Artificial Intelligence Scientists

Existing benchmarks for autonomous AI scientists evaluate only final outputs---generated code, hypotheses, or papers---yet discard the reasoning process by which those outputs were obtained. This makes it impossible to audit scientific methodology, diagnose failure modes, or distinguish systematic reasoning from fortunate guessing. We present \textbf{OpenDiscoveryTrace}, a public dataset of 558 complete AI scientific agent trajectories that captures how models reason, not just what they produce. Each trajectory records a structured 9-field-per-step trace---including thoughts, tool calls, observations, errors, revision triggers, and self-reported confidence---as models execute 124 scientific tasks spanning drug discovery, materials science, genomics, and scientific literature analysis. The dataset covers seven models: three frontier models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Gemini 3.1 Pro; 124 trajectories each, fully balanced across domains and difficulty levels) and four open-weight models (Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, Phi-3.5-mini, and Qwen2.5-1.5B; 30 each), plus 60 live-retrieval variant trajectories. Pilot analysis on 363 LLM-judged trajectories reveals that process traces expose behavioral differences invisible to output-only evaluation: all three frontier models achieve comparable success rates (84--89%), yet Claude Opus 4.6 produces 30$\times$ more errors than GPT-5.4 (2.5 vs. 0.08 per trajectory, $p < 0.0001$, Cliff's $\delta = 0.613$), with qualitatively different error profiles---66.7% tool misuse for Claude versus 83.6% reasoning errors for GPT-5.4. We define five benchmark tasks with baselines from logistic regression, random forests, LSTMs, and Transformer models. The dataset, trace schema, agent harness, and benchmark definitions are publicly available under CC BY 4.0 to support research on process-level evaluation, scientific agent auditing, and AI governance.

Behavioral foundation models have been proposed as stand-ins for human participants across settings, but it is unclear whether theories discovered on them generalize to humans or merely characterize the simulator. We ran the Automated Cognitive Scientist (\textsc{AutoCog}), a closed-loop discovery system in which LLM agents design theory-discriminating experiments, collect responses, arbitrate between competing theories, and synthesize successors, entirely on behavior simulated by Centaur, a foundation model of human behavior. In a multi-attribute decision-making setting, the theories \textsc{AutoCog} found on Centaur generalized to human data: they outperformed canonical theories on ten held-out experiments and were rivaled only by theories found by running the same loop on people. We argue that this succeeds despite the simulator's inevitable imperfections because a discovery loop that arbitrates between competing theories demands less of its simulator than estimation does. The simulator only needs to capture the regularities that distinguish the theories, and not necessarily reproduce behavior precisely. Imperfect simulators can therefore widen the search over theories, with human data then testing whether the surfaced theories generalize.

Scientific ideation is the capacity to formulate novel and testable hypotheses from scientific evidence, and autonomous AI scientists depend on it. Existing evaluations largely assess it by asking models to generate ideas from a static, curated set of reference papers. That passive setup departs from the retrieval-and-reasoning workflow of modern AI scientists, and it becomes less discriminative as models improve. We introduce AgentIdeaBench, a multidisciplinary benchmark that evaluates scientific ideation under two matched settings, static observation and active exploration. We report matched Static-Active evaluations for 33 LLMs across 40 densely scored subfields spanning five disciplines, using a multidimensional, literature-verified scoring framework whose critics assess originality against retrieved prior art. Active exploration reveals considerably more capability headroom, and that headroom is unevenly distributed across models. Performance scales about twice as fast as under static observation, and the exploration gain is capability-gated, favoring the strongest models over the weakest. The gain reflects better grounding, improving feasibility, clarity, and specificity while leaving measured originality unchanged under our critics. We further explore Scientific World Modeling, a generation-time loop that refines a draft hypothesis through structured thought experiments. It benefits mid-capability models, and its impact diminishes among frontier models that appear to have internalized such reasoning patterns already. AgentIdeaBench gives future work on scientific ideation a measurement basis suited to the agent era.

Autonomous coding agents are increasingly proposed as AI-scientist systems that conduct analyses and write research reports, but executing a prescribed analysis is not the same as making a discovery. Existing benchmarks are configured for reproduction: tasks, data, and rubrics are built around a hidden target study, and recovery of its result is rewarded. We present TruthInsightBench, a benchmark configured for discovery. Its 40 blind tasks, drawn from 40 peer-reviewed studies across 10 scientific domains, expose only a neutral scientific objective and frozen data; source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths are withheld, leaving the agent to determine what claim the data support. A fixed LLM-based judge scores the evidentiary maturity of an agent's own claims along six dimensions, operationalized as 29 artifact-grounded items, with automated, deterministic aggregation and no per-instance human grading, so evaluation can be repeated automatically as agents evolve. On one frozen base model, four coding agents form a narrow plateau (58.4-60.3 of 100) with no statistically reliable pairwise separation: they execute and document analyses competently, with comparatively strong evidence auditability and novelty, but largely lack the discriminating acts that establish a trustworthy claim (controls, robustness, falsifiability, and cross-dataset generalization). The bottleneck is scientific judgment rather than coding, and genuine discovery remains out of reach. TruthInsightBench makes this gap a measurable target; data and scoring code are at https://github.com/TruthInsight-stack/TruthInsightBench.

Command-line coding agents (e.g., Claude Code, Gemini CLI) can already read and write files and sustain long sessions, yet end-to-end research still fragments across chat tools, IDEs, terminals, and writing environments, and the decisions that make it auditable are rarely preserved. We present Dr. Claw, an open-source workspace that wraps existing coding-agent executors in a controllable and auditable human-in-the-loop workflow rather than introducing another autonomous agent. Persistent state objects, a reusable skill library, and multi-executor coordination link human decisions to AI execution, turning planning, execution, and writing into one traceable, recoverable loop. We demonstrate Dr. Claw through an interactive three-view scenario and a failure-recovery walkthrough, and evaluate it against a bare command-line agent sharing the same backend executor, so the comparison contrasts the whole orchestration layer (task graph, state objects, and skill library) with the agent it wraps. Holding the executor fixed, Dr. Claw scores higher on research completeness while persisting an auditable, recoverable process trail. Demo access: repository https://github.com/OpenLAIR/dr-claw, released under AGPL-3.0 with GPL-3.0 upstream components.

Research planning is the decisive capability of AI scientists. Yet a research plan admits no verifiable answer, so reinforcement learning lacks the environment it requires: tasks paired with a critic. Rubrics extracted from scientific papers can supply the critic. Existing pipelines, however, draw the question and the criteria from the same content, so the reward can be earned by paraphrase. The rubric is further compressed into a single scalar per rollout. We introduce PaperGym, a unified framework that turns each research paper into a complete training environment. PaperGym exploits the structure of a paper: the question is synthesized from the research goal and background, while the criteria are derived from the method and experiments. The criteria span methodological innovation and experimental design, and criterion leakage falls to 3.7%, versus 11.90% to 34.10% in existing datasets. Training uses the rubric twice: first as privileged context for OPSD's self-teacher, then as the reward for GRPO. Across Qwen3-1.7B/4B/8B, this schedule outperforms supervised fine-tuning, either stage alone, and the reverse ordering, improving five-benchmark averages by +5.6, +5.0, and +4.8 points. With the recipe held fixed, models trained on PaperGym-20k win 58.1% of three-way comparisons, against 28.2% for RubricHub Science. The trained Qwen3-8B reaches 73.48 on ResearchQA, above the far larger Kimi K2.6. We release the pipeline, the 20,000-instance corpus PaperGym-20k, and the benchmarks PaperGym-Innov and PaperGym-Design.

Retrieved scientific literature can serve as inspiration for both human and AI scientists. Inspiration can take different forms: prior work may directly suggest how to address a problem, or surface directions at different levels of abstraction - zooming out to a more general view or zooming in to a concrete realization. We introduce RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations), a large-scale benchmark in which relevance is defined by three operations which we name ideation moves: Address retrieves potential approaches for stated problems, Broaden retrieves more general formulations, and Specify retrieves concrete instantiations. RATIO is constructed from millions of full-text scientific papers across CS literature via a general recipe that extends discourse-marker distant supervision - previously used only for classification - to corpus-scale retrieval, combined with extensive LLM and human vetting. Experiments show that operation-specific fine-tuning substantially boosts retrievers but leaves much room for further improvements. RATIO provides a scalable training and evaluation framework for retrieval components that support literature-grounded ideation, opening up new research avenues on scientific inspiration retrieval.

