Autoresearch

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

This paper argues that workflow closure is not scientific closure in auto-research systems. Current systems can increasingly complete research-like loops internally, moving from idea generation to experiment execution, writing, and self-evaluation. That achievement is real, but it does not by itself give the resulting outputs scientific standing. We argue that trustworthy auto-research should not aim for autonomous self-sufficiency, but should aim for autonomous execution under non-autonomous epistemic control. Based on a survey of more than 100 recent papers and repositories in this rapidly emerging area, together with a structured audit of 21 representative systems, we diagnose a recurring and structurally connected failure pattern: objective collapse, in which single-proxy targets replace multi-objective scientific aims; validation collapse, in which internal self-evaluation replaces independent validation; and acceptance collapse, in which benchmark scores or publication-shaped artifacts replace mechanisms for domain-level critique, reuse, and integration. These collapses are not inherent limits of autonomy but correctable design choices. Accordingly, we outline potential remedies across objective signal, validation, and output pathway to spark community discussion.

Scientific research is being reshaped by AI systems that move beyond isolated assistance toward longer-horizon workflows spanning literature grounding, hypothesis generation, experimentation, validation, reporting, and revision. This shift marks a transition from task-level AI for science to workflow-level research automation. Yet current systems remain fragmented, differing in autonomy, domain scope, execution environment, validation mechanism, and human oversight, while still struggling with evidence preservation, reproducibility, weak-direction rejection, provenance tracking, cross-domain robustness, and accountable scientific closure. This survey examines these developments through AutoResearch, defined as the developmental spectrum of AI-powered scientific workflow automation. Within it, Vibe Research denotes the human-steered region of prompt-based assistance and human-verified execution, whereas emerging AI-led systems coordinate larger portions of the discovery loop without achieving robust autonomy. We analyze how research systems redistribute control, evidence, execution, validation, and accountability across workflows and organize the field around five workflow conditions: literature and research grounding; hypothesis formation and planning; experimentation and tool use; feedback, validation, and review; and reporting and knowledge communication. We further synthesize AI scientist systems, mixed-initiative co-research frameworks, benchmarks, domain deployments, and open-source infrastructures. Finally, we propose five evaluation dimensions--novelty, validity, impact, reliability, and provenance--and show that AutoResearch autonomy is domain-conditioned, being more credible in structured, executable, and rapidly verifiable settings but limited in embodied, delayed, heterogeneous, ethical, or institutionally accountable contexts.

We present Claw AI Lab, a lab-native autonomous research platform that advances automated research from a hidden prompt-to-paper pipeline into an interactive AI laboratory. Rather than centering the system around a single agent or a fixed serial workflow, we allow users to instantiate a full research team from one prompt, with customizable roles, collaborative workflows, real-time monitoring, artifact inspection, and rollback/resume control through a unified dashboard. The platform also supports distinct research modes for exploration, multi-agent discussion, and reproduction, making autonomous research substantially more steerable and laboratory-like in practice. A key practical contribution of Claw AI Lab lies in its Claw-Code Harness, which connects local codebases, datasets, and checkpoints to runnable experiments and feeds execution artifacts back into the research loop. As a result, the harness improves not only execution integration, but also experimental completion and result integrity: experiments are easier to inspect, iterate on, and faithfully transfer into final papers, reducing common failure modes such as partial runs and malformed result reporting. In our internal evaluation on five AI research case studies, using AutoResearchClaw as the baseline, Claw AI Lab is consistently preferred by AI expert judges on idea novelty, experiment completeness, and paper presentation quality. We view Claw AI Lab as an early step toward a new paradigm: autonomous research as usable, interactive, and reliability-aware scientific infrastructure.

Autonomous research systems increasingly make the scientific workflow executable: agents can propose ideas, run code, inspect results, and draft papers. But executable workflows do not by themselves produce research judgment. We analyze where current systems lose trial experience: weak evidence becomes prose, pilot signals become broad claims, memory remains textual, and recurring process failures do not change later behavior. We introduce Sibyl-AutoResearch, a self-evolving AutoResearch framework built around Scientific Trial-and-Error Harnesses. A harness lets agents run bounded trials, preserve positive and negative outcomes, and route lessons into later planning, validation, claim scope, scheduling, critique, writing, and harness repair. We formalize this through two auditable conversion units: trial-to-behavior conversion, which links trial signals to later research actions, and trial-to-harness-behavior conversion, which links recurring process failures to system updates. We implement the framework in SIBYL, a file-backed autonomous research system that exposes the state, roles, memory, gates, and artifact traces needed to inspect these conversion paths. A retrospective audit identifies eight high-confidence conversion events, with a median latency of one iteration and a maximum latency of three iterations. A recovered-failure registry further shows how five naturally occurring failure classes, including duplicate results, stale numbers, and unsupported statistics, were blocked, downgraded, or routed into later repair. These traces do not establish a comparative performance claim; they show that the proposed conversion units are recoverable from realistic autonomous-research workspaces. The SIBYL framework and system are available at https://github.com/Sibyl-Research-Team/AutoResearch-SibylSystem.

