Autonomous Research Agents

AI-assisted research is crossing a threshold: fully automated systems can now generate research papers for as little as $15, while long-horizon agents can execute experiments, draft manuscripts, and simulate critique with minimal human input. Yet this productivity frontier exposes a deeper integrity problem: under scientific pressure, even frontier LLMs still fabricate results, miss hidden errors, and fail to judge novelty reliably. Studying developments through April 2026, we present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle, organized into four epistemological phases: Creation (idea generation, literature review, coding & experiments, tables & figures), Writing (paper writing), Validation (peer review, rebuttal & revision), and Dissemination (posters, slides, videos, social media, project pages, and interactive agents). We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy: AI excels at structured, retrieval-grounded, and tool-mediated tasks, but remains fragile for genuinely novel ideas, research-level experiments, and scientific judgment. Generated ideas often degrade after implementation, research code lags far behind pattern-matching benchmarks, and end-to-end autonomous systems have not yet consistently reached major-venue acceptance standards. We further show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes, making human-governed collaboration the most credible deployment paradigm. Finally, we provide a structured taxonomy, benchmark suite, and tool inventory, cross-stage design principles, and a practitioner-oriented playbook, with resources maintained at our project page.

AI research agents accelerate ML research by automating hypothesis generation, experimentation, and empirical refinement. Existing agent strategies range from greedy hill-climbing to tree search and evolutionary optimization, yet which strategy choices drive performance remains unclear. Answering this question requires a benchmark that separates agent strategy (e.g., search topology) from execution infrastructure (e.g., code editor), so that performance differences are attributable to strategy rather than infrastructure, and that provides process-level metrics beyond final scores to analyze exploration behaviors. Existing benchmarks offer limited support. We propose FML-Bench, a benchmark of 18 fundamental ML research tasks across 10 domains that separates agent strategy from execution infrastructure and defines 12 process-level behavioral metrics. Evaluating six representative agents, we find that: (1) strategy complexity alone does not guarantee strong performance: a simple greedy hill-climber nearly matches the best-performing tree-search agent, both well above the remaining agents; (2) our analysis suggests this pattern relates to improvement opportunity structure: greedy search tends to be more effective when opportunities are dense, while tree-search and evolutionary strategies tend to be more effective when opportunities are sparse; an adaptive agent built on this insight switches to broader exploration upon detecting improvement stagnation and outperforms the other six agents, lending initial support to this observation; and (3) process-level analysis reveals that early convergence and directionally focused exploration are significantly associated with final performance, while solution diversity and compute cost are not. Our benchmark is available at: https://github.com/qrzou/FML-bench.

Autonomous AI coding agents are becoming a core tool for ML practitioners in industry and research alike. Despite this growing adoption, no standardized benchmark exists to evaluate their ability to design, implement, and train models from scratch across diverse domains. We introduce 1GC-7RC (Single Graphic Card: Seven Research Challenges), a benchmark comprising seven ML tasks spanning language modeling, image classification, semantic segmentation, graph learning, tabular prediction, time-series forecasting, and text classification. Each task provides a locked data-preparation and evaluation script together with a baseline training script; the agent may only modify the training code, has no access to pretrained weights (with one controlled exception for semantic segmentation), no internet access, and must complete each task within a task-specific wall-clock budget (40-120 minutes) on a single GPU. We evaluate seven coding agents: five proprietary (Claude Code with Sonnet 4.6, Opus 4.6, and Opus 4.7; Codex CLI with GPT 5.5; and OpenCode with Qwen 3.6+) and two open-source (OpenCode with Kimi K2.5, Kimi K2.6). Across 5 runs per agent-task pair, we report substantial performance differences that reveal varying levels of implicit ML knowledge, planning ability, and time-budget management. The benchmark, harness, and all evaluation artifacts are publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/Strolchii/1GC-7RC-Benchmark to facilitate reproducible comparison of future agents. Because our benchmark design is modular, the benchmark can be extended to new tasks and domains, adapted to different GPU budgets, and used to study multi-agent settings, making it a flexible platform for future research on autonomous research agents.

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.