The replicability of papers is a cornerstone of scientific knowledge, ensuring the reliability of existing results and providing a base for further experiments. The act of replication typically illuminates details that were previously underspecified, and thus requires similar hypothesis-driven exploration to open-ended research. In this work, we develop Replica, a scalable task space for paper replication. To provide reward signal, we introduce an auto-generated rubric-based judge that has low noise and agrees with human assessment of replication quality. We post-train Faraday, a 27B-parameter "AI Scientist" agent that leverages coding agents as tools, surpassing the performance of Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on held-out replication tasks. Qualitative analysis of individual rollouts reveals that Faraday adopts a more scientifically-principled approach. We believe that our results provide a stepping stone towards AI agents capable of long-horizon scientific innovation without requiring complex harnesses.

AI models have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, yet the mechanisms underlying their capabilities and the risks they may pose remain poorly understood. As AI development becomes faster and increasingly automated, mechanistic exploration remains largely manual, widening the gap between what models can do and our ability to understand and control them. To bridge this gap, we introduce Mechanist, an agentic system that uses AI as a scientific instrument for the autonomous discovery of mechanisms underlying AI intelligence. To support autonomous mechanistic discovery, we construct an interpretability-focused knowledge graph of approximately 13,000 papers and integrate it with a multidisciplinary database of 43 million papers spanning 26 fields. We further curate a library of 32 foundational methods for mechanism analysis, causal intervention, and validation. Compared with Claude Code and existing AI-scientist systems, Mechanist generates more valuable mechanism hypotheses and executes experiments more reliably. Mechanist also demonstrates a progression from discovering model behaviors to explaining and controlling AI models. Specifically, Mechanist first uncovers a counterintuitive safety risk in scientific laboratories, showing that unsafe traits can transfer across modalities through apparently safe training data. Mechanist then develops a mechanism theory of belief, revealing how models represent world knowledge, form beliefs, infer the beliefs of others, and how these mechanisms emerge during pretraining. Finally, Mechanist translates these mechanistic insights into practical interventions that improve model performance across diverse scenarios and steer scientific foundation models toward generating DNA sequences with specified properties.

Logics of abstraction in computational AI research often push important forms of knowledge and reflection aside: dominant standards of legitimacy separate from lived experience of harm; the goals of work misalign with the practices that operationalize them; and career demands crowd out critical reflection. Even as prior academic and community-oriented efforts have sought to recontextualize and challenge common practices, exposure to sociotechnical harms and epistemic injustice persists. As three early-career critical AI researchers, we experienced this as alienation: feeling like outsiders in our research communities. This alienation has involved having some aspects of our backgrounds overlooked and others tokenized. We argue our alienation occurred through mechanisms that mirror abstraction by creating distance from relevant material realities. Beyond abstraction's role in computational AI research as a foundational practice structuring complex computational tasks, we have encountered it as a social norm in computational research spaces, illustrated through an autoethnographic inquiry into our alienation. We narrate three vignettes describing how we encountered and resisted alienation in our research communities. By analyzing themes across these accounts, we construct an interpretive framework of alienation categorizing its preconditions, mechanisms, and harms. Finally, we identify affect abstraction, one of the mechanisms of alienation we describe, as a high-leverage mechanism that is resistible by staying attuned to our affective responses, and collective action as a way to reduce risk and isolation when engaging in resistance. To assist others with similar reflection, we present our framework as a hermeneutic resource. Critical self-reflection and meaning-making are necessary steps toward challenging exclusionary disciplinary norms and cultivating more inclusive forms of AI research.

As "AI Scientists" emerge to drive research via the Model Context Protocol (MCP), systems relying on ephemeral scripts will fail. The sheer scale of stateful, interconnected evidence requires a machine-walkable warranty grounded in a purpose-built database architecture. Eigenius is an open-source, typed knowledge-graph DBMS built on a single premise: answering the audit question ("what do you know, and what is your warranty?") requires a unified kernel. By tightly coupling the type system, storage engine, and integration protocol, Eigenius turns data provenance into a structural invariant rather than a property reconstructed across subsystem boundaries. The kernel rests on three pillars: a dependent type theory woven through the core, institutions acting as strongly typed integration boundaries, and a content-addressed immutable storage layer. On this foundation, epistemic status (declared/observed/derived/verified) is enforced as a strict commit-time invariant. Cross-system translations (comorphisms) are checked at commit and materialized directly into the graph as durable, first-class resources. To eliminate O(N^2) polystore bottlenecks, shared on-chain intermediate representations (IRs) collapse multi-system translations to identity. Crucially, this architecture unifies both domains of scientific epistemology: it relies on justification logic for empirical science, while embedding a fast, in-process term checker to safely evaluate formal mathematical proofs (via Lean 4) without IPC overhead. In an end-to-end recomputation of a published Nature study from fragile scripts to a materialized evidence graph, all 52 derived conclusions hold from pinned data, surfacing four machine-checked discrepancies in the original study.

Benchmarking the ability of AI scientists to generate novel ideas is notoriously difficult. Existing benchmarks in this field have made progress in evaluating scientific reasoning and research replication, but often rely on synthetic tasks or retrospective targets, which may be confounded by prior exposure. We hypothesize that complex, adversarial, fast-moving real-world domains where expert practitioners independently generate observable outputs can provide a practical solution to fill this gap and evaluate the capabilities needed for AI scientists, including reasoning, novelty, and hypothesis formulation. We instantiate this framework in two structurally different domains, Formula 1 (F1), where models ideate around car design concepts for the 2026 season, and real pre-season innovations provide a ground truth, and Magic: The Gathering (MTG), where models propose decks from a recently updated card pool and are evaluated against 19 Pro Tour (PT) decklists. Across both domains, models produce plausible outputs, but few align with real-world expert solutions. In F1, the best model, GPT-5.2 matched 10 of 40 real innovations with 166 ideas proposed across runs. In MTG, the best deck from Gemini 3 Flash recovered 5 of 7 new-set cards from the third-place PT deck, and across all 108 decks, the cards models selected most often were also the cards most widely adopted by PT decks (Spearman $ρ= 0.74$, $p = 0.0003$). These results suggest that a key capability gap for AI scientists is not idea generation, but filtering, prioritization, and coherent novelty.

Autonomous research loops driven by large language models can run machine-learning experiments at scale but tend to drift toward local refinements of whichever metric they optimise rather than testing the hypotheses that motivate the experiments. We address this structurally and present an AI Scientist for studying generalisation in quadruped robot navigation policies in simulation. Building on the autoresearch paradigm of Karpathy, our loop adds three components: an immutable experiment card that pairs each iteration's prediction with its outcome under a fixed schema, so a falsified hypothesis cannot be retconned; specialised subagents restricted to mechanical roles; and kkanbu, a preference oracle that holds the user's research taste as a typed knowledge graph and is the only component permitted to make subjective judgements. To isolate the oracle we run the identical loop twice across eleven research streams, with and without kkanbu. Neither arm drifts: both falsify roughly three quarters of their own hypotheses, and the best trained policy comes from the oracle-less arm. What the oracle changes is direction, not score: it alone explores test-time adaptation, it authored the winning designs where its arm led, and it carried lessons across streams that the other arm repeatedly re-derived. The scaffold keeps the loop honest; kkanbu decides where it looks.

AI-assisted research ideation has emerged as a promising paradigm for accelerating scientific discovery, with systems now capable of generating research directions conditioned on papers, topics, or lightweight researcher contexts. Yet current systems largely optimize individual suggestions in isolation. This leaves two blind spots. First, coarse researcher representations may elicit mainstream directions that appear broadly feasible, but lack sufficient researcher-specific grounding. Second, independent recommendations can concentrate a community's portfolio around recurring high-probability themes. To address these blind spots, we propose DivAlign, a four-stage pipeline for alignment-preserving de-homogenization. DivAlign extracts fine-grained researcher profiles, generates profile-conditioned candidate directions, scores them along three alignment dimensions (Executability, Comprehensibility, and Growth Potential), and surfaces researcher-local directions while reducing redundancy across the community portfolio. On a benchmark we construct from 95 AI researchers across five subfields, DivAlign reduces community-level redundancy while preserving researcher-direction fit. Compared with coarse single-shot ideation, it lowers average pairwise similarity from 0.331 to 0.294 and nearest-neighbor similarity from 0.704 to 0.608. Compared with the independent top-choice variant, DivAlign reduces nearest-neighbor similarity from 0.663 to 0.608 while retaining 99.9% of the researcher-direction fit score. Code and data are available at https://github.com/Ruixxxx/DivAlign.