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

Deep research agents increasingly automate complex information-seeking tasks, producing evidence-grounded reports via multi-step reasoning, tool use, and synthesis. Their growing role demands scalable, reliable evaluation, positioning LLM-as-judge as a supervision paradigm for assessing factual accuracy, evidence use, and reasoning quality. Yet the reliability of these judges for deep research agents remains poorly understood, posing a critical meta-evaluation problem: before deploying LLM judges to supervise research agents, we must first evaluate the judges themselves. Existing meta-evaluations fall short in two ways: (1) reliance on coarse, subjective human-preference agreement; (2) focus on instruction-following or verifiable tasks, leaving open-ended agent executions unexplored. To address these gaps, we introduce REFLECT (REliable Fine-grained LLM judge Evaluation via Controlled inTervention), a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments. REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions on quality-screened agent execution traces. This yields verifiable, comprehensive, and fine-grained instances for validating the judge models. Our experiments show that current LLM judges remain unreliable: even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures, with especially poor performance on evidence verification. Together, our taxonomy and findings expose systematic judge limitations, reveal tradeoffs in cost and reliability, and offer actionable guidance for building more reliable evaluation pipelines for deep research agents.

Recent auto-research systems can produce complete papers, but feasibility is not the same as quality, and the field still lacks a systematic study of how good agent-generated papers actually are. We introduce ResearchArena, a minimal scaffold that lets off-the-shelf agents (Claude Code using Opus 4.6, Codex using GPT-5.4, and Kimi Code using K2.5) carry out the full research loop themselves (ideation, experimentation, paper writing, self-refinement) under only lightweight guidance. Across 13 computer science seeds and 3 trials per agent-domain pair, ResearchArena yields 117 agent-generated papers, each evaluated under three complementary lenses: a manuscript-only reviewer (SAR), an artifact-aware peer review (PR) in which agents inspect the workspace alongside the manuscript, and an human conducted meta-review. Under SAR alone the picture is optimistic: Claude Code obtains the highest score, outperforms Analemma's FARS, and matches the weighted-average human ICLR 2025 submission, suggesting that minimally scaffolded agents can produce papers that look competitive on manuscript-only review. Manual inspection, however, reveals this picture is overstated: SAR scores are poorly aligned with its actual acceptance decisions and reward plausible framing without verifying experimental substance. Under artifact-aware PR scores drop sharply, and manual auditing identifies experimental rigor as the major bottleneck, decomposing into three failure modes (fabricated results, underpowered experiments, and plan/execution mismatch) that are highly agent-dependent: Codex 5%/8% paper-vs-artifact mismatch / fabricated references versus Kimi Code 77%/72%, a $\sim$15$\times$ spread that tracks distinct research personas the agents develop. None of the 117 agent-generated papers reaches the acceptance bar of a top-tier venue. This suggests that we are still gapped from the true auto-research.

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.

This research addresses the challenges inherent in developing Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications, particularly those leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs). While AI vendors provide Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) and Software Development Kits (SDKs) to facilitate developer interaction, the former often requires intricate manual request construction, and the latter can lead to significant vendor lock-in. Furthermore, existing model abstraction frameworks, though mitigating vendor dependency, introduce an additional layer of complexity and potential security concerns. To reconcile these conflicting factors, the study introduces PuppyChatter, a novel software framework designed to preserve the intuitive simplicity of vendor-specific SDKs while simultaneously adhering to the vendor-neutrality principles characteristic of model abstraction, thereby offering a more streamlined and flexible development paradigm.

LLM-based equation discovery offers a promising route to recovering symbolic laws from data, but many systems still rely on generation-centered loops that propose candidates, fit parameters, score results, and reuse selected examples. Such loops can misjudge useful skeletons under unreliable fitting, discard near-correct equations that require repair, and accumulate redundant memories that provide limited guidance. We propose STRIDE, a self-reflective agent framework that improves reliability by coordinating data-aware generation, mixed-fitting evaluation, critic--executor repair, and diversity-preserving semantic memory. By turning fitted scores and candidate behavior into shared feedback, STRIDE enables equations to be proposed, assessed, refined, and reused within a closed-loop discovery process. Experiments on representative symbolic-regression benchmarks and LSR-Synth suites show that STRIDE improves accuracy, OOD robustness, and structural recovery across multiple LLM backbones, with ablations and analyses confirming the contribution of its core components.

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.

