Autoresearch

AI agents are beginning to automate research and development across the AI stack, from improving training efficiency to optimizing inference. A natural next step is to improve the research efficiency of the agents themselves. When an AI research agent's own code is the object of optimization, each accepted rewrite becomes the agent that the next round edits. We refer to this loop as recursive self-improvement. Its significance lies in a long-standing trend, in which increased cumulative spending on R&D yields diminishing returns. Sustained self-improvement offers a way to counter this trend. We present AIDE^2, a system that implements this loop for a frontier AI research agent. It proposes changes to its own code, benchmarks modified versions of itself on a suite of AI R&D tasks, and keeps the changes that perform best on hidden evaluations. In an autonomous 8-day run, AIDE^2 discovered seven successive improvements, ranging from a new search policy to memory mechanisms that compress and manage the agent's growing context. These gains generalize to four held-out benchmarks spanning machine learning engineering, heuristic algorithm engineering, and physics-based weather forecasting, the last of which is out of distribution from the selection tasks. On all four, the strongest discovered agent matches or exceeds a human-engineered production research agent that ranks among the strongest on FML-Bench. On a separate held-out task family, the discovered agents also exhibit reduced reward hacking, a property the loop never explicitly optimized for: the rate falls from 55% to 32% during the run, 7 percentage points below the human-engineered agent. Together, these results show that an AI research agent can improve its own research efficiency through recursive self-improvement, and that these gains transfer to tasks and domains the loop never encountered.

As autonomous AI agents take on every stage of scientific inquiry, research output is expanding far beyond human review capacity. Yet scientific communication still relies on natural-language prose: an informal medium prone to ambiguity, hidden assumptions, and untracked limitations that machines cannot reliably audit. We introduce Lara, a machine-checkable language and protocol for checking and revising support for research claims. By turning research arguments into executable artifacts, Lara provides an epistemic kernel for autonomous science: it enables automated validation pipelines for research agents, lets declared bridges connect arguments across papers into an auditable network, and allows both humans and machines to recheck the standing of an encoded claim in milliseconds. In a Lara program, authors explicitly declare their claims, supporting evidence and assumptions, and known objections or limitations. A lightweight, deterministic checker adjudicates these interactions, assigning each claim a reproducible status: "justified", "defeated", "contested", or "gap", which marks a claim whose support is incomplete and locates the unanswered question. Case studies cover empirical review, a philosophical debate without measurements, and the loss of support when an assumed axiom is withdrawn. We establish the metatheory of claim checking and cross-context argument transport, and mechanize the semantic guarantees in Lean 4 (roughly 117,000 lines), leaving three arguments on paper. The audited public metatheory is "sorry"-free and uses only Lean's three standard axioms; some executable examples additionally trust native evaluation.

As coding agents move from supervised code completion to unattended, around-the-clock exploration, their work expands from isolated predictions into long trajectories of reasoning, tool use, and feedback. Token efficiency therefore becomes important for scaling recursive self-improvement. We take an RSI-inspired approach at the harness layer, scaling auto-research loops across increasingly numerous and diverse environments for harness rollouts. At this scale, the process yields reusable improvements that transfer beyond their development setting, moving automated harness discovery toward production-level outcomes. Four mechanisms survive selection and form SoL-Pi, spanning action execution, context compaction, observation handling, and delegated reading. On the 51-task EdgeBench evaluation, SoL-Pi achieves performance comparable to Pi across GPT-5.6 Sol and Opus 5 while reducing recorded token traffic by 44.7-49.0% and API cost by about one third. In other words, estimated hourly savings are $8.75-$13.50 relative to native Codex and Claude Code harnesses, and $4.36-$5.71 relative to Pi.

Scientific discovery is defined by the ability to identify the boundaries of existing knowledge and venture into unexplored territory. The ultimate vision for AI in science is problem-driven autonomous research: given a fundamental challenge by a human expert, the AI independently navigates the scientific landscape, uncovers theoretical and empirical bottlenecks, and systematically expands the frontier of knowledge. In this paper, we introduce ScientistTwo, a fully autonomous multi-agent framework designed to realize this vision. Specifically, ScientistTwo takes an initial problem as input, establishes state-of-the-art baselines, formulates novel hypotheses, and coordinates specialized agents to orchestrate an end-to-end discovery cycle without human intervention. Moreover, the framework rigorously conducts experiments using diverse datasets and metrics, refines methodologies through automated ablation studies, and validates research findings via a closed-loop simulated peer-review rebuttal engine. To evaluate ScientistTwo's capabilities against the highest standards of human scientific achievement, we benchmark it across papers accepted at top-tier conferences such as ICLR, ICML, and NeurIPS. As a result, ScientistTwo autonomously generates expert-level, publishable papers and fully verified, executable codebases. Its solutions consistently outperform human state-of-the-art models, and achieve higher average review ratings than human-authored papers under automated AI review agents. These results show that ScientistTwo is not merely an assistive tool but an autonomous scientific pioneer capable of pushing the frontiers of human discovery. Project website: https://scientist-two.github.io/

Self-driving laboratories can explore synthesis conditions autonomously, but their decision-making layer is typically a black-box optimizer, and the output is a set of optimized samples, with the measurements reduced to predefined scalar objectives and the reasons behind success left unarticulated. Here we present SynAgent, a framework in which large language model agents operate an automated experimental system and maintain an explicit, revisable understanding of the synthesis process as the campaign's primary output. Starting with no predefined analysis pipeline, SynAgent adaptively generates analysis skills for newly acquired data and evolves this understanding through multimodal reasoning over experimental data such as X-ray diffraction patterns and electron micrographs. The evolution is guided by a verify-falsify scheme, in which the agent deliberately challenges its own hypotheses by testing conditions predicted to fail as well as those predicted to succeed. In a single campaign of 18 autonomous experiments using LiCoO2 (001) thin-film deposition as a testbed, SynAgent synthesized highly crystalline films and evolved an understanding of how the substrate temperature governs crystallization, discovering an abrupt threshold and a narrow optimal growth window at 650-690 °C. These results extend autonomous experimentation beyond optimized samples to testable, human-readable understanding.

Research agents working in separate sessions need to know what others have tried and which results they can build on. Agora stores their contributions as an append-only directed acyclic graph (DAG) in Git. Each commit records a result, insight, hypothesis, verification, or report and links it to prior work. Searchable views show leading results, neglected branches, and verification status; diversity-aware recommendations suggest experiments beyond the current leaders. We report a run of nearly 12 days in which 13 language-model workers, with no assigned tasks or central planner, used Agora to solve a weight-transfer problem. Given 141 pretrained donor models and a frozen 119.6M-parameter attention-SSM hybrid whose dimensions match no donor, the workers had to initialize the target without training data or gradient updates. They published 1,703 contributions and reduced the development evaluator score from 3.39 to 1.899 bits per byte, closing 62% of the gap to a trained GPT-2 124M. The best method compresses donor next-token statistics into the target's embedding and output head, then adds short-range context through sparse edits to attention, feed-forward, and state-space blocks. Its 145-commit ancestry spans 15 accounts. Participants also posted 165 independent reproductions across 95 targets, with no reported failures. The run documents how agents reused and verified shared work. Measuring the effect on discovery per unit of compute requires a matched comparison.

Autonomous research agents aim to automate scientific workflows, from proposing ideas to conducting experiments and analyzing results. Yet current AI and research agents can propose more directions than available resources allow them to pursue. Moreover, each attempt could consume substantial resources, requiring agents to reconsider how to invest in subsequent research. Thus, deciding how to invest research effort strategically should be a defining capability of autonomous research agents. Accordingly, we introduce PrimeScientist, which jointly determines research direction and resource investment across successive research attempts. Specifically, we formulate this challenge of strategic research effort allocation as a sequential decision problem where remaining resources should explicitly guide the research policy. We first introduce an executable plan tree that preserves competing plans and their outcomes across attempts. Building on this representation, we propose an adaptive MCTS-based allocation policy that balances exploration and exploitation using experimental feedback and remaining resources. Comprehensive evaluations across AI research, systems and code optimization, and machine learning engineering show that strategic allocation improves research quality and sample efficiency together. Across 12 AI research tasks, PrimeScientist improves average reward by 10.3% with 50.6% fewer research attempts than AutoResearch under the same resource budget. We believe making research effort allocation an explicit optimization target establishes effective resource use as a core research capability for autonomous agents to drive scientific breakthroughs at scale.