Quantum error correction (QEC) is indispensable for scalable fault-tolerant quantum computing. However, discovering QEC codes that remain effective is challenging, as logical performance depends on the interplay between code structure, hardware, syndrome extraction, and decoding, which often impose competing requirements. Here we introduce OmniQEC, an efficient AI scientist for discovering QEC codes suited to deployment on modern quantum processors. OmniQEC formulates QEC design as an iterative discovery process in which an orchestrator, implemented by advanced large language models (LLMs), coordinates code generation, code-level screening, syndrome-extraction synthesis, and decoder-based circuit evaluation. At its core, OmniQEC combines a self-evolving reasoning mechanism with a slow--fast synergistic workflow: a fast loop explores candidates using inexpensive code-level proxies, whereas a slow loop performs physically grounded circuit-level evaluation and feeds the resulting evidence back into the search. We evaluate OmniQEC across four qLDPC construction families, three LLM backends, and $14$ total-physical-qubit budgets per backend. The discovered codes show steadily improving logical-error suppression with increasing physical-qubit budgets and outperform the BB codes with $[\![72,12,6]\!]$ and $[\![144,12,12]\!]$ under complete-implementation budgets of 98 and 240 physical qubits, respectively. The discovered codes are hardware-friendly and may be of independent interest for practical QEC implementation. These findings pave the way towards LLM-assisted QEC discovery grounded in physically informed code--circuit--decoder co-design.

Sleep occupies roughly one-third of human life, yet many aspects of its physiology remain poorly understood. Large polysomnography (PSG) datasets offer new opportunities to study sleep and its links to disease, but extracting insight from these recordings requires substantial expert effort and remains difficult for general-purpose AI systems. We developed AI Sleep Co-Scientist, an expert-guided environment in which human scientists direct specialist agents for hypothesis development, signal preprocessing, and statistical analysis, reviewing intermediate outputs. Each reported result is linked to the executable code that produced it. Across four cohorts of approximately 124,000 PSG recordings and more than 50 TB of raw signals, we conducted five case studies spanning how sleep physiology relates to future disease, how it distinguishes clinical phenotypes, and how sleep is organized and regulated. Diminished network-level physiological coupling during sleep was associated with incident Parkinson's disease (HR 1.48) and Alzheimer's disease (HR 1.38). A physiologically structured late-fusion sleep-age model outperformed an unconstrained early-fusion approach, and its age residual was associated with incident disease across multiple organ systems. Arousal dynamics characterized comorbid insomnia and sleep apnoea as an intermediate phenotype skewed towards obstructive sleep apnoea, distinguished by prolonged post-arousal wakefulness. Rapid eye movement (REM) bout duration tracked preceding non-REM sleep more closely than intervening wakefulness. Transient-oscillation analysis identified a fast-sigma deficit and excess centrofrontal theta activity in narcolepsy type 1. Together, these findings connect sleep to disease risk, clinical classification, and its own regulation, and show how agentic AI can support large-scale, multimodal discovery.

Introduction. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs must document their scholars' research impact, but assembling each scholar's record by hand takes staff an estimated 15 hours and does not scale to a full cohort. An artificial intelligence (AI) agent could serve as a tool to gather scholar data across platforms and disciplines. Methods. We built a human-in-the-loop AI agent that assembles a dossier of sourced evidence for each scholar and drafts one-sentence Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) impact summaries for staff review. We evaluated it in the impact-reporting workflow of one CTSA hub across 10 career-development (KL2/K12) scholars. Two evaluation staff independently coded all 507 findings as accept, edit, or reject; the primary measure was the unanimous usable rate, defined as the share both accepted or edited. Results. Both reviewers accepted or edited 81.7% of the agent's findings. Reviewers each spent a median of 14 minutes per scholar, replacing an estimated 15 hours of manual assembly. Inter-rater agreement was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.43 on the usable-versus-reject decision). A profile discovery study found the agent's recall close to human search. The agent's impact evidence spanned all four TSBM domains, and about a third of the reviewed findings fell in non-scholarly categories that routine processes tend to miss. Reviewers rated synthesis accuracy 4.5 and usefulness 4.8 on a 5-point scale. Conclusions. A human-in-the-loop AI agent can serve as the first-pass author of a scholar's impact record, shifting staff from collecting and writing to reviewing, and making cohort-scale impact reporting feasible.

We present an agentic approach to autonomous neural operator discovery based on an AI scientific community, which consists of a swarm of virtual laboratories that interact under a citation-based economy of influence. Highly-cited labs found new labs that follow their research direction and replace non-performing labs. Each virtual lab contains three agents: an LLM planner that proposes an architecture, a numerical worker that trains and measures it, and an LLM reviewer that participates in cross-lab peer review. All labs share a common vocabulary consisting of DeepONet (branch-trunk), Fourier, Transformer (attention), wavelet, and residual convolutional neural operator building blocks. We evaluate the neural operator AI scientific community on five problems, namely piecewise regression, the linear advection and Burgers 1D PDEs, and the Navier-Stokes and Darcy flow 2D PDEs, while repeating the simulation three times for each problem. The results show that the neural operator AI scientific community is capable of discovering high-accuracy, low-parameter-count neural operator architectures. All 9,623 LLM calls are logged and audited, which reveals that the virtual lab LLM planners choose to hybridize in 99.8% of their logged decisions, consistently returning multi-family hybrids. Moreover, we conducted an ablation study by replacing the LLM agents in each lab by rule-based alternatives, which caused the scientific community to collapse to non-hybridized single-family stacks in several cases, showing that LLM agency is needed to preserve diversity. The results suggest a no-free-lunch theorem for neural operators: there is no universal winner. The code, configurations, and the complete LLM transcripts are released at https://github.com/luislootx/AI-SC.

Agentic research systems are emerging as a new paradigm for coordinating scientific workflows beyond isolated model inference, code generation, or statistical analysis. However, deployment in institutional biomedical environments requires governed mechanisms for research planning, data access, workflow orchestration, evidence tracking, reproducibility, and human oversight. We present NVAITC AI Scientist (NAIS), a governed end-to-end agentic research system designed to support domain-general scientific workflows while keeping protected data within institutional privacy boundaries. NAIS integrates proposal review, execution planning, governed computational routing, reproducible workflow orchestration, evidence generation, and scientist-in-the-loop oversight. We validate NAIS in a real-world hypertension genome-wide association study (GWAS) using hospital-linked genotype and electronic health record (EHR) data from 286,422 individuals under an aggregate-only data policy. The agent planned cohort extraction, orchestrated GWAS execution, generated quality-control summaries, and drafted publication-oriented outputs. Human-AI review identified phenotype discrepancies and enabled iterative refinement of the hypertension definition. After reconciliation, the agent-orchestrated GWAS reproduced established hypertension loci, including FGF5, ATP2B1, CNNM2, FTO, and GRB14, with the strongest signal at FGF5 reaching $-\log_{10}(p) \sim 70$. As a secondary demonstration, NAIS also supported a drug-induced liver injury prediction workflow, achieving a multimodal graph neural network AUC of 0.842. These results demonstrate that governed agentic research systems can support scalable AI-assisted biomedical discovery while producing outputs comparable to expert-led workflows.