We introduce ColPackAgent, an agent framework that autonomously runs Monte Carlo simulations of colloidal packing through a Model Context Protocol (MCP) tool server and an agent skill, whether as a standalone agent or inside an existing agent system. By harnessing the MCP server and agent skill, ColPackAgent executes a structured workflow for colloidal packing simulations, which are central to studies of phase behavior, self-assembly, and materials design. Without dedicated simulation tools and workflow instructions, general-purpose Large Language Model (LLM) agents tend to describe such workflows rather than execute them reliably. The MCP server exposes a custom-built colpack Python package that wraps HOOMD-blue hard-particle Monte Carlo, and the skill encodes a four-stage workflow contract. ColPackAgent can carry out the workflow interactively with human feedback, autonomously from an end-to-end prompt, or as autoresearch following a provided program file. We demonstrate the system in different modes with several colloidal packing simulation examples such as cube particles in 3D, a binary system of disks and capsules in 2D, and the 2D hard-disk freezing transition using autoresearch. We also compare model performance on this workflow across a panel of LLMs with 17 stage-specific prompts. This benchmark provides a stage-level check of how reliably different models follow the setup, planning, and analysis workflow. Together, these results show that pairing a domain Python package with MCP tools and a portable agent skill provides a practical route for turning a simulation toolkit into an agent-assisted research workflow.

Autoresearch offers a flexible paradigm for automating scientific tasks, in which an AI agent proposes, implements, evaluates, and refines candidate solutions against a quantitative objective. Here, we use composition-based materials-property prediction to test whether such agents can perform a task beyond model selection and hyperparameter optimization: the design of input descriptors. We introduce Automat, an autoresearch framework where a coding agent based on a large language model generates composition-only descriptors for chemical compounds and evaluates them using a random forest workflow. The agent is restricted to information derivable from chemical formulas and iteratively proposes, implements, and tests chemically motivated descriptor strategies. We apply Automat, with OpenAI Codex using GPT-5.5 as the coding agent, to the prediction of experimental band gaps in inorganic materials and Curie temperatures in ferromagnetic compounds. In both tasks, Automat improves over fractional-composition, Magpie, and combined fractional-composition/Magpie baselines, while producing descriptor families that are chemically interpretable. These results provide a demonstration that autoresearch agents can generate competitive, task-specific materials descriptors without manual feature engineering during the run. They also reveal current limitations, including descriptor redundancy, sensitivity to greedy feature expansion, and the need for explicit complexity control, descriptor pruning, and more sophisticated search strategies.

Scientific methods are developed for classes of problems, so knowledge transfers across structurally related cases. Language-model agents can execute scientific workflows, but their problem--method relationships remain implicit, so each new problem restarts the search and little of what worked transfers. We introduce GRAFT--ATHENA, which makes this problem-to-method map explicit as an expandable probabilistic structure of admissible problems, methods, and their dependencies. Graph factorization keeps the substrate tractable, and semantic fingerprints measure similarity, so experience guides related problems. As a result, the framework matched or exceeded expert baselines, attaining near-machine-precision losses in physics-informed learning, reproducing clinically consistent blood-rheology trends, and developing a high-order hypersonic-flow solver for the Apollo Command Module that matched experimental measurements within $1.8\%$. It also proposed a certified regularization for ill-posed in vivo brain-flow reconstruction, developed a spectrally convergent physics-informed architecture, and established machine-checked universal-approximation theorems for two widely used architectures. Scientific structure enables cumulative and verifiable agentic discovery.