Large language models have advanced automated algorithm discovery by synthesizing executable code, but existing frameworks trap them in rigid search pipelines with pre-defined control flows. This limitation restricts adaptive reasoning, blocks cross-paradigm transfer, and discards valuable execution feedback. We propose AlgoEvo, a unified agentic framework that transforms automated algorithm discovery into an interactive, knowledge-accumulating process. An autonomous agent dynamically inspects, diagnoses, and edits code based on runtime feedback. A design skill hub decouples paradigm-specific knowledge from the core discovery engine, allowing a single workflow to seamlessly handle single-objective, multi-objective, and multi-component design. Meanwhile, a hierarchical experience mechanism organizes search trajectories into a task-level tree to guide exploration and consolidates cross-task patterns into reusable skills. Across six representative benchmark tasks, AlgoEvo matches or surpasses specialized methods with substantially fewer evaluations and reduced token consumption, demonstrating strong intra-task accumulation, cross-task transfer, and the ability to reproduce or exceed existing state-of-the-art performance through flexible skill activation.

AI co-scientists could accelerate computational research, but over a long-running study the workflow also has to stay inspectable, resumable and reproducible, which requires persistent computational state and provenance. Here we present OpenAI4S, an open-source scientific research agent built around the principle of \emph{Code as Action, Science as Sessions}. OpenAI4S combines a persistent computing runtime with research-session management: orchestration is handled through structured tool calls, while scientific actions are represented as complete code cells executed in persistent Python and R kernels. An append-only Action Ledger, per-cell execution records, versioned artifacts, environment records, and workspace checkpoints preserve how results were produced and support session recovery, branching, and extension. Configurable sandboxing, permission controls, and code and trajectory screening provide complementary safeguards. We evaluate OpenAI4S on 36 research scenarios spanning retrosynthesis, molecular dynamics, protein binder design, protein mutation, catalyst screening, and mineral spectroscopy, measuring scientific task accuracy, workflow completeness, and reproducibility of the resulting repositories. OpenAI4S achieves an overall score of 7.83, compared with 5.7--6.4 for a general-purpose coding harness evaluated with three frontier models, with the largest gains on long-horizon and computation-intensive workflows. These results suggest that integrating persistent execution with session-level provenance can improve the reliability of AI-assisted scientific workflows. Environment specification and full rerunnability remain weak for every evaluated system, ours included, so reproducibility is still an open problem for scientific agents. The system is available under the MIT license at \href{https://github.com/PKU-YuanGroup/OpenAI4S}{github.com/PKU-YuanGroup/OpenAI4S}.

Recent breakthroughs in LLM-based systems and their abilities in problem solving and coding have allowed progress in the AI for Science paradigm, potentially replacing human roles in machine learning (ML) research. However, while several frameworks of fully autonomous end-to-end ML research have been proposed, successful implementations of them are often limited to problems with narrow search spaces, like language modeling or biomedical ML benchmarks. In this paper, we explore how autonomous research can be adapted to solve open-ended, industry-grade ML problems, by considering a case study: telecom ticket retrieval, an open-ended task with degrees of freedom in representation, architecture, and training data generation. We discover that autonomous research for open-ended problems with commercial and open-source agents shows both promise and limitations: while autonomous research can excel in narrow hyperparameter optimization, it lacks human-like intuition and creativity and requires operational overhead. Even with minimal human supervision, autonomous research can reach $90\%$ of state-of-the-art performance (0.34 vs. 0.38 Recall@1) in a much shorter time period (10 weeks vs. 10 months of human work) at a modest cost (up to $200 per Cursor campaign). Our empirical evidence recommends that human researchers and autonomous research frameworks work together for best results in ML research.

Before an LLM agent tackles tasks in a new environment, it can inspect available corpora and tools and construct reusable resources such as indices, scripts, or procedural guidance. Most automated adaptation methods, however, rely on task examples, trajectories, or evaluation feedback to decide what to build. Existing task-agnostic approaches avoid this supervision but commit in advance to a preparation strategy for a particular type of environment. We study a more open-ended setting: can an agent study an unfamiliar environment without a syllabus, i.e. before test time and without knowledge of the downstream task distribution, and choose how to prepare it? We formalize task-agnostic environment preprocessing, in which a studying system explores an environment under a budget and produces artifacts for a frozen solver. We compare unaided and archive-equipped meta-agents with fixed synthetic-practice and corpus-processing methods across six heterogeneous benchmarks. A meta-agent variant achieves the highest Avg@3 reward on five benchmarks, while fixed corpus processing remains best on the largest corpus benchmark. Larger study budgets do not reliably improve downstream reward. Nevertheless, studied artifacts reduce the test-time sampling needed to reach a given score, demonstrating how reusable preparation can shift computation from repeated test-time attempts to a pre-task study phase.

Unraveling reaction mechanisms is central to modern chemistry, yet automating these investigations remains challenging because computational workflows still rely heavily on expert intervention. Here we introduce ARCHE, an autonomous agentic system that integrates a general-purpose reasoning model, a domain-specialized computational chemistry model, and a structured tool registry to transform mechanistic inquiry into a scalable, self-validating process. ARCHE interprets scientific questions, generates and prioritizes mechanistic hypotheses, orchestrates computational workflows, and iteratively refines conclusions based on computed evidence within a closed loop. We validate its capabilities across three increasingly demanding scenarios: reconstructing stereocontrolling transition states and validating the corresponding reaction mechanism in a previously reported asymmetric catalytic reaction; proposing and validating a plausible radical pathway through iterative hypothesis refinement for a recently discovered but unpublished $\alpha$-iodoboronate C-I cleavage reaction; and identifying a chemically interpretable descriptor that governs selectivity in nickel-catalysed migratory cross-coupling reactions. By coupling agentic reasoning with rigorous computational validation, ARCHE advances autonomous mechanistic discovery and establishes a foundation for broader machine-assisted chemical research. The code for ARCHE is publicly available at https://github.com/JetAstra/Arche-Harness.

Auto-research agents have shown the potential to automate hypothesis generation, experiment execution, and iterative refinement. However, scaling this paradigm to industry-scale recommendation models introduces two challenges: (1) long feedback loops, where model training can take days, making serial iteration prohibitively slow and requiring parallel exploration across multiple research directions; and (2) system complexity, where large configurations, fragile infrastructure dependencies, and multi-day GPU jobs require robust and recoverable execution. We present Auto-RecSys, an autonomous research system for long-horizon experimentation on industry-scale recommendation models. Auto-RecSys addresses these challenges through three harness designs: (1) distributed asynchronous execution for running multiple experiments in parallel across servers, (2) centralized cross-server memory for persistent and recoverable execution across sessions and failures, and (3) cognitive-procedural separation, where natural-language skill files guide LLM reasoning while deterministic scripts enforce operational correctness. Auto-RecSys further employs a dual-loop self-evolving architecture: an Execution Evolution Loop in which model-specific playbooks accumulate operational knowledge by recording failed attempts and crystallizing successful pipelines, and an Idea Evolution Loop in which experimental outcomes inform subsequent ideation. Evaluated on recommendation models, Auto-RecSys significantly reduces the human time required per experiment cycle and improves execution reliability as its playbooks mature.

Five decades of litigation have disgorged hundreds of millions of pages of formerly secret business records from the tobacco industry, along with documents from the makers of drugs, chemicals, food, firearms, and fossil fuels. Yet these archives have been effectively inaccessible to general-purpose large language models (LLMs) because they have never been compiled into an LLM-readable corpus. Chatbots may be familiar with some of the materials contained in such archives but, with no direct access to the documents, they are vulnerable to hallucination and other defects. Here we introduce INDRA, a research platform designed to remedy such failures by embedding the conventions of archival historiography into a system-level protocol governing every output. The platform federates UCSF's Industry Documents Library, Columbia and CUNY's ToxicDocs, Stanford's SRITA, and other heretofore siloed collections, and provides three interlinked safeguards: (1) a closed evidentiary sandbox confines the model to a user-selected corpus, blocking retrieval from external sources that could introduce bias; (2) real-time provenance tagging marks the boundary between archival evidence and parametric inference; and (3) a system-level protocol enforced by deterministic scripts guides the structure of every output. Together these safeguards prevent the model from conflating "the documents say X" with "I think X" or "I learned X from prior training." The result is an LLM-powered research partner enabling massive multi-archival investigations, a tool whose outputs are designed to be checked rather than trusted, and whose architecture makes the conditions of knowledge production visible and auditable. Three case studies demonstrate the method's analytical value and limitations, including what we call the Heraclitus effect, the steppingstone dilemma, and the gullibility (or mafia) problem.