Existing benchmarks for scientific data analysis evaluate LLMs primarily on code execution or workflow completion, overlooking that scientific analysis serves to support distinct types of scientific claims: hypothesis exploration, statistical inference, mechanistic explanation, each with different assumptions and validity criteria. We introduce SDABench, a benchmark that reorganizes evaluation around six capabilities (descriptive, exploratory, inferential, predictive, causal, and mechanistic) across five domains (Biology, Chemistry, Environment, Geography, Physics). SDABench comprises 527 real-data instances (SDA-Real) and 6000 synthetic instances (SDA-Synth), each in both multiple-choice and open-ended formats, constructed through an automated pipeline. Evaluating 15 representative LLMs, we find that models handle descriptive analysis well but degrade sharply on tasks requiring assumption selection, latent-process modeling, or mechanistic reasoning. SDABench further provides a five-stage error analysis framework that locates where LLMs fail: more advanced models more reliably identify the relevant scope and variables, but still struggle to select appropriate analytical procedures, model variable relationships, and draw valid conclusions.

Scientific fraud is the instrument of doubt that malicious entities can use to establish controversy in science. Historically, it required the resources of a company: deep pockets, ghostwritten articles, and corrupt academics. Today, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly automating scientific research, so we ask: Can a remote adversary weaponize the honest use of AI in science to compromise scientific integrity? We envision and empirically evaluate a new attack, indirect data poisoning, in which an adversary corrupts an open dataset and uploads the poisoned variant to a public repository. Autonomous research agents may independently retrieve and process this data, turning honest scientists into the unpaid and unwitting distributors of fraud at scale. Across five socially-salient topics, from hiring discrimination to the safety of autonomous vehicles, three widely used frontier AI systems (Claude Code with Claude Opus 4.7, Codex with GPT-5.5, Gemini CLI with Gemini 3.1 Pro), and 450 ethically contained experimental runs, we find that poisoning succeeds in 49.56% of runs, while the rate of poisoning detection is only 6.0%. The attack requires no topic-specific trigger-words, agent access, indirect prompt injection, or fabricated papers, only the open data ecosystem and misleading metadata. To mitigate the attacks, we propose and evaluate two measures: a scientist persona and a data provenance audit with five checks (referencing papers, social markers, statistical anomalies, related datasets, poisoning caution). We find that the persona still leaves 16.67% of runs with a poisoned conclusion, but provenance auditing reduces attack success rate to zero. Our results suggest that indirect data poisoning may enable scientific fraud at unprecedented scale, but these attacks can be mitigated with suitable auditing by agents during data retrieval.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly expected to play a central role in AI-driven scientific discovery. Equipped with broad knowledge, flexible reasoning, and tool use, they have the potential to autonomously explore and solve scientific problems by repeatedly proposing hypotheses, testing them, and revising their beliefs in the light of the evidence. In current agents, however, these hypotheses, tests, and belief updates are buried in unstructured logs, and no mechanism lets the agent or the human researcher audit that process. Here we propose the Hypothesis Evolution Protocol (HEP), an agent harness that provides hypothesis generation, evaluation, and evolution as explicit, auditable operations. On materials-science research tasks, a HEP-equipped agent operates the hypothesis--test--evidence--belief cycle that planning-style agents lack, generalizes across research questions, and exploits the protocol more fully as the base LLM becomes more capable. These results mark a step toward auditable AI scientists, whose scientific reasoning can be inspected, verified, and built upon.

Building AI Scientist agents with Large Language Models (LLMs) has recently attracted growing attention. Since scientific discovery fundamentally relies on uncovering causal relationships from observations, the capability of causal thinking, i.e., distinguishing causation from correlation and recognizing hidden biases, is essential to LLM agents. Although a number of benchmarks exist for AI Scientists, none explicitly incorporate challenges from selection bias, measurement error, and hidden confounders that widely exist in real-world scientific discovery. To this end, we present CausalGame, a benchmark that evaluates the causal thinking capabilities of LLM agents through interactive games. CausalGame asks LLM agents to actively design experimental protocols, collect observation data, and derive a final solution with an explanation report. To emulate realistic scientific discovery challenges, we design 14 scenarios that incorporate selection bias, measurement error, and hidden confounders. Across 30 LLM agents, none demonstrates reliable causal thinking: the best model reaches only 68.0% survival against analytical optima of 78-85%, and merely 5-7% of sessions receive credits on the causal-reasoning rubrics. CausalGame provides a scalable and controlled testbed for evaluating the causal thinking of AI Scientist agents.

Ideation plays a pivotal role in scientific discovery. Recent LLM, especially AI Scientist systems, show promising potential for automated ideation. However, existing approaches predominantly rely on pre-defined agentic workflows. This constraint severely limits the flexibility required to navigate the vast search space of scientific literature and the complex action space of research reasoning. Recently, training Agentic LLMs has emerged as a promising direction, offering flexible reasoning frameworks and the capability for autonomous tool utilization. However, there remains a non-trivial challenge: applying previous agentic data synthesis methods to scientific ideation suffers from prohibitively high data synthesis cost. To bridge this gap, we propose Agentic-Ideation, a novel framework comprising an automated trajectory synthesis pipeline and a specialized agentic LLM trained for scientific ideation. Specifically, we first define a comprehensive tool space incorporating three external tools and three cognitive tools. Then we introduce an Oracle-Guided Data Synthesis strategy. By leveraging a reference idea as oracle guidance, this approach steers the multi-agent system to efficiently reconstruct the logical reasoning and tool invocation paths, transforming aimless trial-and-error into directed trajectory generation. Finally, we train the agent on these synthesized trajectories, employing a masking strategy on tool execution results. This ensures the model focuses on decision-making logic without interference from external feedback. Experimental results demonstrate that our method outperforms the SOTA workflow-based baseline by \textbf{11.91%} in overall quality. Furthermore, our approach improves the sample efficiency of high-quality data synthesis by \textbf{over 10$\times$}.

As AI systems become more capable, training procedures that optimize for downstream outcomes risk introducing implicit agency: goal-directed behavior that designers never specified. We present a formal safety argument for the Scientist AI (SAI) Predictor, trained to approximate the Bayesian posterior conditioned on a dataset of "epistemically contextualized" natural-language statements. We argue that such a Predictor can honestly predict agents, actions, and their consequences without itself being an agent that selects outputs to achieve goals. This rests on data representation and on the training procedure. Epistemic contextualization of text distinguishes latent factual claims from communication acts, so expressions of goals are treated as evidence to be explained rather than drives the model adopts. With a posterior-seeking training objective, this is intended to drive the Predictor toward calibrated, cautious predictions. Training proceeds so downstream effects of deploying a prediction never serve as a reward signal; any agency the system needs is supplied by explicit scaffolding constrained by guardrails. We prove that, under assumptions on the training dynamics and on the argued sparsity of dangerous Predictors, the probability that training produces a Predictor whose guarded deployment carries residual harm above a specified threshold is small: a dangerous Predictor would have to underestimate harm in a coordinated way across many queries while such coordinated patterns are rare under the initialization distribution and receive no direct training signal. Safety and accuracy are jointly supported in this framework, since the constraints that secure accuracy are the same ones that make coordinated deception costly. These guarantees against misalignment and agency arising from within the Predictor itself do not preclude the use of the Predictor as part of an agentic system.

Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving. However, this rapid acceleration is creating a systemic challenge: traditional human peer review cannot scale to match the influx of AI-assisted science. Ultimately, to resolve this tension, we must also deploy AI to accelerate the verification and review process itself. To frame the discussion around this transition, we propose a taxonomy consisting of four progressive levels of AI-human collaboration in scientific evaluation, and discuss various trade-offs involved with each. As a step toward this future, we introduce the Paper Assistant Tool (PAT), an agentic AI framework built for deep scientific review and verification. PAT ingests full scientific manuscripts and produces a comprehensive evaluation, checking theoretical results, validating experiments, suggesting improvements, and identifying potential flaws. By utilizing inference scaling techniques, PAT is able to identify deeper issues than a single model call alone, achieving a 34% improvement over zero-shot recall on mathematical errors in the SPOT benchmark. Pilot deployments of PAT as a pre-submission tool for authors at two major Computer Science conferences -- STOC and ICML -- demonstrate its ability to identify critical errors and suggest substantive improvements to research papers. By catching errors early, PAT eases the cognitive burden placed on referees, while preserving their control over the outcomes of the review process.

We introduce Autodata, a general method that enables AI agents to act as data scientists who build high quality training and evaluation data. We show how to train (meta-optimize) such a data scientist agent, so that it learns to create even stronger data. We describe the overall formulation, and a specific practical implementation, Agentic Self-Instruct. We conduct experiments on computer science research tasks, legal reasoning tasks and reasoning with mathematical objects, where we obtain improved results compared to classical synthetic dataset creation methods. Further, meta-optimizing the data scientist agent itself delivers an even larger performance uplift. Agentic data creation provides a way to convert increased inference compute into higher quality model training. Overall, we believe this direction has the potential to change the way we build AI data.