As model families, training recipes, and compute budgets become increasingly standardized, further gains in machine learning systems depend increasingly on data. Yet data engineering remains largely manual and ad hoc: practitioners repeatedly search for external datasets, adapt them to existing pipelines, validate candidate data through downstream training, and carry forward lessons from prior attempts. We study task-conditioned autonomous data engineering, where an autonomous agent improves a fixed learning algorithm by optimizing only the data side, including external data discovery, data selection and composition, cleaning and transformation. The goal is to obtain a stronger downstream solution while leaving the learning algorithm unchanged. To address the open-ended search space, branch-dependent refinement, and delayed validation inherent in autonomous data engineering, we propose DataMaster, a data-agent framework that integrates tree-structured search, shared candidate data, and cumulative memory. DataMaster consists of three key components: a DataTree that organizes alternative data-engineering branches, a shared Data Pool that stores discovered external data sources for reuse, and a Global Memory that records node outcomes, artifacts, and reusable findings. Together, these components allow the agent to discover candidate data, construct executable training inputs, evaluate them through downstream feedback, and carry useful evidence across branches. We evaluate DataMaster on two types of benchmarks, MLE-Bench Lite and PostTrainBench. On MLE-Bench Lite, it improves medal rate by 32.27% over the initial score; on PostTrainBench, it surpasses the instruct model on GPQA (31.02% vs 30.35%).

LLM-powered multi-agent systems can now automate the full research pipeline from ideation to paper writing, but a fundamental question remains: automation for whom? Researchers operate under different resource configurations, hold different methodological preferences, and target different output formats. A system that produces uniform outputs regardless of these differences will systematically under-serve every individual user, making personalization a precondition for research automation to be genuinely usable. However, achieving it requires three capabilities that current systems lack: accumulating reusable procedural knowledge across projects, retaining user-specific experience across sessions, and internalizing implicit preferences that resist explicit formalization. We propose NanoResearch, a multi-agent framework that addresses these gaps through tri-level co-evolution. A skill bank distills recurring operations into compact procedural rules reusable across projects. A memory module maintains user- and project-specific experience that grounds planning decisions in each user's research history. A label-free policy learning converts free-form feedback into persistent parameter updates of the planner, reshaping subsequent coordination. These three layers co-evolve: reliable skills produce richer memory, richer memory informs better planning, and preference internalization continuously realigns the loop to each user. Extensive experiments demonstrate that NanoResearch delivers substantial gains over state-of-the-art AI research systems, and progressively refines itself to produce better research at lower cost over successive cycles.

Over the years, research in system identification has provided a rich set of methods for learning dynamical models, together with well-established theoretical guarantees. In practice, however, the choice of model class, training algorithm, and hyperparameter tuning is still largely left to empirical trial-and-error, requiring substantial expert time and domain experience. Motivated by recent advances in agentic artificial intelligence, we present ASIA, a framework that delegates this iterative search to a large language model acting as an autonomous coding agent. Building on existing agentic platforms, ASIA closes the loop between hypothesis, implementation, and evaluation without human intervention, requiring only a plain-English description of the identification problem. We conduct an empirical study of ASIA on two system identification benchmarks and analyse the agent's search behaviour, the architectures and training strategies it discovers, and the quality of the resulting models. We also discuss the potential of the approach and its current limitations, including implicit test leakage, reduced methodological transparency, and reproducibility concerns.

Transforming neuroimaging data into clinically actionable biomarkers is a knowledge-intensive and labor-intensive process. Standardized workflows such as fMRIPrep have improved robustness and efficiency, but they are statically configured and cannot reason about downstream objectives, deliberate over alternative strategies, or close the loop between intermediate evidence and subsequent decisions in the way a human researcher would. This lack of closed-loop adaptation often leaves domain experts trapped in a cycle of manual trial-and-error to tune parameters and remediate pipeline failures, severely constraining the scalability of clinical biomarker development. To bridge this gap, we introduce NEXUS, an autonomous multi-agent framework that integrates neuroimaging workflow execution with scientific-objective understanding. Unlike conventional flat toolcalling agents, NEXUS adopts a code-centric execution paradigm where specialist agents collaboratively synthesize and optimize executable programs over composable domain-specific primitives. This design enables robust, long-horizon workflow construction that adapts dynamically to runtime observations. Furthermore, we propose a hierarchical verification framework for autonomous quality control, integrating cohort-level metric screening with agentic visual inspection to drive evidence-grounded workflow remediation. Experiments on ADHD-200 and ADNI demonstrate that NEXUS outperforms standard workflow-based baselines in predictive performance while exhibiting sophisticated agentic behaviors, including strategy exploration and adaptive refinement. The code is available at https://github.com/LearningKeqi/Virtual-Neuroscientist-NEXUS.