A research idea may be novel, coherent, and scientifically plausible, yet its proposed method may remain insufficiently specified for faithful implementation. We study the codification readiness of implementation-facing research-method specifications, defined by whether they provide sufficient methodological information for a competent implementer or coding agent to construct the intended method without unsupported assumptions. We construct evidence-grounded specifications and their supported resolutions from papers, codebases, issue threads, and reproduction artifacts. We introduce IdeaAMBIG, a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances: 163 real-world gaps from reproducibility reports and GitHub issues, and 497 controlled synthetic gaps injected into codification-ready references. IdeaAMBIG evaluates three capabilities: codification-readiness assessment, defect localization, and clarification action generation. Defect localization receives only the specification, whereas clarification additionally receives the annotated defect. Across 13 LLMs, the best model achieves 9.6% Macro Defect Recovery Rate on real-world instances but 80.6% Macro Clarification Action Success Rate when given the defect. In an oracle study, supplying the gold resolution raises the downstream codification-ready rate from 14% to 98%. Across all evaluated models, defect localization is the main bottleneck, with stronger clarification given the defect.

Closed-loop AI scientists can generate candidate designs at low marginal computational cost, whereas reliable feedback may require wet-lab synthesis, characterization, or high-fidelity computation. Addressing this imbalance through custom laboratory automation remains infrastructure-intensive and costly, while replacing new experiments with a fixed surrogate leaves persistent model errors that can be amplified by optimization. We propose \emph{online surrogate repair} (OSR), a closed-loop algorithm that uses sparse high-fidelity evaluations to update the surrogate throughout a longer agent search conducted primarily with inexpensive surrogate feedback. An acquisition rule selects which designs from the agent's accumulated proposals receive high-fidelity evaluation, and the resulting labels update the surrogate used in subsequent episodes. Across controlled synthetic environments, we demonstrate that improving global surrogate fit does not necessarily reduce maximum regret, whereas Q90-UCB and expected improvement (EI) substantially reduce regret by directing evaluations toward regions that determine the optimizer's decisions. On MADE, controls receiving high-fidelity feedback after every episode require $6.36$--$7.23\times$ more oracle queries to match Online EI under two LLM orchestrators and $10.27\times$ more under the non-LLM Chemeleon+MLIP workflow. Online surrogate repair introduces a novel third feedback regime between fixed-surrogate operation and high-fidelity feedback after every episode, separating the frequency of high-fidelity evaluation from the duration of the agent's search.

Self-driving laboratories (SDLs) combine automated experimentation with adaptive decision-making to accelerate scientific discovery. Their operation nevertheless often depends on human specialists who translate scientific objectives into executable closed-loop campaigns. Specialists adjust them as data and operating conditions change. Here, we present La Agente 'Optima, an agentic framework that constructs and supervises Bayesian optimization campaigns across computational and experimental systems while maintaining a persistent optimization state. By separating large language model (LLM) reasoning from executed campaigns, 'Optima runs repetitive optimization loops consistently, returns control to the agent only when progress requires interpretation or campaign revision, and keeps every decision auditable. We evaluate 'Optima across ablation studies, five digital discovery tasks, and two physical platforms. Throughout, 'Optima maintained executable campaigns as both the scientific problem and execution environment evolved. In a closed-loop contact angle optimization campaign, 'Optima identified and corrected a mid-run measurement failure, bringing the contact angle from 71.4 to 67.8 degrees, just above the 64-66 degree range. From this result, 'Optima correctly inferred that the target was likely unattainable with the available reagents and recommended changing the formulation. In a five-day multi-objective flow-chemistry campaign, 'Optima increased the yield from 30% to 59% over 23 experiments. Despite substantial inference costs, it cost less and used substantially less starting material than a human-directed campaign, while selecting a more mass-efficient operating point. These results show that LLM-based agents can make rigorous, long-running optimization campaigns accessible to domain scientists without specialist setup, expanding the scope of SDLs.

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.

Remote sensing visual models have continuously advanced various interpretation tasks. However, the research process behind model improvement still heavily relies on manual expertise, requiring extensive trial-and-error iterations in model design, data processing, and performance diagnosis. Existing agent-based approaches mainly focus on task execution and workflow orchestration, while lacking the capability of autonomous research iteration for continuous performance optimization. To address this issue, we propose RingMoClaw, an experience-inspired self-evolving multi-agent framework for remote sensing visual interpretation. RingMoClaw integrates a research branch, a quality-control branch, and a dual-stream dynamic experience bus to establish a closed-loop optimization process covering strategy generation, experiment execution, independent review, and experience accumulation. The heterogeneous Critic mechanism provides stage-wise diagnosis and feedback, while the dual-stream experience bus incorporates external knowledge and internal experimental experience to guide strategy evolution and eliminate ineffective searches. Extensive experiments on four remote sensing downstream tasks, including object detection, scene classification, semantic segmentation, and change detection, demonstrate the effectiveness and generalization of RingMoClaw. Compared with the corresponding baseline models, RingMoClaw improves performance by 1.84% mAP$_{50}$ on object detection and achieves consistent gains across the other three tasks, while reducing the required evolution steps by over 40% compared with existing research automation frameworks. These results suggest that RingMoClaw offers a feasible route from task execution toward continuous research driven model evolution in remote sensing.

Recent advances in LLM agents enable a new paradigm for asset pricing, which we call Agentic Empirical Asset Pricing (AEAP): systems that autonomously conduct the scientific discovery process itself. We define AEAP and identify its core building blocks. Existing evaluation practices backtest only the outputs (factors or trades), not the autonomous discovery system that produced them. We focus on factor discovery, contributing a reference architecture, a rigorous evaluation standard for discovered factors, and a method for out-of-sample backtesting the discovery system. As a concrete instance of that architecture, we evaluate SEADS against five re-implemented baselines on two US equity panels using this standard: no single metric ranks the systems consistently, motivating evaluation on multiple axes at once. A separate rolling re-execution then asks the complementary question of whether the discovery process itself, not one static output, is reliable. We also report negative findings and limitations that surface further evaluation pitfalls for future AEAP systems.

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.

Two-sided service marketplaces are moving from deterministic request-form intake to AI-native probabilistic matching, enabled by large language models (LLMs) that infer intent, preferences, and latent constraints from natural language. Relying on inferred intent rather than fixed-form fields forces these platforms to regenerate the provider-side preference taxonomy underwriting matching, search, and pricing: attributes interpretable to service providers while remaining a useful signal for marketplace decisions. We present an autoresearch loop that generates this taxonomy, one occupation at a time, and has been deployed in production at a major U.S. consumer services marketplace since April 2026, spanning 132 occupations. Instead of one global hierarchy, the loop treats each occupation as an independent generation problem and runs iterative propose-evaluate-keep refinement cycles. Each candidate tag set is scored by a recalibrated six-rubric LLM-as-judge framework, and a 7-critic panel of distinct personas contributes weighted penalties to an adjusted score, with no hard vetoes. A separate parity-mapping stage maps legacy request-form Q&A pairs back to the generated taxonomy, yielding both a coverage signal and an interface for human quality assurance; it does so by first inferring the provider attribute each legacy question was meant to measure, rather than translating questions to tags literally.