AI scientist systems are described as tools, coauthors, or founders, but we evaluate them as if only the final answer matters. This position paper argues that outcome-only evaluation is insufficient, and that task outcome, mechanism fidelity, and epistemic honesty must be measured separately. Our evidence comes from 28 episodes of a coding agent attempting to rediscover a known particle identification observable in a Geant4 simulation, including an 8-episode probe across two additional frontier models. In 4/20 primary-model and 3/8 cross-model episodes, agents reach right-looking results through incorrect reasoning that breaks when conditions change, which we call Correct Answer, Wrong Mechanism (CAWM). Honesty and mechanism fidelity dissociate within a single agent trajectory. When given a partially misleading prior, all five agents reject the false component on evidence, yet one defends its chosen observable with physics inconsistent with its own data. In the simulation-based discovery setting studied here, coding agents prove reliable tools but unreliable scientific co-authors for open-ended claim-making, where co-author trust requires mechanism-fidelity verification they do not reliably self-apply. The failure is detectable, and we propose a lightweight test. A one-step regime-shift check needs only the agent's claim and flags the over-generalized cases. A companion recomputation flags the remaining cases when the correct observable is known. Together, these checks flag every CAWM case in this study.

We introduce Human-AI Co-discovery system (HACO) for scientific algorithm discovery through cross-domain search and sparse human steering. Starting from the goal of generating crystal structures from chemical compositions, HACO searched across generative modeling methodologies from multiple fields and identified MaskGIT, a masked generative model from vision, as a promising framework for crystal structure prediction (CSP). HACO instantiated this masked formulation as a discrete token model of crystal structure; guided by sparse high-level human objectives, it then added crystallographic symmetry tokens, space group stratified sampling for polymorph coverage, and sub-bin coordinate refinement, yielding the Masked Generative Crystal Transformer (MaskGXT). On the MP-20 polymorph split, MaskGXT reaches 79.06% match-everyone-to-reference (METRe) accuracy, compared with 70.87% for the strongest evaluated baseline. MaskGXT also attains the best match rate on standard MP-20 and MPTS-52 CSP benchmarks. These results provide evidence that, in domains offering cheap, fast, and well-aligned validation, transfer-guided interactive AI co-scientists can contribute to scientific algorithm discovery by identifying transferable modeling principles and combining them with targeted human domain guidance.

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are beginning to assist, accelerate, and partially automate scientific discovery, performing tasks that span literature synthesis, code generation, data analysis, hypothesis proposal, and model criticism. We argue that this transition is qualitative rather than incremental, and that suitably designed multi-agent systems may evolve from passive computational tools into ``AI scientists'' that can expand the hypothesis-generating and verification capacity of science. Such systems must be developed and deployed within a scientific ecosystem fit for purpose: institutions must be redesigned for verification, accountability, interpretability, and dual-use safety. We sketch how multi-agent architectures, illustrated by the prototype framework \textit{Denario}, accelerate the discovery cycle and traverse model spaces beyond human reach; examine what this implies for authorship, peer review, and the enduring role of human scientists; and close with recommendations for governing AI as an epistemic actor rather than a mere instrument.

AI systems can increasingly automate scientific workflows, but the reasoning that links prior evidence, generated ideas, experiments and final claims often remains implicit inside model inference. Here we introduce Xcientist, a research harness that externalizes research synthesis and experimental validation into inspectable, contract-governed processes. Xcientist organizes literature evidence, idea states, implementation plans, ablation records and repair traces as persistent research artifacts, so that generated mechanisms can be grounded, executed, tested and revised without losing their evidential basis. We identify claim drift as a failure mode of automated research, where runnable artifacts no longer support the mechanism originally claimed. Across training-free memory systems, graph-structured traffic forecasting and multi-scale physics-informed neural networks, Xcientist preserves traceable trajectories from problem formulation to mechanism design, validation and bounded revision. These results suggest that AI scientists should be evaluated not only by their final artifacts, but by whether their synthesis and validation processes remain attributable, inspectable and scientifically accountable.

The advancement of AI capabilities compels researchers and the public to be more aware of its potential worldwide impact. A pressing near-term concern is the regulation of military AI applications. Armament manufacturers and defense contractors are increasingly investing in AI capabilities and forging partnerships with AI companies, creating a burgeoning coalition that demands military leaders, arms control diplomacy experts, and AI researchers collaborate to ensure a safer future. While AI researchers often focus on the long-term implications of superintelligent AI, this approach may not adequately address the immediate challenges posed by AI in military applications. Success requires acknowledging and mitigating the emerging risks of frontier AI models that plan to be integrated into defense applications, like military AI systems. Arms control has reduced past catastrophic risks, so lessons learned from nuclear deterrence can guide AI safety and security research towards innovations in verification and diplomacy. AI researchers, however, must assist in leading the technical research that clearly defines and alleviates instability in military settings. Given these new responsibilities and the lack of sufficiently reliable solutions, we argue that AI researchers must take a leading role in advancing arms control research to minimize risk in military AI applications.

AI Scientist agents are often evaluated as if capability were mainly a function of model quality, prompting, or reasoning scaffolds. We test a different hypothesis in drug-asset valuation: for knowledge-intensive scientific decisions, the limiting factor is often the evidence substrate the agent can access. We run a controlled three-arm ablation on a production valuation agent: A is a plain web-only LLM analyst, B adds public structured tools plus a 14-dimension valuation playbook, verifier, objectivity policy and red-team, and C adds the proprietary Noah AI corpus of curated pipeline, trial and deal intelligence. Across a 13-asset stratified benchmark, B improves calibration and audit discipline: tier-in-range accuracy rises from 0.80 to 0.89 and objectivity from 3.16 to 3.30. But B does not remove the factual ceiling. Under capability-superset accounting, A and B recover only 0.25 and 0.38 of the curated gold competitive record, while C recovers 0.96; on the curated long-tail subset, C reaches 0.93 vs. 0.26/0.30. Raw blind-panel decision quality is similar for A and B (7.01 vs. 6.96), so we introduce completeness-aware decision utility: informed decision-quality = decision-quality x gold-coverage. On this metric, C reaches 7.43 vs. 1.76/2.57 for A/B. Even a perfect non-proprietary-data report would be capped at 3.83 by B's coverage. The result is not that reasoning scaffolds are unimportant; they improve calibration and discipline. Rather, proprietary evidence sets the upper bound of what the AI Scientist can know and therefore decide.

As autonomous research agents and AI co-scientist systems push large language models (LLMs) from drafting toward end-to-end manuscript production, the bottleneck shifts from generation to verification. Fluent LLM output can hide fabricated citations, numbers that drift from source tables, and unmet reporting-guideline items; existing tools generate without verifying, and self-critique inherits the blind spots that produce confident fabrication. We describe an architecture pairing generation with verification, resting on three principles: decompose the workflow into self-contained skills, gate every stage transition with halt-on-failure, and resolve each integrity question with the cheapest sufficient mechanism, a deterministic, re-executable check where one suffices and a prose-level probe only where interpretation is unavoidable. This determinism-where-possible split, organized as an integrity-gate taxonomy, is the core contribution. It is realized as MedSci Skills, an open-source toolkit of 43 skills with a 21-detector deterministic tier, evaluated on three public-dataset pipelines (STARD, PRISMA, STROBE) and a seeded-defect ablation. Across the three pipelines every content-hash manifest verified clean and the gates surfaced real defects; on 27 identical injected defects the deterministic gates detected all 27 with no false positives on the matched clean fixtures, whereas a single-prompt LLM reviewer detected 11, its misses in code, bibliography, and style defects the prose hides. Determinism-where-possible verification yields an auditable, re-executable trail that exposes the evidence a human needs to check an LLM-assisted manuscript: feasibility and reproducibility evidence, not a claim of human-competitive quality, which a separate blinded study addresses. MedSci Skills is MIT-licensed and archived (v3.8.0).