Mixed-integer programming (MIP) research is both mathematically sophisticated and engineering-intensive: testing an algorithmic hypothesis within a branch-and-cut solver requires substantial implementation, debugging, tuning, and large-scale benchmarking. We propose an agentic MIP research framework that shortens this feedback loop by embedding LLM agents into a solver-aware harness for generating, verifying, and evaluating plugins for the open-source solver SCIP. Propagation methods play a central role in accelerating MIP solving by exploiting global constraints. We instantiate our framework on the semantic lifting of MIP formulations into global constraints and the automatic construction of propagation-only SCIP constraint handlers. On the MIPLIB 2017 benchmark set, the framework successfully recovers global constraint structures from constraint programming and generates executable constraint detectors and propagation-only constraint handlers. Furthermore, the framework naturally extends to in-context learning within a sandboxed environment, enabling agents not only to tune and debug generated constraint handlers on real instances, but also to explore global constraint patterns in MIP problems and discover novel propagation strategies not yet implemented in SCIP. This framework allows us to systematically distinguish meaningful algorithmic improvements from low-value or overly costly candidates: the novel propagation methods successfully solved five additional instances within the explored benchmark. Overall, this framework demonstrates that LLM agents can autonomously navigate the complex MIP research loop, paving the way for a more automated solver development process.

Autonomous research agents can already run machine learning experiments without human supervision, but many rely on a narrow search strategy: they repeatedly modify one program and keep changes only when they improve the current best result. This can cause them to discard useful partial ideas, alternative promising directions, and insights from failed or incomplete experiments. GEAR, or Genetic AutoResearch, replaces this single-path search with a population-based search over multiple research states. It keeps a set of strong candidate solutions, selects parents based on productivity, novelty, and coverage, and explores new ideas through mutation and crossover. Each research state stores its code changes, reflections, and performance data, allowing future decisions to build on past discoveries. The paper studies three versions of GEAR: one controlled through prompting, one using a fixed programmatic search controller, and one where the controller itself can evolve during the run. Under the same compute budget and environment, all three versions outperform the AutoResearch baseline. More importantly, while the baseline tends to settle into one local optimum, GEAR continues finding improvements over longer runs. Overall, the results suggest that autonomous research agents become more effective when they maintain multiple promising directions and can adapt their search strategy over time.

We introduce the AI co-mathematician, a workbench for mathematicians to interactively leverage AI agents to pursue open-ended research. The AI co-mathematician is optimized to provide holistic support for the exploratory and iterative reality of mathematical workflows, including ideation, literature search, computational exploration, theorem proving and theory building. By providing an asynchronous, stateful workspace that manages uncertainty, refines user intent, tracks failed hypotheses, and outputs native mathematical artifacts, the system mirrors human collaborative workflows. In early tests, the AI co-mathematician helped researchers solve open problems, identify new research directions, and uncover overlooked literature references. Besides demonstrating a highly interactive paradigm for AI-assisted mathematical discovery, the AI co-mathematician also achieves state of the art results on hard problem-solving benchmarks, including scoring 48% on FrontierMath Tier 4, a new high score among all AI systems evaluated.

A leading proposal for aligning artificial superintelligence (ASI) is to use AI agents to automate an increasing fraction of alignment research as capabilities improve. We argue that, even when research agents are not scheming to deliberately sabotage alignment work, this plan could produce compelling but catastrophically misleading safety assessments resulting in the unintentional deployment of misaligned AI. This could happen because alignment research involves many hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks (tasks without clear evaluation criteria, for which human judgement is systematically flawed). Consequently, research outputs will contain systematic, undetected errors, and even correct outputs could be incorrectly aggregated into overconfident safety assessments. This problem is likely to be worse for automated alignment research than for human-generated alignment research for several reasons: 1) optimisation pressure means agent-generated mistakes are concentrated among those that human reviewers are least likely to catch; 2) agents are likely to produce errors that do not resemble human mistakes; 3) AI-generated alignment solutions may involve arguments humans cannot evaluate; and 4) shared weights, data and training processes may make AI outputs more correlated than human equivalents. Therefore, agents must be trained to reliably perform hard-to-supervise fuzzy tasks. Generalisation and scalable oversight are the leading candidates for achieving this but both face novel challenges in the context of automated alignment.