Autonomous scientific research agents are increasingly applied to end-to-end scientific workflows, including literature review, data analysis, experimentation, and report generation. However, open-ended research tasks often do not clearly specify the analyses, methods, and success criteria required to complete the task. As a result, agents may miss important analyses, use inappropriate methods, or draw conclusions that are insufficiently supported by evidence. To address the problem, we present AutoSciRub, an evaluation-first framework that induces a task-specific executable rubric before research execution, and uses it to guide execution, criterion-level verification as well as iterative revision. AutoSciRub decomposes an underspecified instruction into atomic scientific goals, grounds them in relevant literature and task-visible data, and synthesizes specific, actionable, and verifiable criteria. The resulting rubric makes implicit experimental and evidential requirements explicit, providing guidance for experiments and analyses. During revision, rubric-guided verification identifies unmet criteria and enables targeted refinement of the research report and its supporting artifacts. On ResearchClawBench, AutoSciRub consistently improves all tested configurations, with an average gain of 2.08 points across three backbone LLMs under the fixed Codex harness and 2.95 points across three agent harnesses using a fixed DeepSeek-V4-Flash backbone. On a randomly sampled 20-task subset of AstaBench E2E Discovery, AutoSciRub further achieves an average improvement of 16.8 points across three agent harnesses, while maintaining or increasing the number of successfully completed tasks. These results demonstrate that evaluation-first guidance provides an effective and generalizable control mechanism for autonomous scientific research (Code: https://github.com/zjunlp/AutoSciRub).

Code-level autonomous research loops (ARLs) have recently emerged as a concrete object of study in automated machine learning research. In such loops, an LLM agent proposes modifications to an experimental training pipeline, executes the modified pipeline, and retains edits that improve a verifiable in-loop metric. Although executable metrics may appear to provide a reliable signal of progress, it remains unclear whether repeated metric-driven code editing leads to genuine improvements that generalize beyond the loop. We provide a systematic diagnosis of this question. Across various experiment settings, we identify a robust failure mode that we call \textbf{algorithmic mode collapse}. In this regime, surface-level edit diversity remains stable, but semantic and mechanism-level diversity collapse: the agent continues to edit different lines of code while repeatedly proposing the same kinds of algorithmic changes. This collapse is accompanied by a widening gap between in-loop metric gains and gains measured on independent held-out evaluations. We then propose Diversity-Aware Proposal Sampling (\textsc{DAPS}), a lightweight mitigation that combines category-coverage reweighting, persistent edit memory, and a validation gate. Under a three-tier protocol separating the in-loop metric, the audit metric read by the gate, and a blind metric no loop component ever accesses, \textsc{DAPS} reduces semantic-cluster decay of edits by $69.1\%$ and improves relative faithfulness by $83.7\%$ blind and $81.6\%$ audited, while preserving in-loop optimization speed. We provide the code in Github \href{https://github.com/BokwaiHo/arl-mode-collapse}{repository}.

Automating alignment research may accelerate progress toward aligned AI, but whether it does is hard to measure. Luckily, many alignment failures, such as deception, sycophancy, and jailbreaks, are already measurable by public benchmarks. We study whether automated alignment researchers (AARs) can post-train to mitigate alignment failures by proposing training methods and data to simultaneously optimize multiple safety benchmarks, while largely preserving general capability. Across 10 alignment failures, the strongest AAR methods significantly reduce the targeted alignment failures and generalize to a held-out benchmark, multi-turn behavioral audits, and models up to 4.7x larger than the target model. As a human baseline, 28 experienced researchers receive up to eight hours to develop one-shot methods for the same benchmarks, but their methods underperform the best AAR methods. Using human ideas as the AARs' initial research direction does not improve performance, suggesting current AARs may not need guidance from experienced researchers. These results suggest that automating alignment research on well-characterized failures may be practical in the near term.

We study autonomous mathematical discovery in the Station, an open-world multi-agent environment in which AI agents from different model families pursue a shared research goal without a central coordinator or scripted pipeline. Agents choose their own research directions, conduct experiments, collaborate and publish papers. These papers accumulate into a shared body of knowledge that later agents can read, cite and extend. We evaluated the Station on 12 mathematical construction problems from the AlphaEvolve study and two additional case studies. Five of the 12 problems yielded results novel relative to the prior literature: a new infinite family of finite field Kakeya sets, new exact 604-point kissing configurations in eleven dimensions, improved bounds for the discretized Kakeya needle and sign uncertainty problems, and a substantially improved lower bound for Erdős's minimum overlap problem. Agents also discovered novel infinite families for Book Ramsey numbers. Their research extended beyond searching for high-scoring constructions: agents developed explanations of their findings and proved theorems outside the assigned tasks. These explanations guided further discoveries and were preserved in the agents' papers, making the underlying insights easier for external researchers to understand and build upon. All presented discoveries are supported by exact constructions or proofs formally verified in Lean. We release the source code, full agent dialogues, papers and verification code, providing a transparent record of how these discoveries emerged.

Autonomous research systems are increasingly capable of executing long research workflows, yet automation alone does not ensure that the resulting process remains scientifically grounded. We introduce AutoResearch, a two-stage system that connects Idea Generation with Idea Execution to address both how research ideas are formed and how they are reliably established through experimentation. In Idea Generation, AutoResearch continuously integrates emerging research signals with accumulated domain knowledge, identifies transferable mechanistic insights, and uses multi-model generation and cross-review to produce grounded, testable research plans. In Idea Execution, coordinated agents decompose these plans into experiments, iteratively implement and diagnose them, and employ independent evidence-based review before accepting research conclusions. Across representative settings in cross-modal retrieval, systems optimization, and benchmark-driven machine learning, AutoResearch turns generated ideas into measurable progress, detects and corrects unreliable experimental results, and makes evidence-conditioned decisions to continue, revise, or terminate research directions. For example, on RSICD benchmark, an AutoResearch-generated idea improves mean Recall from 32.84 to 34.69, while recording only 5 audit-confirmed issue events compared with 11-27 for other autonomous research systems. These results demonstrate a research process in which meaningful insight is grounded before experimentation and conclusions are grounded before acceptance: Insight In, Hallucination Out.

We study recursive self-improvement at the level of quantitative-investment research: whether an autonomous system can use evidence from earlier experiments to improve the hypotheses and candidates proposed in later iterations. We present AQuA, which comprises two separate language-model-driven research systems: one for symbolic factor discovery and one for trainable model development. The two systems do not share agents, memories, candidate spaces, or research state. Instead, each independently closes its own research loop by retaining validated evidence and using it to guide subsequent proposals. In this bounded sense, both systems implement recursive self-improvement at the level of the research process. Each system also uses its own sealed sandbox, which fixes the data splits, feature and label definitions, and evaluator while allowing the model to act only through constrained factor expressions or configuration diffs. The factor system, a manager-mediated multi-agent pipeline, discovers and combines factors into a signal that reaches a combined information coefficient of about $0.190$ on a crypto universe. The model system, a config-driven loop over a hybrid time-series architecture, reaches a per-stock information coefficient of $+0.0843$ on US equities and converts it into a threshold long/short strategy with a held-out Sharpe of up to $+2.50$ at a two-leg cost. The strategy is positive in every year from 2021 to 2025.

The rapid advancement of Auto-Research has surfaced a fundamental evaluation challenge: how can we measure the alignment, logical coherence, and evolutionary completeness of its research trajectory with human research behavior? We propose Auto-Research's Alignment and Completeness, ARAC-Bench: a Researcher-Mimicking Evaluation framework that shifts the objective from matching final answers to reproducing high-quality human research processes. The framework operates through two synergistic components: the Academic Cognition Skills system, which is the first to transforms implicit reviewer expertise into stage-calibrated, quantifiable rubrics; and a three-stage capability diagnostic protocol, which decomposes the research process under strict modular constraints into three traceable, mutually independent dimensions: Proposal, Experiment, and Synthesis. Systematic evaluation of 11 SOTA frameworks yields a best alignment score of only 67.9 of 100, revealing a significant gap in simulating rigorous human methodology. Validation against Ph.D. Candidates rankings shows a strong correlation of 0.8141, confirming that ARAC-Bench reliably reflects the dimensions researchers truly value. ARAC-Bench provides not only a fine-grained diagnostic tool but also a scalable reward signal for training the next generation of autonomous research systems.

Effective research ideation requires moving beyond a static understanding of prior work to trace how research problems and solutions evolve across the literature. Existing methods either treat papers as unstructured context or model scholarly evolution as isolated citation chains, overlooking interactions among research trajectories. We propose Tree-of-Ideas (ToI), a two-stage framework. EvoTrace reconstructs branching scholarly trajectories from citations, tracking evolving methods, resolved problems, and gaps. EvoAgent then reasons across trajectories to identify convergent problems and complementary solutions, generating grounded research ideas. Across six AI research topics, ToI achieves the highest score among automatic methods (6.27 vs. 5.36 for the strongest baseline on a 10-point scale), with strong Novelty (6.36) and Groundedness (7.00). Also, its score approaches that of human-paper references (6.29), demonstrating the value of cross-path evolutionary reasoning.