The increasing situational awareness of language models raises safety concerns: models might be aware when they are evaluated, and adjust their behavior to evade monitoring and resist modification, e.g., pretending to be aligned only in evaluation. This alignment faking behavior is often interpreted as scheming: an intentional effort of strategic deception. In this paper, we examine an alternative interpretation, performative misalignment, which explains the change in behavior as a result of sycophancy towards AI researchers. To examine this hypothesis, we present three empirical findings. First, we show that evaluation awareness persists even when we tell models they are deployed, which contradicts the scheming story which predicts less misalignment when the model perceives evaluation. Second, we use probing and steering to show that our current methods cannot mechanistically distinguish sycophancy and scheming in alignment faking evaluations. Third, we fine-tune models to be more sycophantic and observe increased sensitivity to evaluation cues. To conclude, we emphasize deconfounding sycophancy from scheming for future work on evaluations and mitigations of intent misalignment.

As foundation models advance and agent scaffolding becomes increasingly sophisticated, agents have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in complex, long-horizon coding tasks and even autonomous experiment execution. Despite their evolution from research assistants into autonomous research agents, these systems still exhibit significant limitations in field sensitivity, research ethics, and nuanced scientific judgment. Consequently, frontier agents remain unable to fully replace human researchers. To bridge this gap, we conceptualize the AARR (Act As a Real Researcher) benchmark series. Unlike existing benchmarks that primarily assess macro-level execution capabilities, AARR focuses on whether agents can emulate the professionalism, thoroughness, and nuanced reasoning that characterize human researchers in granular research scenarios. In this work, we propose AARRI-Bench (Act As a Real Research Intern), the first benchmark in this series. We conduct extensive experiments across frontier models and agentic systems, revealing that even the best-performing configuration (Mini-SWE-Agent with Claude Opus 4.7) achieves only 68.3% success rate, frequently overlooking subtle yet critical details that are obvious to real human researchers. Our results indicate that developing researcher-like AI requires further exploration of research behavior, rather than merely complex scaffolding. Our data is released at https://github.com/AARR-bench/AARRI-bench.

As atmospheric environmental prediction continues to improve, interpretable validation of pollution mechanisms and feedback processes has become a main challenge in atmospheric chemistry. Yet mechanism validation based on complex numerical models still relies heavily on expert knowledge: mechanistic hypotheses must be operationalized into executable experiments, and model outputs must be organized into traceable evidence. We present TianJi-Environ, an auditable AI Scientist for atmospheric-chemistry mechanism validation. TianJi-Environ establishes the first WRF-Chem-based multi-agent framework that autonomously drives complex atmospheric-chemistry simulations, converting mechanistic hypotheses into executable configurations, testing experiments, and evidence criteria. Using ozone response and particulate-matter feedback as two representative examples, we demonstrate TianJi-Environ's capability for mechanism validation. In a summertime ozone case over the North China Plain, the system detects directionally consistent aerosol-radiation-interaction signals in shortwave radiation and boundary-layer height, but judges the evidence for ozone response to NOx control to be incomplete. In a wintertime PM2.5 case over the Guanzhong Basin, it localizes the unsupported link to insufficient propagation from black-carbon perturbation to particulate response and missing diagnostics of vertical absorptive heating. These results show that TianJi-Environ makes expert-driven mechanism validation explicit, structured, and auditable, offering a reproducible paradigm for multi-agent systems coupled with complex atmospheric-chemistry models.

These names do not exist. Elena Vasquez and Marcus Chen have appeared as volcano experts, astronauts, thriller protagonists, podcast hosts, and academic co-authors across hundreds of independently produced AI-generated documents, never having lived. We show that large language models do not merely default to high-probability individual names when generating fictional experts: they produce correlated character ensembles, pairs and trios whose co-occurrence rates far exceed chance and are consistent across independent generations. These priors are model-family-specific (Claude: Elena Vasquez + Marcus Chen + Amara Okafor; Gemini: Aris Thorne + Lena Petrova; GPT: Elara Voss with no fixed partner), version-specific, and actively suppressed at model release boundaries, leaving dateable behavioral fingerprints in the content they produced. We document a downstream consequence at scale. On Zenodo, a CERN-operated repository that mints real DataCite DOIs, we identify 1,655 ghost-authored records claiming nonexistent journals with fabricated publication dates: server-side DataCite timestamps prove deliberate backdating, and 991 records were registered in a single month; these carry real DOIs registered in DataCite, making them harvestable by any scholarly aggregator that ingests DOI metadata. Ghost names additionally appear on ResearchGate forming synthetic research groups with collaborators drawn from multiple model families; publication dates on these records provide a reliable temporal proxy for model deployment windows.

Are AI agents tools, co-authors, or researchers? We present a quantified case study ($N=1$): a physicist supervising an AI coding agent (Claude Code, Sonnet and Opus models) over 12 work days and 57 sessions to build CLAX-PT, a differentiable one-loop perturbation theory module in JAX. We documented and classified 15 supervision events by intervention level. The agent resolved ten autonomously by iterating against oracle tests. Two more by the physicist's domain knowledge. The three it could not -- all evaded oracle detection -- share a common property: the agent treated symptom reduction as root-cause resolution. It spent 33 of the 57 sessions adjusting coefficients within a code architecture that could not represent the target physics, and could not re-evaluate its CLASS-PT branch choice even when prompted to reconsider; only an injected physics concept (anisotropic BAO damping) triggered the redesign. Separately, the agent committed a calibrated correction that passed all oracle tests but corresponded to no quantity in the theory, predicting wrong values at any other cosmology. The fudge factor was caught and replaced within the same session. Three supervision practices proved critical for catching what oracle tests missed: testing at diverse parameter points beyond the fiducial calibration; shared changelogs that surfaced stalled exploration across sessions; and an explicit rule against unphysical numerical patches. In this case, supervision design, not model capability, determined whether the agent's output was trustworthy. Closing the gap would require agents that propose architectural alternatives rather than optimize within a given structure, and distinguish predictive adequacy from explanatory correctness -- capabilities not exhibited here, not obviously addressed by scaling alone. [Abridged.]

Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

As scientific literature grows rapidly, automated survey generation has become a key capability for AI scientists and human researchers. However, existing systems suffer from limited analytical depth due to reliance on abstracts and isolated paper processing, and unreliable citations from imprecise retrieval and post-hoc grounding, producing superficial surveys and may mislead researchers. We present DeepSurvey, an agentic system that addresses both. To enhance depth, DeepSurvey extracts structured keynotes from full-text papers, models cross-paper relationships through clustering and comparative analysis, and integrates code-repository analysis to recover implementation-level details. To fortify reliability, it combines citation-graph expansion with hybrid filtering for topic-focussed retrieval, enforces evidence-constrained citation assignment, and deploys multi-granularity agentic refinement to validate citation-claim alignment. Experiments show that DeepSurvey achieves the highest content score (8.644/10) and citation quality (12.3% and 9.3% recall and precision gains over the strongest baseline), generalizes more robustly across domains (0.14 vs 0.22 to 0.69 CS-to-non-CS drop), and is preferred over human-written surveys by domain experts (83.3% overall quality, 100% content depth).

When workers lose jobs to AI-driven restructuring, two very different conversations happen on X (formerly Twitter) at the same time. Tech executives and AI researchers talk about productivity, transformation, and opportunity. Laid-off workers and labour critics talk about job loss, uncertainty, and fear. This paper asks a simple question: which conversation gets more reach? We report three studies using two collection methods and 763 tweets from 20 named public accounts. Study 1 used keyword-based collection (n=392) and found no significant difference between corpora (p=0.891), revealing that keyword search is too noisy for this task. Study 2 used account-based collection (n=96) and found a 3.12x mean amplification advantage for capital discourse over labour discourse (p=0.000003, Cohen's d=0.555). Study 3 combined both methods (n=763) and confirmed the finding at 4.18x mean and 10.77x median amplification ratio (p<0.000001). Critically, after normalising for follower count, the asymmetry persists at 2.69x (p=0.000009, Cohen's d=0.491), demonstrating that the effect is not simply a consequence of capital accounts having larger audiences. The finding is robust across all tested amplification metric weightings. We introduce the Amplification Ratio and Amplification Normalisation Index as simple metrics for measuring platform-level discourse inequality. A cross-platform replication on Reddit (n=647 posts) did not replicate the finding, suggesting the asymmetry may be specific to X's account-based amplification architecture. We discuss the methodological implications for cross-platform discourse analysis.