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

We study auto research as a closed empirical loop driven by external measurement. Each submitted trial carries a hypothesis, an executable code edit, an evaluator-owned outcome, and feedback that shapes the next proposal. The output is not a generated paper or a single model checkpoint, but an auditable trajectory of proposals, code diffs, experiments, scores, and failure labels. We instantiate this loop with specialist agents that partition recipe surfaces and share measured lineage across trials. The central empirical finding is that lineage feedback lets agents turn evaluator outcomes, including crashes, budget overruns, size failures, and accuracy-gate misses, into later program-level recipe edits rather than one-shot suggestions. Across 1,197 headline-run trials plus 600 Parameter Golf control trials after one-time setup and launch, humans did not choose proposals, edit recipes, override scores, or repair failed trials during the search. In the three headline runs, the same submitted-trial loop reduces Parameter Golf validation bpb by $0.81\%$, raises NanoChat-D12 CORE by $38.7\%$, and reduces CIFAR-10 Airbench96 wallclock by $4.59\%$, with each task measured by its own external evaluator and legality checks. The trace includes a strict architecture-domain audit of 157 headline-run submissions and program rewrites such as a NanoChat attention-kernel path change. Within this scope the loop autonomously writes code, submits experiments, absorbs feedback, applies and combines known techniques inside each environment, and improves public starting recipes.

This report describes ARIS (Auto-Research-in-sleep), an open-source research harness for autonomous research, including its architecture, assurance mechanisms, and early deployment experience. The performance of agent systems built on LLMs depends on both the model weights and the harness around them, which governs what information to store, retrieve, and present to the model. For long-horizon research workflows, the central failure mode is not a visible breakdown but a plausible unsupported success: a long-running agent can produce claims whose evidential support is incomplete, misreported, or silently inherited from the executor's framing. Therefore, we present ARIS as a research harness that coordinates machine-learning research workflows through cross-model adversarial collaboration as a default configuration: an executor model drives forward progress while a reviewer from a different model family is recommended to critique intermediate artifacts and request revisions. ARIS has three architectural layers. The execution layer provides more than 65 reusable Markdown-defined skills, model integrations via MCP, a persistent research wiki for iterative reuse of prior findings, and deterministic figure generation. The orchestration layer coordinates five end-to-end workflows with adjustable effort settings and configurable routing to reviewer models. The assurance layer includes a three-stage process for checking whether experimental claims are supported by evidence: integrity verification, result-to-claim mapping, and claim auditing that cross-checks manuscript statements against the claim ledger and raw evidence, as well as a five-pass scientific-editing pipeline, mathematical-proof checks, and visual inspection of the rendered PDF. A prototype self-improvement loop records research traces and proposes harness improvements that are adopted only after reviewer approval.

Automated research agents increasingly generate code, retrieve literature, and draft scientific artifacts, but they often fail to verify whether generated experiments execute correctly or whether cited sources support generated claims. We present AutoResearch, an execution-grounded multi-agent framework for reliable research workflow automation. AutoResearch couples sandboxed Python/PyTorch execution, iterative code repair, citation verification, claim-support auditing, decision control, and structured \LaTeX{} artifact generation. The system treats runtime errors, citation-verification failures, and review-agent feedback as practical filtering signals for generated research artifacts. In controlled evaluations on HumanEval, MBPP, a SciCode subset, citation-validation tasks, claim-support auditing, and small end-to-end workflow stress tests, AutoResearch improves execution success, citation validity, local claim support, and workflow completion relative to directly comparable baselines. Code-oriented agents are reported separately as partial comparisons. AutoResearch is intended as a reliability-oriented research assistant, not as a fully autonomous scientist or a standalone manuscript-quality benchmark. Source Code: https://github.com/raja21068/AutoResearch