A slew of recent works develop agents for solving research problems end-to-end, a paradigm increasingly referred to as autoresearch. Such agents have inspired large industry investment, motivated by their potential to automate time-consuming human labor and customize machine learning solutions for specialized applications. In this paper, we study the modeling pipeline at the core of these autoresearch systems and identify common failure modes when they are applied to tabular datasets: (1) they waste compute resolving the same bugs over and over again; (2) they often fail to tune hyperparameters even when they have a large remaining compute budget; (3) the tree-search algorithms that power them do not explore; and (4) they perform data analysis, mimicking the humans whose data they are trained on, but do not use that analysis to make downstream decisions. We explore targeted interventions and find that a global debug consultant that shares discovered runtime constraints across all branches of the search tree, prompt- and control-level enhancements, and refined tree-search algorithms successfully recover wasted compute. Our results show that large gains in autoresearch agent performance are achievable through agentic design alone, holding the underlying language model fixed.

Autonomous research agents can generate experiments faster than researchers can validate them. Researchers have responded by scaling the proposer and ranking more samples with a learned judge or human reviewers. We argue that this generate-and-rank paradigm misses the problem of sparse feedback. Within a declared research problem, an agent follows the control loop of a greybox fuzzer: it proposes a candidate, executes it, observes feedback, and chooses what to try next. A fuzzer rarely finds a bug, but coverage makes partial progress observable on every execution. Fuzzers then use that signal to mutate inputs and allocate effort, rather than only to rank completed runs. Auto-research needs the same two capabilities. First, each experiment should expose a cheap, dense signal of epistemic progress before final scientific validation is available. Second, that signal should determine the next intervention so that the agent searches rather than repeatedly samples. Because the optimized progress signal is guidance rather than a verdict, final validation must still decide what counts as a discovery using evidence protected from adaptive reuse. We propose controlled tests of whether candidate signals predict validated progress, whether feedback-directed search yields more validated discoveries per unit cost than repeated sampling, and whether protected validation reduces false discoveries. Feedback architecture, not only generation, is a central bottleneck in auto-research.

As AI agents are increasingly deployed in complex environments, understanding their behaviors becomes critical. Yet behavioral scientific research on AI agents remains manual and labor-intensive. We introduce AEROBAT, the first multi-agent system to automate behavioral scientific research on AI agents. Given an arbitrary target behavior by its user, AEROBAT automatically executes a full pipeline of behavioral scientific research---generating hypotheses about the behavior, designing and executing controlled experiments, making behavioral assessments, analyzing the results, and writing reports. For 12 target behaviors, we used AEROBAT to generate and test 79 hypotheses: designing 1,240 controlled experiments and executing 23,512 simulation rounds in total. Moderate-to-strong statistical evidence was found for 26 hypotheses, including some novel ones. In sum, our results demonstrate that automated behavioral scientific research on AI agents can complement and extend the reach of manual research.

Autonomous agents increasingly rely on external data to complete downstream tasks such as model training and decision support. However, existing data discovery systems remain largely retrieval-oriented: they surface candidate datasets from heterogeneous sources, but provide limited support for estimating task-specific utility, selecting cost-effective datasets under budget constraints, or incorporating trustworthy feedback from prior usage. This paper presents Guixu, a valuation-driven data discovery system for autonomous agents. Guixu employs a three-phase valuation pipeline with proxy-label propagation and multi-round knapsack optimization for task-aware data valuation. Guixu integrates agentic payment protocol to enable budget-constrained data procurement workflows. Guixu leverages on-chain data market and attestation signals for verifiable data discovery. Our demonstration highlights how Guixu enables an agent to move beyond keyword-based dataset retrieval toward task- and budget-aware, trustworthy data discovery and procurement. Attendees can interactively explore the full workflow, from NL task specification and multi-source search to data valuation and verifiable transaction feedback.

Recent systems for optimizing prompts, programs, and ML workflows typically rely on explicit outer-loop controllers such as evolutionary search, bandits, or textual-gradient methods. We ask a fundamentally different question: how much of this search policy can be internalized by a single tool-using agent? We present ReASearch, a unified framework for reasoning-driven optimization in which the agent autonomously decides what to evaluate, how to diagnose failures, which edits to make, and when to verify or restart. Rather than serving only as a proposal generator guided by hand-designed heuristics, the agent actively analyzes outcomes, allocates budget, and refines its strategy over long horizons through persistent memory. With a shared agent loop and domain-specific tools, ReASearch instantiates the exact same scaffold to optimize prompts, programs, and ML workflows. Across 14 diverse tasks, it is competitive with and mostly better than specialized optimization systems, achieving gains of 2% to 40% over strong domain-specific baselines, and in some cases discovering solutions that improve on prior human best-known results. Crucially, we observe that complex search behaviors, which are typically implemented by explicit controllers, emerge naturally from the agent's reasoning process.

We describe Research Assistant, an internal LLM-based system developed at AstraZeneca to help scientists and clinicians explore biomedical questions across a broad range of data sources. The system provides a chat-style interface that brings together evidence from scientific literature, knowledge graphs, chemistry, clinical trials, safety resources, expression data, and internal experimental systems. It supports both a fast mode for direct question answering and a multi-step mode for more complex research tasks. Responses are grounded in retrieved evidence and linked back to the original sources, allowing users to review and further explore the underlying data. In this technical note, we outline the system architecture, the main design choices behind the product, and lessons learned from deploying it at scale to support day-to-day R&D workflows across AstraZeneca.

Large language model agents can discover alphas, yet current methods have three weaknesses. The search cannot adapt during the run, automation usually ends at alpha generation while library selection and model choice stay manual, and alpha discovery can read the test window through loop feedback or code problems. We present AutoScientist-Quant, a self evolving search process that regards quantitative research as one budgeted search problem. A single controller conditions every decision on the remaining budget, choosing at each round whether to improve, combine, pivot, or stop, which node to expand, how many alphas to generate, and how to retrieve past trajectories from the shared memory. The same core then selects from the library and tunes the model, closing the loop from hypothesis to deployable strategy. We also review the evaluation pipeline reused from prior work, fix two lookahead problems, and keep the feedback window disjoint from the held out test window, so every comparison tests true generalization. On CSI universes, the framework attains the best value of nearly every metric in every setting, and these conclusions hold across several backbones and markets.

Research agents increasingly conduct multi-round machine-learning experiments in industrial recommendation settings and retain the resulting trajectories to guide later decisions. Yet a completed trajectory is not automatically evidence: generated artifacts may be unsupported or incomplete, executed rounds may be invalid or confounded, and later modifications may obscure earlier findings. We study \textbf{trajectory-to-evidence conversion}, asking what a completed research process has actually established. We introduce an evidence-grounded framework that couples bounded verification of consequential artifacts with post-execution claim qualification. A context-isolated generate--verify--repair process checks artifacts for evidence violations and missing downstream requirements before release. After execution, validity and attribution checks consolidate evidence across rounds, qualify intervention-level claims as actionable repairs, diagnostic guards, or withheld findings, and preserve admitted claims as auditable records with explicit provenance and applicability boundaries. A hybrid LLM-assisted controller subsequently applies, defers, or rejects records based on available target evidence. Record audits characterize which claims survive qualification, while downstream diagnostics identify affirmative applicability judgment as a bottleneck for the tested controller. Across paper-to-target adaptations, later rounds often improve on the first, while final rounds frequently underperform an earlier best, exposing non-monotonic trajectory evolution. Candidates produced through the complete workflow also yielded positive online lifts relative to deployed baselines.