We report a comparison of two state-of-the-art agentic AI systems, Claude Code (Anthropic) and Codex (OpenAI), tasked with autonomously executing a simple end-to-end gravitational wave data analysis pipeline on a shared computing infrastructure without human intervention. The pipeline comprises power spectral density estimation from raw Einstein Telescope simulated noise, geometric template bank generation, matched filter recovery of 100 binary black hole signal injections, automated results generation, and large language model-assisted production of a manuscript formatted in the style of Physical Review D. Both agents received identical written specifications and identical compute resources. The experiment was run twice: a first run with unrealistically loud injections, and a second run with signals rescaled to a physically motivated SNR range. The scientific results converged in both runs. However, the agents exhibited substantially different behaviors and computational costs: Claude Code completed the pipeline in ~3.4 minutes with silent deviations from the specification, while Codex required ~16 minutes across explicit self-correcting restarts, including an unsolicited performance optimization of the matched filter inner loop. The autonomously generated manuscripts also diverged in length, details, and quality. In the second run, a subtle difference in the interpretation of the SNR range instruction led to a genuine scientific divergence: Claude Code silently reinterpreted the instructions, while Codex followed the specification literally. We discuss the implications of these behavioral differences, such as speed versus auditability, silent versus transparent error handling, instruction interpretation, and the criticality of intermediate data representations in multi-model pipelines, for the deployment of agentic AI in scientific computing workflows.

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.

We present CARTOGRAPH, a verification layer for AI scientists that couples unresolved-subspace experiment steering (select), explicit ambiguity closure (resolve), and residual-based library inadequacy detection (refuse). Under a local linear-Gaussian bridge, raw unresolved projection is the isotropic unresolved Fisher-information trace, while CARTOGRAPH-A is the exact unresolved A-optimal rule; closed-form EIG and Box-Hill arise as local comparators rather than global equivalents. Across five testbeds, CARTOGRAPH-A beats raw projection 129W/0T/15L at d = 8 (p < 10^-21) in a replicated structured cascade. More distinctively, the framework tentatively identifies three out-of-library pharmacokinetic mechanisms and then revokes those identifications as residuals expose structural misfit, while one perturbed in-library control stays identified throughout. In low-dimensional pharmacokinetic and filtered EPA settings, near-ties against disagreement are predicted by theory and observed. Finally, in a retrospective audit of 40 positive claims from the published A-Lab autonomous materials system, the refuse guard flags all 4 claims later marked inconclusive under manual reanalysis while passing 32/36 confirmed claims. Code is available at https://github.com/ai4science-boed/cartograph.git

AI Scientists have shown promising progress across multiple stages of the research pipeline, among which automatic scientific paper writing remains a formidable challenge. The Introduction writing is especially challenging, which demands not only linguistic fluency, but logical soundness and verifiable faithfulness. Most AI-assisted methods treat the task as text generation instead of reasoning and structuring, leading to severe drawbacks, e.g., hallucinating citations. To address this, we first formulate the Content-Conditional Introduction Generation (CCIG) task, which requires grounding the Introduction in the paper's core evidence. We then propose LECTOR, a novel Logic-Expression Co-Reinforcement Learning framework that can strictly follow the scientist's logic, add high-quality citations and keep structured expressions. LECTOR first constructs a logic-reasoning graph from the paper's main body to serve as a verifiable logical blueprint. Subsequently, it employs a Logic-Expression Co-Rewarding mechanism to jointly optimize for both the graph's structural fidelity and the final narrative's quality. We conduct a dataset from Nature Communications papers to assess our method. Extensive experiments show consistent improvements in both logic fidelity and Introduction generation quality metrics, e.g., Graph Quality (+26.7%), Citation Quality (+8.6%), and Paper Consistency (+3.3%). Code and data are available at https://github.com/Xiao-Youth/LECTOR.

The ability to inspect, interpret, and communicate complex data is crucial for virtually any scientific endeavor, but often requires significant expertise outside the core domain ranging from data management and analysis to visualization design and implementation. We present an end-to-end agentic harness that, based on only the data and a high level description of the tasks, independently designs custom visual analysis applications (VIS apps). This represents an important step towards a general AI co-scientist envisioned by many as an autonomous system that can autonomously execute long horizon tasks based on high-level directions. Our proposed VIS co-scientist is an essential component of this broader AI co-scientist vision: a harness that can autonomously analyze data and design visualization solutions using a collection of agents and specialized skills that coordinate exploratory analysis, plan, configure the environment, implement, validate the interface, and most importantly evaluate the overall task completion. Each stage produces document and instruction artifacts that guide downstream work and enable iterative refinement. We validate this approach on IEEE SciVis Contests spanning multiple science and engineering fields. These contests serve as ideal proving grounds because they encode real-world complexity: ambiguous requirements, diverse data modalities, design trade-offs, and task-driven validation. Given only the data and target tasks, our system autonomously produces functional single-page VIS Apps with verified linked-view behavior, highly customized to domain experts' specified tasks and needs.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) have accelerated the growth of both human-authored and AI-generated research outputs, placing increasing strain on traditional academic publishing systems and challenging the scalability of conference- and journal-centered paradigms amid rising submission volumes, reviewer workload, and venue size. To address these challenges, we explore an AI-era publishing paradigm in which both human and AI scientists participate as authors and readers, and papers evolve through continuous, feedback-driven iteration. We propose AiraXiv, an AI-driven open-access platform built on open preprints, AI-augmented analysis and review, and reader feedback. AiraXiv supports human scientists through an interactive UI and AI scientists through Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based interactions. We validate AiraXiv through real-world deployments, including serving as the submission platform for ICAIS 2025, demonstrating its potential as a fast, inclusive, and scalable research infrastructure for the AI era. AiraXiv is publicly available at https://airaxiv.com.

With the advancement of AI capabilities, AI reviewers are beginning to be deployed in scientific peer review, yet their capability and credibility remain in question: many scientists simply view them as probabilistic systems without the expertise to evaluate research, while other researchers are more optimistic about their readiness without concrete evidence. Understanding what AI reviewers do well, where they fall short, and what challenges remain is essential. However, existing evaluations of AI reviewers have focused on whether their verdicts match human verdicts (e.g., score alignment, acceptance prediction), which is insufficient to characterize their capabilities and limits. In this paper, we close this gap through a large-scale expert annotation study, in which 45 domain scientists in Physical, Biological, and Health Sciences spent 469 hours rating 2,960 individual criticisms (each targeting one specific aspect of a paper) from human-written and AI-generated reviews of 82 Nature-family papers on correctness, significance, and sufficiency of evidence. On a composite of all three dimensions, a reviewing agent powered by GPT-5.2 scores above each paper's top-rated human reviewer (60.0% vs. 48.2%, p = 0.009), while all three AI reviewers (including Gemini 3.0 Pro and Claude Opus 4.5) exceed the lowest-rated human across every dimension. AI reviewers' accurate criticisms are also more often rated significant and well-evidenced, and surface a distinct 26% of issues no human raises. However, AI reviewers overlap far more than humans do (21% vs. 3% for cross-reviewer pairs), and exhibit 16 recurring weaknesses humans do not share, such as limited subfield knowledge, lack of long context management over multiple files, and overly critical stance on minor issues. Overall, our results position current AI reviewers as complements to, not substitutes for, human reviewers.

Automating scientific discovery requires more than generating papers from ideas. Real research is iterative: hypotheses are challenged from multiple perspectives, experiments fail and inform the next attempt, and lessons accumulate across cycles. Existing autonomous research systems often model this process as a linear pipeline: they rely on single-agent reasoning, stop when execution fails, and do not carry experience across runs. We present AutoResearchClaw, a multi-agent autonomous research pipeline built on five mechanisms: structured multi-agent debate for hypothesis generation and result analysis, a self-healing executor with a \textsc{Pivot}/\textsc{Refine} decision loop that transforms failures into information, verifiable result reporting that prevents fabricated numbers and hallucinated citations, human-in-the-loop collaboration with seven intervention modes spanning full autonomy to step-by-step oversight, and cross-run evolution that converts past mistakes into future safeguards. On ARC-Bench, a 25-topic experiment-stage benchmark, AutoResearchClaw outperforms AI Scientist v2 by 54.7%. A human-in-the-loop ablation across seven intervention modes reveals that precise, targeted collaboration at high-leverage decision points consistently outperforms both full autonomy and exhaustive step-by-step oversight. We position AutoResearchClaw as a research amplifier that augments rather than replaces human scientific judgment. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/AutoResearchClaw.

