Artificial Intelligence Scientists

Deriving governing equations from empirical observations is a longstanding challenge in science. Although artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated substantial capabilities in function approximation, the discovery of explainable and extrapolatable equations remains a fundamental limitation of modern AI, posing a central bottleneck for AI-driven scientific discovery. Here, we present machine collective intelligence, a unified paradigm that integrates two fundamental yet distinct traditions in computational intelligence--symbolism and metaheuristics--to enable autonomous and evolutionary discovery of governing equations. It orchestrates multiple reasoning agents to evolve their symbolic hypotheses through coordinated generation, evaluation, critique, and consolidation, enabling scientific discovery beyond single-agent inference. Across scientific systems governed by deterministic, stochastic, or previously uncharacterized dynamics, machine collective intelligence autonomously recovered the underlying governing equations without relying on hand-crafted domain knowledge. Furthermore, the resulting equations reduced extrapolation error by up to six orders of magnitude relative to deep neural networks, while condensing 0.5-1 million model parameters into just 5-40 interpretable parameters. This study marks an important shift in AI toward the autonomous discovery of principled scientific equations.

We introduce HalluCiteChecker, a toolkit for detecting and verifying hallucinated citations in scientific papers. While AI assistant technologies have transformed the academic writing process, including citation recommendation, they have also led to the emergence of hallucinated citations that do not correspond to any existing work. Such citations not only undermine the credibility of scientific papers but also impose an additional burden on reviewers and authors, who must manually verify their validity during the review process. In this study, we formalize hallucinated citation detection as an NLP task and provide a corresponding toolkit as a practical foundation for addressing this problem. Our package is lightweight and can perform verification in seconds on a standard laptop. It can also be executed entirely offline and runs efficiently using only CPUs. We hope that HalluCiteChecker will help reduce reviewer workload and support organizers by enabling systematic pre-review and publication checks. Our code is released under the Apache 2.0 license on GitHub and is distributed as an installable package via PyPI. A demonstration video is available on YouTube.

Discovering causal regularities and applying them to build functional systems--the discovery-to-application loop--is a hallmark of general intelligence, yet evaluating this capacity has been hindered by the vast complexity gap between scientific discovery and real-world engineering. We introduce SciCrafter, a Minecraft-based benchmark that operationalizes this loop through parameterized redstone circuit tasks. Agents must ignite lamps in specified patterns (e.g., simultaneously or in timed sequences); scaling target parameters substantially increases construction complexity and required knowledge, forcing genuine discovery rather than reliance on memorized solutions. Evaluating frontier models including GPT-5.2, Gemini-3-Pro, and Claude-Opus-4.5 under a general-purpose code agent scaffold, we find that all plateau at approximately 26% success rate. To diagnose these failures, we decompose the loop into four capacities--knowledge gap identification, experimental discovery, knowledge consolidation, and knowledge application--and design targeted interventions whose marginal contributions serve as proxies for corresponding gaps. Our analysis reveals that although the general knowledge application capability still remains as the biggest gap across all models, for frontier models the knowledge gap identification starts to become a major hurdle--indicating the bottleneck is shifting from solving problems right to raising the right problems for current AI. We release SciCrafter as a diagnostic probe for future research on AI systems that navigate the full discovery-to-application loop.

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used in modern weapons systems. Notably, these systems have recently been involved in mass killings and destruction at scale. Furthermore, there is currently a strong interest and competition among powerful players to accelerate the proliferation of weapons with automated or AI-based components, a phenomenon known as AI arms race. This competition poses a risk of causing even more deaths and devastation in the future, as well as increased power and wealth inequality. In this work, we aim to shed light on the role of AI researchers as implicated subjects in the harms caused by weapons enabled by AI technologies. We investigate and discuss the specifics of this implication and explore ways to transfigure this position of implication into one of differentiated, long-distance solidarity with the victims of technologically fortified injustices.

Wearable devices generate continuous physiological and behavioral data, but converting these signals into clinically reviewable biomarker hypotheses remains labor-intensive. We introduce CoDaS, an AI co-data-scientist that integrates multi-agent hypothesis generation, deterministic statistical analysis, adversarial validation and literature-grounded interpretation under human oversight. Across three wearable cohorts comprising 9,279 participant-observations, CoDaS prioritized candidate associations for mental-health and metabolic endpoints after internal checks for replication, stability, robustness and leakage. The system identified related circadian-instability signals associated with depression, including sleep-duration variability in DWB ($ρ$ = 0.252, $p$ < 0.001) and sleep-onset variability in GLOBEM ($ρ$ = 0.126, $p$ < 0.001), and derived a wearable cardiovascular-fitness index associated with insulin resistance (steps/resting heart rate; $ρ$ = -0.374, $p$ < 0.001). Adding these features to demographic models produced modest gains ($ΔR^2$ = 0.040 for depression, 0.021 for insulin resistance). In a 12-clinician review totaling approximately 25 active hours, clinician validity judgments aligned with CoDaS confidence tiers ($ρ$ = 0.67, $p$ = 0.005), whereas added clinical value and confidence to act were rated lower. CoDaS supports traceable, hypothesis-generating prioritization of wearable candidate biomarkers.

