from the same period. We release the PreScience dataset (https://huggingface.co/datasets/allenai/prescience) and code (https://github.com/allenai/prescience).

Climate science demands automated workflows to transform comprehensive questions into data-driven statements across massive, heterogeneous datasets. However, generic LLM agents and static scripting pipelines lack climate-specific context and flexibility and thus perform poorly in practice. We present ClimateAgent, an autonomous multi-agent framework that orchestrates end-to-end climate data analytic workflows. ClimateAgent decomposes user questions into executable subtasks coordinated by an Orchestrate-Agent and a Plan-Agent; acquires data via specialized Data-Agents that dynamically introspect APIs to synthesize robust download scripts; and completes analysis and reporting with a Coding-Agent that generates Python code, visualizations, and a final report with a built-in self-correction loop. To enable systematic evaluation, we introduce Climate-Agent-Bench-85, a benchmark of 85 real-world tasks spanning atmospheric rivers, drought, extreme precipitation, heat waves, sea surface temperature, and tropical cyclones. On Climate-Agent-Bench-85, ClimateAgent achieves 100% task completion and a report quality score of 8.32, outperforming GitHub Copilot (6.27) and a GPT-5 baseline (3.26). These results demonstrate that our multi-agent orchestration with dynamic API awareness and self-correcting execution substantially advances reliable, end-to-end automation for climate science analytic tasks. The source code of ClimateAgent is available at https://github.com/Relaxed-System-Lab/ClimateAgent.

We present the first language-model-driven agentic artificial intelligence (AI) system to autonomously execute multi-stage physics experiments on a production synchrotron light source. Implemented at the Advanced Light Source particle accelerator, the system translates natural language user prompts into structured execution plans that combine archive data retrieval, control-system channel resolution, automated script generation, controlled machine interaction, and analysis. In a representative machine physics task, we show that preparation time was reduced by two orders of magnitude relative to manual scripting even for a system expert, while operator-standard safety constraints were strictly upheld. Core architectural features, plan-first orchestration, bounded tool access, and dynamic capability selection, enable transparent, auditable execution with fully reproducible artifacts. These results establish a blueprint for the safe integration of agentic AI into accelerator experiments and demanding machine physics studies, as well as routine operations, with direct portability across accelerators worldwide and, more broadly, to other large-scale scientific infrastructures.

AI is rapidly advancing neuroscience, yet many laboratories fail to fully unleash its potential due to significant interdisciplinary barriers. While pre-trained neural models for physiological data are progressing quickly, their heterogeneous architectures and modality-specific constraints hinder systematic integration, selection, and evaluation. Despite recent advances in large language model (LLM)-based agent systems for intelligent scientific applications, existing approaches often still lack the domain expertise required to effectively select and coordinate diverse neuroscience pre-trained models and handle unique data types in this domain. We present NS-Copilot, an LLM-driven multi-agent system for neuroscience analysis that autonomously supports end-to-end workflows for diverse professional tasks. It unifies domain-specific pre-trained models and supports key neuroscience modalities, including EEG and extracellular spike data, through a natural-language interface. Given raw data and a task description, NS-Copilot orchestrates agents with specialized roles for planning, adaptive control, code generation, and result synthesis, enabling analysis without dataset-specific heuristics. We evaluate NS-Copilot on neuroscience benchmarks spanning Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and working memory spike decoding. Across 8 trials per task, the system consistently outperforms strong baselines on the primary metric, demonstrating the ability of NS-Copilot for effective and scalable neuroscience analysis. Our code is publicly available at https://github.com/FrankLiu1102/ns-copilot.