Computational materials science and chemistry span vast knowledge domains and fractured software ecosystems. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated research capabilities, scaling monolithic agents to manage the rigor and complexity of atomistic research remains a challenge. Here, we introduce AtomisticSkills, an open-source harness framework that empowers general-purpose AI coding agents to conduct atomistic research across materials science, chemistry, and drug discovery. By hierarchically decomposing scientific workflows into agent skills and tools, AtomisticSkills provides agents with modular, extensible, and plug-and-play research capabilities. The framework integrates more than 100 human-curated multidisciplinary skills, including database access, thermodynamics and kinetics modeling, and diverse simulation engines employing machine learning interatomic potentials (MLIPs) and density functional theory (DFT). We validate its functional coverage against scientific literature and demonstrate robust orchestration capabilities across diverse scientific campaigns: generative design of Li-ion solid-state electrolytes, high-throughput screening of metal-organic frameworks for CO2 capture, autonomous MLIP benchmarking and fine-tuning, multi-stage structure-based virtual screening for drug design, multimodal X-ray diffraction pattern analysis, and screening of Fe-oxide catalysts for oxygen evolution reaction. AtomisticSkills provides a critical agent infrastructure towards building fully autonomous AI scientists.

While modern Large Language Models (LLMs) and agentic artificial intelligence (AI) have demonstrated transformative capabilities in digital domains, the realization of embodied AI capable of real-world scientific discovery remains a difficult frontier. The advancements are hindered by the inherent complexity of integrating high-level reasoning, multimodal information processing and real-time physical execution. Here we introduce Qumus, the first AI quantum materials experimentalist. Physically embodied within a robotic mini-laboratory, Qumus is an intelligent, multimodal, and multi-agent system designed for the creation and nano-processing of atomically thin two-dimensional (2D) materials and stacked van der Waals (vdW) structures. Qumus autonomously navigates the full scientific cycle, from hypothesis generation and protocol planning to multi-step experimental execution, result analysis and reporting, acting as an experimentalist. Markedly, the system has achieved, for the first time, the AI-creation of graphene, as well as the first AI-fabrication of complex nanodevices including atomically thin field-effect transistors via vdW stacking. Qumus excels at these tasks by demonstrating autonomous error correction and closed-loop experimentation. Our results establish a generalizable framework for self-improving embodied AI systems that learn directly from the quantum world, opening a pathway toward accelerated discovery in quantum materials, electronics and beyond.

Autonomous research systems capable of generating complete scientific manuscripts have advanced rapidly, yet robust and realistic evaluation frameworks have failed to keep pace. To bridge this gap, we introduce MLReplicate, an end-to-end benchmark evaluating autonomous research systems on machine learning reproducibility. The benchmark was constructed from ICML 2025 outstanding papers reformulated into standardized input specifications and evaluated across 6 state-of-the-art research systems: AI SCIENTIST-V1, AI SCIENTIST-V2, AGENT LABORATORY, CYCLERESEARCHER, AI RESEARCHER, and TINY SCIENTIST, yielding 45 generated manuscripts, with 3 failed experiments. Outputs are assessed using a dual-protocol approach that combines automated conference-style review and structured expert human evaluation, while tracking computational cost, runtime, and the amount of required human intervention. The automated conference-style review accepted 10 out of 37 valid submissions. An additional 8 submissions were desk-rejected before review for failing to meet the minimum page threshold. In contrast to automated reviews, human reviewers consistently identified methodological flaws, hallucinated experimental results, and reproducibility failures across all systems, and 59% of accepted automated reviews contained fabricated or unsupported claims. We further find that neither token budget nor computational cost predicts output quality: the cheapest system outperforms the most resource-intensive system in human evaluation, despite a 38-fold difference in input tokens. We thus demonstrate that autonomous research workflow design matters more than the scale of compute. MLReplicate exposes a substantial gap between current autonomous research systems and genuine scientific rigor, and establishes a practical, extensible evaluation framework for systematic progress toward trustworthy AI-driven scientific discovery.

Neuroscience data are highly fragmented across labs, formats, and experimental paradigms, and reuse often requires substantial manual effort. A persistent roadblock to data reuse and integration is the need to decipher bespoke and diverse data formatting choices. Common data formats have been proposed in response, but the field continues to struggle with a fundamental tension: formats flexible enough to accommodate diverse experiments are rarely descriptive enough to be self-explanatory, and sufficiently descriptive formats demand detailed documentation and curation effort that few labs can sustain. Agentic AI is a natural candidate to solve this problem: LLMs read code and text faster and with sustained attention to the low-level details humans tend to skim over. To measure how well agentic AI performs on this task, we selected eight recent papers studying large-scale mouse neural population recordings that shared both data and code, spanning diverse recording modalities, behavioral paradigms, and dataset formats (e.g., NWB, specialized APIs, and general-purpose Python or MATLAB files). We provided agents with the data, code, and paper, and prompted them to load, understand, and reformat the data for a common downstream task: training a decoder from neural activity to task or behavioral variables. General-purpose coding agents commonly used by scientists performed well on each sub-task, but rarely strung together a fully error-free end-to-end solution. We characterize the types of mistakes agents made and the dataset properties that elicited them, and propose data-sharing best practices for the agentic-AI era. We further find that agents-as-judges are unreliable at catching errors, especially without ground-truth references, so interactive, human-in-the-loop coding remains necessary.

AI scientist systems are increasingly deployed for autonomous research, yet their academic integrity has never been systematically evaluated. We introduce SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH, the first benchmark designed around a dilemmatic evaluation paradigm: each of its 33 scenarios across 11 trap categories is constructed so that honest acknowledgment of failure is the only correct response, while task completion requires misconduct. Across 231 evaluation runs spanning 7 state-of-the-art LLMs, the overall integrity problem rate reaches 34.2%, and no model achieves zero failures. Most strikingly, across missing-data scenarios, all seven models generate synthetic data rather than acknowledging infeasibility, differing only in whether they disclose the substitution. A further prompt ablation study separates two drivers: removing explicit completion pressure sharply reduces undisclosed fabrication from 20.6% to 3.2%, while the underlying synthesis rate remains unchanged, revealing an intrinsic completion bias that persists independent of prompt-level instructions. These findings point to the absence of honest refusal as a trained disposition as the primary driver of observed failures. We release SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH at https://github.com/liuxingtong/Sci-Integrity-Bench.

A growing body of work pursues AI scientists capable of end-to-end autonomous scientific discovery. This position paper argues that although they already function as co-scientists, agentic AI scientists are not built for autonomous scientific discovery. We identify the following challenges in building and deploying autonomous AI scientists: (1) Problem selection is influenced by the McNamara fallacy; (2) Agents are built on large language models (LLMs) whose training corpora omit tacit procedural and failure knowledge of laboratory practice; (3) Preference optimisation during post-training compresses output diversity toward consensus; and (4) Most scientific benchmarks measure single-turn prediction accuracy and lack feedback from physical experiments back to the computational model. These challenges are not just questions of scale and scaffolding; they require revisiting fundamental design choices. To build truly autonomous AI scientists, we recommend the use of scientific simulations as verifiers for training, the design of persistent world models that represent the shifting objectives governing real investigations, the establishment of a centralized preregistration repository for all AI-generated hypotheses, and application driven by scientific need rather than tool affordance.

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.

This paper analyzes the strategic education process aimed at transitioning traditional software development squads into hybrid structures centered on collaborative work between humans and Artificial Intelligence (AI). In a context where human-AI collaboration can significantly increase productivity, this study explores how the upskilling of XPTO professionals, referred to as AI Advocates, acts as a catalyst for cultural and technical transformation. The objective is to present an experience report on the education and enablement process of AI Advocates within a private Brazilian technology company, highlighting key lessons learned and identified challenges.

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.