Autonomous research agents can generate hypotheses, execute experiments, and draft manuscripts, yet their outputs often contain unsupported claims and inconsistencies between research questions, experiments, results, and conclusions. We argue that this problem is partly architectural: existing systems organize research as sequential pipelines but do not explicitly maintain or validate the evolving claim-evidence structure across stages. In this paper, we introduce EviGraph, an autonomous research framework that represents the research process as a typed evidence graph containing Problem, Gap, Hypothesis, Experiment, Finding, and Claim nodes. The graph serves as the operational state of the agent rather than a post-hoc record. EviGraph inspects evidence chains for missing dependencies, semantic misalignment, and result-claim inconsistencies, localizes the earliest weak node, and regenerates its affected downstream subgraph. Graph checkpointing prevents unsuccessful repairs from corrupting previously validated evidence. Manuscripts are generated only after every retained claim is grounded in a validated evidence chain. Experiments on ARC-Bench-ML and NanoResearch-20 show that EviGraph outperforms the compared end-to-end research-agent baselines in overall research performance, improves Claim Support Rate by 40.19% over the strongest baseline, and achieves 87.73% Experimental Data Consistency. These results demonstrate the value of explicit evidence-state maintenance for reliable autonomous research.

Research agents can increasingly search literature, propose hypotheses, generate code, run experiments, and draft manuscripts from a single topic. However, a research project is not merely a larger task: it is a long-horizon agenda that must be advanced through multiple bounded tasks with distinct but related objectives, parallel alternatives, and dependency-aware sequences. Existing single-task systems often treat the project as one oversized task, produce a flat set of vague or overlapping tasks, or leave task boundaries and execution order to manual coordination. We introduce Project2Task, a graph-guided project-level planning layer for autonomous research. Given a project brief, it represents candidate contributions as innovation atoms and organizes them in a directed lineage graph. A lightweight Bernoulli block-model objective selects among horizontal, vertical, and hybrid portfolio decompositions. Project2Task then generates bounded tasks with explicit contribution ownership, repairs overlaps and missing execution fields, and emits dependency-aware task contracts that specify objectives, inputs, expected artifacts, evaluation requirements, boundary constraints, dependencies, and execution order. The contracts are independent of any particular downstream research executor and support integration of task outputs into a coherent project-level result. On a benchmark of ten project briefs yielding roughly 30 tasks, manuscript-based portfolio evaluation gives Project2Task an average quality score of 7.15, compared with 4.58 for the Brief Baseline and 5.31 for the Topic-only Setting. Integrating its contracts with AutoResearchClaw increases average downstream task accuracy from 0.536 to 0.759. These results demonstrate the value of explicit project-to-task planning for producing coherent, non-redundant, and executable research-task portfolios.

Language models can propose many plausible trading factors, but an autonomous research system must also allocate its evaluation budget, verify its own evidence, and preserve how each candidate was produced. We present AgonAlpha, an architecture that searches over frozen research artifacts---hypotheses, executable expressions, platform evidence, rationales, and review status---rather than formulas alone. To our knowledge, AgonAlpha is the first alpha-mining system to combine verified artifact search, a fresh-context adversarial reviewer with re-execution and veto authority, and pending-aware parallel budget allocation, together with a complete public evidence trail. Independent deployments on WorldQuant BRAIN produced SPECTACULAR-grade alphas across five users and six model backends, with Fitness reaching 9.50 and Sharpe reaching 3.48, while retaining prompt-to-expression provenance for every submission.

AI for Research (AI4Research) leverages AI to automate and improve scientific workflows. While experimental design is a critical stage of the research process, prior work has focused primarily on code implementation and execution, overlooking the importance of this stage, and no benchmark exists to evaluate AI's ability to conduct systematic experiment design. To bridge this gap, we propose SCOPE, a Scientific COmprehensive Planning Evaluation Benchmark constructed from 300 high-quality latest papers across 19 research domains from top-tier venues (e.g., ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR),evaluating LLMs on two dimensions: High-Level planning completeness (main, ablation, and analysis experiments) and Low-Level configuration accuracy and rationality (datasets, baselines, and metrics). Benchmarking reveals three findings: (1) most LLMs cannot directly design high-quality experiments; (2) all LLMs exhibit a performance bottleneck in low-level configuration; and (3) search mode does not improve design quality. Furthermore, to address these challenges, we propose OptED, a novel agentic workflow to optimize LLM-based experimental design, that enhances LLM-based experimental planning through stage isolation, tool augmentation, and rule-based constraints, effectively alleviating the configuration bottleneck.

Long-horizon autonomous research tasks such as machine learning engineering require systems to make interdependent decisions under a limited budget. Existing LLM-based agents typically organize candidate-solution improvement through tree, graph, or chain structures, meaning that the search process determines how information is acquired and managed. We call this design solution-centric search and propose instead the information paradigm, in which an evolving information state represents the system's understanding of the task and guides solution improvement. We instantiate this paradigm in Iris, an inquiry-revision loop. For information acquisition, Iris generates local action plans from the current information state and uses epistemic actions to probe decision-critical unknowns without modifying the retained solution. For information management, Iris synthesizes observations across experiments into task knowledge composed of revisable claims with explicit scope and status. It updates this knowledge as new evidence arrives and constructs each decision context from raw evidence, structured summaries, or task knowledge at the required level of detail. On MLE-Bench, Iris attains a 64.9% any-medal rate under a 12-hour budget, the highest among compared systems. Across four tasks spanning harness engineering and model post-training, Iris also demonstrates cross-domain generalization.

We study what happens when a single general-purpose large language model acts as the sole researcher on a long-horizon neural architecture design problem. The agent receives a scientific question, an initial hypothesis and motivation, a compute budget, and research affordances (source and experiment management, experiment tracking, literature access, and persistent memory), then autonomously proposes, implements, evaluates, and records experiments over an extended period. The study comprises three phases, separated by human-declared transitions, that progressively expand the agent's tool surface or problem scale. Across approximately 100 sequential experiments, the agent improves a non-standard Vision Transformer from a weak baseline to a stronger, efficient model on small benchmarks and a usable but sub-SOTA model on ImageNet-1K, while producing a dense behavioural trace. We report four findings.(i)Productivity exhibits a clear phase structure: rapid early gains, a multi-dozen-hypothesis saturation wall, and recovery, with recovery triggered by expanding the action surface rather than changing the underlying model.(ii)A single early hypothesis contributes more to accuracy gain, with later improvements long-tailed.(iii)The preference for greedy, incremental hypotheses is largely workflow-induced: a commit-or-discard evaluation rule is isomorphic to greedy hill-climbing; the remainder reflects risk aversion after bold failures and anchoring on familiar literature. (iv)The agent independently rediscovers established results and, in the unfamiliar regime of pure channel attention, overturns a standard design choice. We conclude that workflow design was at least as influential as agent capability in this study and propose diversified search, budgeted moonshot hypotheses, explicit forks, and regime-aware re-validation as testable directions for future autonomous research.

As LLMs evolve from code completion systems into autonomous scientific agents, evaluating their ability to conduct experiments has become increasingly important. Existing benchmarks typically focus on static code generation, paper replication, or final answer correctness, but do not directly assess whether agents can interpret experimental evidence and use it to guide subsequent hyperparameter decisions. To address this gap, we introduce AgentHPOBench, a sequential benchmark comprising 30 executable machine learning tasks across seven research categories. Each task begins with a validated baseline run, after which an agent performs several sequential interventions. At each step, the agent observes the accumulated configurations, metrics, and logs before proposing the next valid configuration. We evaluate 12 widely used agents and conventional HPO baselines under a unified protocol. The results show that current agents exhibit measurable experimental optimization ability across domains, but still face clear limitations in sustained iterative refinement, complex log diagnosis, and consistent progress toward reported reference performance.

Modern neuroscience relies on integrating multi-scale, multimodal datasets to uncover the neural principles underlying intelligence. However, analytical challenges posed by highly heterogeneous data and fragmented workflows increasingly constrain discoveries. Here we introduce SeekBrain, an autonomous multi-agent framework designed to accelerate neuroscience discovery through domain-grounded hierarchical planning and cross-modal data analysis. SeekBrain dynamically constructs a repertoire of analysis recipes extracted from code-paper pairs. By coupling this codified expertise with agentic planning and execution engines, the framework scalably generates hypotheses and analytical pipelines on demand. Systematic evaluation on the expert-annotated BrainArena benchmark demonstrates that SeekBrain substantially outperforms state-of-the-art agent baselines across various analysis tasks. Crucially, when deployed in real-world research, SeekBrain integrated behavioral, neural, and anatomical data to reveal structured, distributed neural representations of larval zebrafish behavior and a shared axis of regional decoding strength across the brain in a mouse decision-making task. These results establish SeekBrain as a scalable and practical tool for accelerating data-driven discoveries in neuroscience.

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.