The automation of scientific research workflows has emerged as a transformative frontier in artificial intelligence, yet existing autonomous research agents remain largely domain-agnostic, lacking the specialized reasoning, method selection, and data acquisition capabilities required for rigorous spatial data science. This paper introduces NORA (Night Owl Research Agent), a harness-engineered, multi-agent autonomous research system purpose-built for GIScience and spatial data science. NORA orchestrates the complete research lifecycle through a skills-first architecture comprising 21 domain-specialized workflow skills, 9 specialist sub-agents, and custom Model Context Protocol (MCP) servers. Central to the system's design are two novel domain-specialized skills: a spatial analysis skill unit that encodes decision frameworks for exploratory spatial data analysis, spatial regression, and diagnostics; and a spatial data download skill that supports reproducible acquisition from authoritative geospatial data sources. We formalize the concept of harness engineering for scientific research agents, demonstrating how lifecycle hooks, safety gates, generator-evaluator separation, human-in-the-loop, and state persistence ensure reliable and reproducible autonomous research. We evaluate NORA through case studies by 6 domain specialists and 3 LLM reviewers across seven dimensions (novelty, quality, rigor, etc). Results demonstrate that domain-specialized harness engineering substantially improves the efficiency and quality of research output compared to general-purpose agent configurations.

Large language models can now generate substantial code and draft research text, but research-software projects require more than either artifact alone. The mathematical thesis, executable system, benchmark surface, and public claims must mature together, yet often drift apart. We identify two LM-specific failure modes: hallucination accumulation, in which claims exceed what code or theory supports and unsupported assertions propagate across sessions; and desynchronization, in which code, theory, or the model's own world model fall out of alignment. We propose Comet-H, an iterative prompt automaton that orchestrates ideation, implementation, evaluation, grounding, and paper-writing as coupled coordinates of a single workspace state. At each step, a controller selects the next prompt by scoring it against what the workspace currently lacks, carries unfinished follow-up work forward with a half-life, and re-checks the paper and README against the code and benchmarks whenever documentation changes. We frame prompt selection as a small contextual bandit problem over prompt families, with prompts as arms, workspace deficits as context, and a hand-weighted linear score. This transparent scorer, paired with a fading record of unfinished work, bounds long-horizon follow-ups, requires no learned policy, and makes each prompt choice legible from the workspace. We created a portfolio of 46 research-software repositories across two dozen domains. We study A3 in depth, a Python static-analysis tool built entirely within the loop, which reaches (F1 = 0.768) on a 90-case benchmark, compared with a next-best baseline of 0.364. Across approximately 400 commits, we find that audit-and-contraction passes dominate the later phases of every successful trajectory.

Real-world evidence (RWE) studies that emulate target trials increasingly inform regulatory and clinical decisions, yet residual, hard-to-quantify biases still limit their credibility. The recently proposed BenchExCal framework addresses this challenge via a two-stage Benchmark, Expand, Calibrate process, which first compares an observational emulation against an existing randomized controlled trial (RCT), then uses observed divergence to calibrate a second emulation for a new indication causal effect estimation. While methodologically powerful, BenchExCal is resource intensive and difficult to scale. We introduce TrialCalibre, a conceptualized multiagent system designed to automate and scale the BenchExCal workflow. Our framework features specialized agents such as the Orchestrator, Protocol Design, Data Synthesis, Clinical Validation, and Quantitative Calibration Agents that coordi-nate the the overall process. TrialCalibre incorpo-rates agent learning (e.g., RLHF) and knowledge blackboards to support adaptive, auditable, and transparent causal effect estimation.