Scientific research based on multimodal clinical data (including medical imaging) requires coordinating clinical, radiological, programming, and biostatistical expertise, a fragmented process that bottlenecks discovery. We present VERITAS (Verifiable Epistemic Reasoning for Image-Derived Hypothesis Testing via Agentic Systems), a clinical co-scientist: a multi-agent system that autonomously tests natural-language hypotheses and produces a fully auditable evidence trail, tracing every conclusion through executable outputs from analysis plan to segmentation masks to statistical code to final verdict. Unlike prior AI-scientist systems, which mainly operate on tabular or text data, VERITAS grounds autonomous discovery directly in medical images. It decomposes the workflow into four phases handled by role-specialized agents, and introduces an epistemic evidence label framework that mechanically classifies outcomes as Supported, Refuted, Underpowered, or Invalid by jointly evaluating significance, effect direction, and study power. This distinction is critical in medical imaging, where non-significant results often reflect insufficient sample size rather than absent effects. We construct a tiered benchmark of 64 hypotheses spanning six complexity levels across cardiac and brain glioma MRI datasets. VERITAS reaches 81.4% verdict accuracy with frontier models and 71.2% with locally-hosted open-weight models (8-30B), outperforming all single-model baselines in both classes. It also produces the highest rate of independently verifiable statistical outputs (86.6%), so even its failures remain diagnosable through artifact inspection. Structured multi-agent decomposition thus substitutes for model scale while preserving the verifiability that scientific discovery demands. We release code, hypothesis bank, and evaluation pipeline at https://github.com/LucZot/veritas.

AI is increasingly supporting, accelerating, and automating scientific discovery across subjects. Yet, the adoption of AI in historical research remains limited due to the lack of specialised solutions for historians. To change this, we introduce Chronos, an AI Co-Historian designed to support historians. It allows researchers to create and customize research workflows through natural-language interaction and share these as Chronos-Extensions with others. Chronos specifically addresses the need of historians for a tool that is specialised, non-technical, highly customizable, and facilitates extensive task evaluation. As a first extension, we introduce Chronos-Extract, which enables researchers to automate the targeted extraction of information from image scans of historical sources. We benchmark Chronos-Extract on three historical source corpora and find that it achieves high task-accuracy across primary sources spanning three centuries and diverse languages, layouts, and typefaces. Chronos is openly available and ready for historians to use on their own primary and secondary sources.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as coding partners, yet their role in accelerating scientific discovery remains underexplored. This paper presents a case study of using ChatGPT for rapid prototyping in ESA's ELOPE (Event-based Lunar OPtical flow Egomotion estimation) competition. The competition required participants to process event camera data to estimate lunar lander trajectories. Despite joining late, we achieved second place with a score of 0.01282, highlighting the potential of human-AI collaboration in competitive scientific settings. ChatGPT contributed not only executable code but also algorithmic reasoning, data handling routines, and methodological suggestions, such as using fixed number of events instead of fixed time spans for windowing. At the same time, we observed limitations: the model often introduced unnecessary structural changes, gets confused by intermediate discussions about alternative ideas, occasionally produced critical errors and forgets important aspects in longer scientific discussions. By analyzing these strengths and shortcomings, we show how conversational AI can both accelerate development and support conceptual insight in scientific research. We argue that structured integration of LLMs into the scientific workflow can enhance rapid prototyping by proposing best practices for AI-assisted scientific work.

AI-Scientist systems risk manufacturing spurious discoveries through uncontrolled multiple testing. We present a functional architecture that enforces statistical rigor at two levels: a Haskell embedded domain-specific language (the Research monad) that makes it impossible to test a hypothesis without updating the error budget, and a declarative scaffold, backed by an OS-level sandbox, that makes validation data physically absent from the environment in which LLM-generated code runs. We ground the design in a machine-checked Lean4 formalization of LORD++ online false-discovery-rate (FDR) control: we derive its error budget and prove both marginal and full FDR control, then close the gap to the implementation by verifying the budget's wealth invariant over IEEE754 arithmetic in SPARK/Ada. To our knowledge this is the first verified chain from theorem to floating-point implementation for an online FDR procedure. In simulation, the architecture holds the false discovery rate near 1% against a 5% target, where a naive approach reaches 41%. In end-to-end case studies, a valid test avoids the false discoveries a flawed one produces, yet still finds real effects when the data allow. An adversarial evaluation confirms that generated code cannot read the held-out data even when given its exact path.

The EU has become one of the vanguards in regulating the digital age. A particularly important regulation in the Artificial Intelligence (AI) domain is the 2024 enacted EU AI Act. The AI Act specifies -- due to a risk-based approach -- various obligations for providers of AI systems. These obligations, for example, include a cascade of documentation and compliance measures, which represent a potential obstacle to science. But do these obligations also apply to AI researchers? This position paper argues that, indeed, the AI Act's obligations could apply in many more cases than the AI community is aware of. Moreover, we argue that the AI Act is drafted in a manner that may unwillingly disrupt the scientific publication practices of the AI research community, with a focus on model and system release. We contribute the following: 1. We offer a high-level roadmap for AI researchers to evaluate whether they need to comply with the AI Act 2. We explain with everyday research examples why the AI Act applies to AI research. 3. We analyse the exceptions of the AI Act's applicability AI research and offer visual tool for researchers to navigate the AI Act's complex system or research exceptions 4. We establish a position the AI Act's research exceptions fail to account for current AI research conventions, as publishing AI research may void the research exceptions of the Act. 5. We propose changes to the AI Act to provide more legal certainty for AI researchers and give two recommendations for AI researchers to reduce the risk of not complying with the AI Act. We see our paper as a starting point for a discussion between policymakers, legal scholars, and AI researchers to avoid unintended side effects of the AI Act.