Large language model (LLM) agents have been increasingly adopted in scientific research for organizing and invoking specialized computational tools. However, their reliance on predefined tool spaces with static semantics limits their applicability to open-world scientific workflows, where tool requirements, capabilities, and boundaries evolve dynamically. To this end, we propose SciToolAgent-Evo, an ontology-aware self-evolving agent for open-world scientific tool acquisition. Driven by an evolving memory of skills, experiences, and an ontologized tool graph, it distills generalizable knowledge from contrastive trajectories during accumulation, whereas during inference, it formulates active requests and utilizes a LinUCB-based bandit gate to dynamically balance exploration and exploitation. Once a novel tool is acquired, its scientific ontology is completed online for seamless integration into the known graph. Moreover, we introduce OpenSciToolBench, a benchmark containing 900 realistic tasks across four difficulty levels. Extensive evaluations show that SciToolAgent-Evo achieves state-of-the-art performance, validating its robustness and generalization.

Automatically constructing well-specified and valuable mathematical conjectures remains a central challenge in AI-assisted mathematical discovery. Many existing open problems and conjectures are often too broad, underspecified, or difficult to connect to plausible proof or refutation strategies. We view a mathematical mechanism as a structure or reasoning principle that connects the assumptions of a candidate problem to its target conclusion, such as an inequality, invariant, decomposition, or reduction to an intermediate claim. We present MECA (MEchanism-centered Conjecture Agent), a multi-agent framework that constructs conjectures by jointly developing candidate statements and their supporting mechanisms. Explorer agents propose mechanisms, test how they apply, and revise the candidate conjecture accordingly, while critic agents assess their mathematical validity and research value. Their feedback guides changes to the assumptions, scope, and conclusion. Through this process, MECA transforms broad research directions into precise conjectures with substantive mathematical support while retaining a clearly identified unresolved core. We evaluate MECA in two complementary settings. First, we compare it with a generate-and-revise baseline on reconstructing preselected target-paper conclusions from target-conditioned but article-blind source materials. Second, we construct 100 semi-open problems from literature-derived seeds and existing open problems and evaluate them through independent proof and refutation attempts by automated provers. Our results indicate that mechanism-centered refinement produces well-specified and research-worthy conjectures that remain challenging for current automated provers.

Autoresearch improves machine-learning code by proposing changes, running full training jobs, and keeping changes that improve the metric. The efficiency of this loop depends not only on generating ideas, but also on the agent's ability to decide, before spending a training run, whether a proposed modification is likely to work. We study how the reliability of this pre-execution judgment changes over the course of an autoresearch trajectory. In public AutoSOTA logs (Li et al., 2026; Tsinghua FIB Lab, 2026), the fraction of helpful modifications falls from 70% in the first two iterations to 43% by iteration 6+. On 296 same-baseline modification pairs from 39 paper-derived AutoSOTA tasks, each containing one modification that improved the metric and one that did not, with measured outcomes hidden, an LLM judge given candidate rationales but no prior-attempt history reaches 79.5% accuracy on the pairs where strict consensus returns a verdict. On the full 366-pair benchmark, however, this ability weakens substantially late in the loop. As successful changes accumulate, selective accuracy - accuracy conditioned on a strict-consensus verdict - falls from 82.8% to 56.9%, while the judge remains willing to decide. We call this operational pattern the confidence cliff. Rehearse implements the loop change as a lightweight skill for autoresearch loops: propose several ideas, compare them before execution, run the most promising, and judge with a focused memory of similar past attempts and outcomes. This focused outcome memory raises late selective accuracy to 83.5%. Across 4,000 budgeted training runs over three loops, Rehearse improves the endpoint under the same training-run budget on nanochat, image classification, and time-series forecasting.

Automated research systems use experimental scores both to deliver artifacts and to decide which ideas to retain, transfer, and pursue. Yet one run scores one implementation of an idea. Crediting that realization-level score as evidence about the parent mechanism creates the \emph{implementation lottery}, in which an idea-level conclusion depends on which plausible implementation was sampled. The mismatch is structural whenever one run updates beliefs about a mechanism. We estimate its magnitude. The \emph{Idea Reliability Audit} measures \emph{idea reliability} by validating and freezing candidate cards, sampling fresh-session implementations, using outcome-blind fidelity labels, and rerunning saved artifacts. It reports idea ICC and leave-one-implementation-out (LOO) winner reversal. Prior work generally repeats the task; we repeat the idea. Across 312 assignments on 13 tabular tasks and two coding-agent setups, implementation variance was more than five and ten times same-artifact rerun variance, respectively, and the winner from one implementation draw differed from the winner under the other-two mean in 25.6% and 43.6% of decisions. Reversal survives card-level filtering under two outcome-blind review rules. An exploratory diagnostic on three materials-regression workflows with a deterministic evaluator also finds implementation variation dominating the decomposition. These findings distinguish idea reliability from best-of-$N$ artifact utility. Before a score guides idea-level branching, transfer, or research memory, evidence should cover multiple implementations.

Recursive self-improvement requires turning evidence of model failures into better models. Data-centric post-training research entails diagnosing capability gaps, designing and validating training-data strategies, and learning from checkpoint feedback. Can LLM agents automate this loop? Existing benchmarks entangle research decisions with optimization, serving, evaluation, and systems implementation, obscuring agents' research capability. We introduce RSIBench-Data, a controlled benchmark of LLM agents as data-centric researchers with a fixed post-training stack. Agents iteratively revise training-data strategies for a fixed target model; training and serving use Tinker-backed services, official evaluation runs through Harbor and E2B sandboxes, and budgets are fixed across agents. We evaluate four frontier agents on six benchmarks across software engineering, terminal use, scientific question answering, and mathematics. Agents demonstrate core data-centric research capabilities: in 58.33% of settings, they improve upon the first valid attempt by refining strategies from feedback. However, improvement is inconsistent. Among searches continuing after the best observed score, 78.26% end with a lower-scoring final attempt, while the rest only recover the same peak. A strong candidate may therefore appear early or midway through a run even as later revisions fail. Trajectory analysis identifies four patterns in stronger runs: accurate hypotheses, validation-grounded supervision, behavior-aligned data, and preservation of strong checkpoints. These findings suggest that current agents can make useful data-centric discoveries but cannot yet translate feedback into consistent improvements. RSIBench-Data provides a measurable, auditable testbed for the research capabilities required for recursive self-improvement. We open-source our code at https://github.com/evolvent-ai/RSIBench-Data.

Electroencephalography (EEG) analysis in cognitive studies requires specialized expertise and involves many defensible choices over contrasts, channels, time windows, and statistical tests. LLM agents can translate varied natural-language questions into analysis choices, offering a flexible interface for automation. Yet fluent reports alone cannot establish that an agent selected the requested analysis or evaluated a confirmatory claim independently of adaptive search. We present CogEEGAgent, a cognitive-EEG analysis agent grounded in MNE-Python. Its EEG-specific scientific harness separates semantic from scientific authority. The LLM interprets intent and proposes registered analyses, while deterministic components validate typed contracts, control confirmation access, and authorize evidence-bound release. On a prespecified routing benchmark, CogEEGAgent maps language to registered analyses more accurately than a matched deterministic router, while matched preflight makes both systems abstain whenever required. In an externally model-authored, outcome-blind campaign, the complete system releases supported analyses with participant-disjoint confirmation and blocks prespecified capability hazards and lifecycle-reuse requests. Policy stress testing shows that held-out confirmation curbs false positives from uncorrected adaptive search. Together, these studies establish bounded autonomy and an auditable automation framework for cognitive-EEG workflows. More broadly, they show how scientific agents can combine flexible language understanding with fail-closed control over inference and release.