Autonomous scientific research is significantly advanced thanks to the development of AI agents. One key step in this process is finding the right scientific literature, whether to explore existing knowledge for a research problem, or to acquire evidence for verifying assumptions and supporting claims. To assess AI agents' capability in driving this process, we present AutoResearchBench, a dedicated benchmark for autonomous scientific literature discovery. AutoResearchBench consists of two complementary task types: (1) Deep Research, which requires tracking down a specific target paper through a progressive, multi-step probing process, and (2) Wide Research, which requires comprehensively collecting a set of papers satisfying given conditions. Compared to previous benchmarks on agentic web browsing, AutoResearchBench is distinguished along three dimensions: it is research-oriented, calling for in-depth comprehension of scientific concepts; literature-focused, demanding fine-grained utilization of detailed information; and open-ended, involving an unknown number of qualified papers and thus requiring deliberate reasoning and search throughout. These properties make AutoResearchBench uniquely suited for evaluating autonomous research capabilities, and extraordinarily challenging. Even the most powerful LLMs, despite having largely conquered general agentic web-browsing benchmarks such as BrowseComp, achieve only 9.39% accuracy on Deep Research and 9.31% IoU on Wide Research, while many other strong baselines fall below 5%. We publicly release the dataset and evaluation pipeline to facilitate future research in this direction. We publicly release the dataset, evaluation pipeline, and code at https://github.com/CherYou/AutoResearchBench.

Forecasting when AI systems will become capable of meaningfully accelerating AI research is a central challenge for AI safety. Existing benchmarks measure broad capability growth, but may not provide ample early warning signals for recursive self-improvement. We propose measuring AI's capability to autonomously implement end-to-end machine learning pipelines from past AI research breakthroughs, given a minimal task description. By providing a concise task description instead of the full prior work as reference, we hope to better elicit emerging AI research taste. We introduce a proof-of-concept benchmark in which frontier coding agents autonomously implement an AlphaZero-style machine learning pipeline for Connect Four on consumer hardware within a three-hour budget, and we evaluate the resulting game AIs in a round-robin tournament anchored to the Pascal Pons Connect Four solver. Across four agents with eight trials each, we find substantial differentiation: Claude Opus 4.7 won as first-mover against Pons in seven of eight trials, statistically significantly better than the other agents tested, none of which exceeded two of eight. The task, which no frontier agent could reliably complete when we began development in January of 2026, is now near-saturation. Our evaluation also surfaced anomalous behavior in GPT-5.4, which consistently used far less of its allocated time budget than other agents. A follow-up 16-trial probe using shorter, less evaluation-coded prompts substantially increased GPT-5.4's time-budget usage, consistent with but not diagnostic of sandbagging; Bradley-Terry ratings across probe conditions showed only directional differences, despite significant differences in time-budget usage. We release our data, code, and prompts to support reproduction and extension.

Scientific publication compresses a branching, iterative research process into a linear narrative, discarding the majority of what was discovered along the way. This compilation imposes two structural costs: a Storytelling Tax, where failed experiments, rejected hypotheses, and the branching exploration process are discarded to fit a linear narrative; and an Engineering Tax, where the gap between reviewer-sufficient prose and agent-sufficient specification leaves critical implementation details unwritten. Tolerable for human readers, these costs become critical when AI agents must understand, reproduce, and extend published work. We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package structured around four layers: scientific logic, executable code with full specifications, an exploration graph that preserves the failures compilation discards, and evidence grounding every claim in raw outputs. Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste. On PaperBench and RE-Bench, ARA raises question-answering accuracy from 72.4% to 93.7% and reproduction success from 57.4% to 64.4%. On RE-Bench's five open-ended extension tasks, preserved failure traces in ARA accelerate progress, but can also constrain a capable agent from stepping outside the prior-run box depending on the agent's capabilities. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Orchestra-Research/Agent-Native-Research-Artifact.

With the emergence of large language models (LLMs) and AI agent frameworks, the human-AI co-work paradigm known as Vibe Coding is changing how people code, making it more accessible and productive. In scientific research, where workflows are more complex and the burden of specialized labor limits independent researchers and those in low-resource areas, the potential impact is even greater, particularly in biomedicine, which involves heterogeneous data modalities and multi-step analytical pipelines. In this paper, we introduce Vibe Medicine, a co-work paradigm in which clinicians and researchers direct skill-augmented AI agents through natural language to execute complex, multi-step biomedical workflows, while retaining the role of research director who specifies objectives, reviews intermediate results, and makes domain-informed decisions. The enabling infrastructure consists of three layers: capable LLMs, agent frameworks such as OpenClaw and Hermes Agent, and the OpenClaw medical skills collection, which includes more than 1,000 curated skills from multiple open-source repositories. We analyze the architecture and skill categories of this collection across ten biomedical domains, and present case studies covering rare disease diagnosis, drug repurposing, and clinical trial design that demonstrate end-to-end workflows in practice. We also identify the principal risks, such as hallucination, data privacy, and over-reliance, and outline directions toward more reliable, trustworthy, and clinically integrated agent-assisted research that advances research and technological equity and reduces health care resource disparities.

We introduce a multi-agent framework intended to emulate parts of a quantitative research team and support equity factor research on large financial panel datasets. QRAFTI integrates a research toolkit for panel data with MCP servers that expose data access, factor construction, and custom coding operations as callable tools. It can help replicate established factors, formulate and test new signals, and generate standardized research reports accompanied by narrative analysis and computational traces. On multi-step empirical tasks, using chained tool calls and reflection-based planning may offer better performance and explainability than dynamic code generation alone.

Recent advances in large language models have highlighted their potential to automate computational research, particularly reproducing experimental results. However, existing approaches still use fixed sequential agent pipelines with weak global coordination, which limits their robustness and overall performance. In this work, we propose Hierarchical Research Agent System (HiRAS), a hierarchical multi-agent framework for end-to-end experiment reproduction that employs supervisory manager agents to coordinate specialised agents across fine-grained stages. We also identify limitations in the reference-free evaluation of the Paper2Code benchmark and introduce Paper2Code-Extra (P2C-Ex), a refined protocol that incorporates repository-level information and better aligns with the original reference-based metric. We conduct extensive evaluation, validating the effectiveness and robustness of our proposed methods, and observing improvements, including >10% relative performance gain beyond the previous state-of-the-art using open-source backbone models and significantly reduced hallucination in evaluation. Our work is available on GitHub: https://github.com/KOU-199024/HiRAS.

Research artifacts are distributed primarily as reader-oriented documents like PDFs. This creates a bottleneck for increasingly agent-assisted and agent-native research workflows, in which LLM agents need to infer fine-grained, task-relevant information from lengthy full documents, a process that is expensive, repetitive, and unstable at scale. We introduce Knows, a lightweight companion specification that binds structured claims, evidence, provenance, and verifiable relations to existing research artifacts in a form LLM agents can consume directly. Knows addresses the gap with a thin YAML sidecar (KnowsRecord) that coexists with the original PDF, requiring no changes to the publication itself, and validated by a deterministic schema linter. We evaluate Knows on 140 comprehension questions across 20 papers spanning 14 academic disciplines, comparing PDF-only, sidecar-only, and hybrid conditions across six LLM agents of varying capacity. Weak models (0.8B--2B parameters) improve from 19--25% to 47--67% accuracy (+29 to +42 percentage points) when reading sidecar instead of PDF, while consuming 29--86% fewer input tokens; an LLM-as-judge re-scoring confirms that weak-model sidecar accuracy (75--77%) approaches stronger-model PDF accuracy (78--83%). Beyond this controlled evaluation, a community sidecar hub at https://knows.academy/ has already indexed over ten thousand publications and continues to grow daily, providing independent evidence that the format is adoption-ready at scale.

The autonomous synthesis of deep research reports represents a critical frontier for Large Language Models (LLMs), demanding sophisticated information orchestration and non-linear narrative logic. Current approaches rely on rigid predefined linear workflows, which cause error accumulation, preclude global restructuring from subsequent insights, and ultimately limit in-depth multimodal fusion and report quality. We propose CogGen, a Cognitively inspired recursive framework for deep research report Generation. Leveraging a Hierarchical Recursive Architecture to simulate cognitive writing, CogGen enables flexible planning and global restructuring. To extend this recursivity to multimodal content, we introduce Abstract Visual Representation (AVR): a concise intent-driven language that iteratively refines visual-text layouts without pixel-level regeneration overhead. We further present CLEF, a Cognitive Load Evaluation Framework, and curate a new benchmark from Our World in Data (OWID). Extensive experiments show CogGen achieves state-of-the-art results among open-source systems, generating reports comparable to professional analysts' outputs and surpassing Gemini Deep Research. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/NJUNLP/CogGen.