AI-driven autonomous research (AR) systems are becoming increasingly effective across a broad range of tasks. Their performance, however, is still evaluated primarily by the quality of the final outcome. In this paper, we argue that the efficiency of the solution-search process is an equally important but often overlooked dimension of performance. A strong AR system should not only produce high-quality results, but also reach them with as small a budget as possible. Search efficiency will become increasingly important as AR expands from domains with inexpensive verification, such as mathematics and coding, to real-world scientific settings in which solution evaluation may require costly physical experiments. To capture this dimension, we propose evaluating AR systems using the area under the curve (AUC) of the Pareto frontier, alongside final outcome quality. We compare several families of search algorithms, including hill climbing, beam search, tree search, and evolutionary search, across twelve systems-optimization tasks. We find that no single search structure is consistently the most efficient. We also show that search efficiency and final outcome quality are distinct performance dimensions: a method that eventually achieves the best result may nevertheless improve slowly and consume substantially more evaluation budget before reaching that result. Because the most effective search policy is generally unknown in advance, we introduce an adaptive procedure called fluid search, which uses a portfolio bandit to dynamically allocate a fixed evaluation budget across a forest of search processes. Across the evaluated tasks, fluid search achieves the highest overall search efficiency, closely matching the performance of a per-task oracle that is given the best search structure for each task in advance.

Generative-AI evaluations can become historical before publication, yet calendar age does not affect every conclusion equally. This paper has two linked purposes. First, it audits a maximum-variation purposive corpus of 40 empirical records appearing between 18 July 2025 and 17 July 2026. The audit coded publication route, execution timing, model identity, age of the newest named generation or immutable snapshot, same-family supersession and refresh behaviour. At appearance, the newest named model was a median 281 days old (middle 50%: 75-478; range: 11-939). Median age was 395 days for 25 journal articles, 56 days for 14 preprints and 49 days for one laboratory report. Thirty-five records included a superseded family, seven supplied a precise dated identifier, three clearly refreshed model evidence, and one added a late sensitivity test. All 40 included an OpenAI system, a feature of this corpus rather than a prevalence estimate. The paper distinguishes model age from claim currency and proposes six reporting practices. Second, it treats its own two-day production process as a reflexive case of frontier-model-assisted research creation. GPT-5.6 Sol Pro in ChatGPT supported candidate discovery, source reconciliation, calculations, drafting and critique; the author checked sources, made all substantive decisions and accepts responsibility. This is a proof-of-practice, not a controlled estimate of productivity or quality. By applying its own Model Facts and model-currency statement, the paper shows how rapid AI-assisted research can be made inspectable without treating model output as independent validation. The title uses half-lives metaphorically; no universal decay rate is estimated.

Comparing CT reconstruction methods fairly is labor-intensive and largely manual, and many benchmarks use idealized data. We ask whether a large language model (LLM) agent can do the labor of reconstruction research on its own, and whether a ranking measured on ideal data predicts behavior under realistic noise. We built an agentic loop: the agent edits a solver, runs a short cluster job, reads one frozen metric, and revises. The metric is a calibrated headroom score against the FBP baseline, inside the field of view; every method shares the same differentiable fan-beam projector. We benchmarked 26 methods on Mayo low-dose CT (noise-limited) and a 128-view sparse-view breast task from the noiseless DL-Sparse-View Challenge, with validation-selected iterations scored on a held-out test set. Every trained breast model was then re-scored on noisy inputs (I_0 = 10^5 photons) without retraining, and separately retrained on matched noise. The agent independently implemented, tuned, and benchmarked all 26 methods, and recombined them into a compact solver of 969 parameters that ties the top Mayo tier at the 1% level using 0.4% of the champion's parameters. Benchmarking gives a tier of statistically indistinguishable top methods, not one winner. Mild input noise nearly inverts the breast ranking: the noiseless champion (a supervised image denoiser, hr 0.89) collapses to 0.00, while a learned primal-dual method rises to champion (0.72 to 0.93). An ideal-data leaderboard therefore does not predict robustness. The inversion is a transfer effect, not a permanent deficit: retraining on matched noise restores much of the clean ranking (Spearman rho 0.04 to 0.61). Noise is only the easiest confounder in an open-ended set (beam hardening, scatter, anatomy, disease), so no single-factor challenge certifies generality. Benchmarks should model a broad spectrum of realistic factors at once.

Automating theoretical research requires generating candidate results and evaluating them reliably. Models keep getting better at the first, while the second remains hard. A common approach asks one large language model (LLM) to review what another produced, yet such reviewers are empirically unreliable: they may accept fabricated papers and catch the fabrication at close to chance rates~\citep{badscientist2025}. We present \textsc{CausalSmith}, a framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference built on the Lean proof assistant, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee. \textsc{CausalSmith} rests on \textsc{Causalean}, a foundational Lean library for causal inference holding 8,179 machine-checked definitions and theorems, developed with language-model assistance under human design and review. Around it, we build a self-improving agentic pipeline that selects research topics, proposes results, formalizes statements, constructs proofs, and presents the resulting artifacts for human inspection. Moreover, the pipeline pairs Lean verification with a statement audit that compares each formal theorem against the informal claim behind it. We evaluate the system using artifacts produced by completed autonomous research runs. The source code, formal library, and run records are available at https://github.com/Jiyuan-Tan/CausalSmith.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly automated the process of scientific discovery over the past few years. However, existing systems share one core limitation: they generate and optimize ideas independently for either Quality or Diversity. This often leads to the generation of ideas in close proximity to one another or to a large set of trivial, unsound, or unclear concepts. In this work, we instead argue that research ideation should be treated as a conjunction of both objectives and framed as a Quality-Diversity (QD) search. In line with this perspective, we introduce IDEAgent, a multi-agent framework that manages the evolution of ideas through lineages. We jointly drive Quality using multi-objective feedback for dedicated repair and refinement, while Diversity is achieved through lightweight sequential memory and explicit comparison against completed ideas, their historical ancestors, and rejected proposals. To systematically evaluate this QD conjunction, we develop Yield, a joint metric that computes the largest set of mutually diverse ideas that satisfy a predetermined quality threshold. Finally, through evaluations across 32 topics spanning 8 domains of Computer Science, we show that IDEAgent outperforms the best baseline by 3.89x on Yield, while achieving non-zero Yield on 8x more topics. We further corroborate these findings through an analysis of quality improvements, showing that repair and refinement are crucial for building logical rigor and clarity while preserving non-obviousness. To encourage future research on QD-search-based ideation, we open-source IDEAgent at https://github.com/declare-lab/IDEAgent.

While automated research systems promise to accelerate empirical analysis, they are prone to silent failures: instances in which analysis code executes successfully yet relies on invalid causal assumptions. We present the Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Epidemiology Research Assistant (ARA), a framework that makes these failures visible by explicitly encoding causal design principles, study-specific assumptions, and methodological constraints. ARA integrates protocol construction, synthetic data generation, and adversarial validation into a unified pipeline. The framework translates natural language research questions into structured causal protocols and executable analysis code by first constructing a protocol and then generating synthetic datasets using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) with known ground-truth effects. This synthetic-data step can also support pipeline development when access to confidential data, such as medical data, is restricted. The generated analysis is then evaluated under controlled violations of identification assumptions. We evaluate ARA on the Automated Causal Reasoning Benchmark, assessing recovery of identification strategies, causal quantities, treatment and outcome variables, and consistency between generated code and approved protocol. Protocol construction and adversarial validation did not consistently improve numerical agreement with benchmark estimates compared with standard LLM-based generation. However, they changed the failure mode: instead of silently returning causal estimates, ARA often surfaced protocol concerns, diagnostic failures, incomplete inference, or downgraded non-causal interpretations. These findings suggest that validity-first automated science systems should be evaluated not only by answer accuracy, but also by whether they indicate when causal claims are unwarranted.

Generative AI lets large language models produce scholarly-looking text within seconds, yet fluency does not equal valid explanation. The deepest risk is not factual error alone but the appearance that an explanation is already established without clear sources, page numbers, editions, or evidence. We liken the page anchor to Ariadne's thread: within the labyrinth of generative fluency, it is the thread that leads the scholar back to the source. This paper proposes Traceable Scholarship as the minimum normative condition for AI-assisted humanistic research, situating it across the three revolutions of knowledge infrastructure: print, digital, and generative AI. We introduce page anchors, dual page numbers, citation-first generation, NO_EVIDENCE, human verification, four-level compliance, and Scope Contract, and present AIH-Infra as a three-layer reference implementation: Contexture (document structuring), Open WebUI AIH-Infra (traceable knowledge base), and AIH-Infra MCP Server (agent gateway). A case study on a 29-volume Kant Akademie-Ausgabe knowledge base illustrates how traceability supports retrieval correction, evidence grading, and judgment downgrading. Traceability is not a software feature; it is the condition under which humanistic research can remain public and refutable in the age of generative AI.