With the continuous advancement of reasoning abilities in Large Language Models (LLMs), their application to scientific reasoning tasks has gained significant research attention. Current research primarily emphasizes boosting LLMs' performance on scientific QA benchmarks by training on larger, more comprehensive datasets with extended reasoning chains. However, these approaches neglect the essence of the scientific reasoning process -- logicality, which is the rational foundation to ensure the validity of reasoning steps leading to reliable conclusions. In this work, we make the first systematic investigation into the internal logicality underlying LLM scientific reasoning, and develop a scientific logicality-enriched methodology, including a set of assessment criteria and data sampling methods for logicality-guided training, to improve the logical faithfulness as well as task performance. Further, we take physics, characterized by its diverse logical structures and formalisms, as an exemplar discipline to practise the above methodology. For data construction, we extract scientific problems from academic literature and sample a high-quality dataset exhibiting strong logicality. Experiments based on three different backbone LLMs reveal that: 1) the training data we constructed can effectively improve the scientific logicality in LLM reasoning; and 2) the enriched scientific logicality plays a critical role in solving scientific problems. Code is available at \href{https://github.com/ScienceOne-AI/PhysLogic}{https://github.com/ScienceOne-AI/PhysLogic}.

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.

Building state-of-the-art (SOTA) predictive models for drug discovery requires expensive search over tools, architectures, and training strategies. Current LLM-based agents can find SOTA solutions through extensive trial and error, but they do not retain the experience accumulated along the way and therefore pay the full search cost on every new task. We propose \method (Self-evolving Agent Experience), a framework that accumulates and reuses experience across tasks to build SOTA drug discovery models efficiently. \method maintains a cross-task memory of verified skills, statistical evidence about effective strategies, and a record of recurring errors and their fixes. In some cases, \method transfers a working solution directly without test-time search. In 33 molecular property prediction tasks, \method ranks first among nine SOTA agents in a single-task setting. With memory accumulated from 16 smaller tasks, \method achieves an averaged normalized score of 0.935 on 17 held-out tasks in a cross-task evaluation setting and outperforms all baseline agents by 10-30% in a zero-test-time search regime. In summary, our work shows the advantage of cross-task memory for efficient SOTA model development in drug discovery.

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.

Long-term memory is essential for LLM agents that operate across multiple sessions, yet existing memory systems treat retrieval infrastructure as fixed: stored content evolves while scoring functions, fusion strategies, and answer-generation policies remain frozen at deployment. We argue that truly adaptive memory requires co-evolution at two levels: the stored knowledge and the retrieval mechanism that queries it. We present EvolveMem, a self-evolving memory architecture that exposes its full retrieval configuration as a structured action space optimized by an LLM-powered diagnosis module. In each evolution round, the module reads per-question failure logs, identifies root causes, and proposes targeted configuration adjustments; a guarded meta-analyzer applies them with automatic revert-on-regression and explore-on-stagnation safeguards. This closed-loop self-evolution realizes an AutoResearch process: the system autonomously conducts iterative research cycles on its own architecture, replacing manual configuration tuning. Starting from a minimal baseline, the process converges autonomously, discovering effective retrieval strategies including entirely new configuration dimensions not present in the original action space. On LoCoMo, EvolveMem outperforms the strongest baseline by 25.7% relative and achieves a 78.0% relative improvement over the minimal baseline. On MemBench, EvolveMem exceeds the strongest baseline by 18.9% relative. Evolved configurations transfer across benchmarks with positive rather than catastrophic transfer, indicating that the self-evolution process captures universal retrieval principles rather than benchmark-specific heuristics. Code is available at https://github.com/aiming-lab/SimpleMem.

Effectively configuring scalable large language model (LLM) experiments, spanning architecture design, hyperparameter tuning, and beyond, is crucial for advancing LLM research, as poor configuration choices can waste substantial computational resources and prevent models from realizing their full potential. Prior automated methods are designed for low-cost settings where repeated trial and error is feasible, but scalable LLM experiments are too expensive for such extensive iteration. To our knowledge, no work has addressed the automation of high-cost LLM experiment configurations, leaving this problem labor-intensive and dependent on expert intuition. Motivated by this gap, we propose AutoLLMResearch, an agentic framework that mimics how human researchers learn generalizable principles from low-fidelity experiments and extrapolate to efficiently identify promising configurations in expensive LLM settings. The core challenge is how to enable an agent to learn, through interaction with a multi-fidelity experimental environment that captures the structure of the LLM configuration landscape. To achieve this, we propose a systematic framework with two key components: 1) LLMConfig-Gym, a multi-fidelity environment encompassing four critical LLM experiment tasks, supported by over one million GPU hours of verifiable experiment outcomes; 2) A structured training pipeline that formulates configuration research as a long-horizon Markov Decision Process and accordingly incentivizes cross-fidelity extrapolation reasoning. Extensive evaluation against diverse strong baselines on held-out experiments demonstrates the effectiveness, generalization, and interpretability of our framework, supporting its potential as a practical and general solution for scalable real-world LLM experiment automation.

Scientific data processing often requires task-specific algorithms or AI models, creating a barrier for domain scientists who need to analyze their data but may not have extensive computing or image-processing expertise. This barrier is especially pronounced when data are noisy, have a high dynamic range, are sparsely labeled, or are only loosely specified. We introduce CVEvolve, an autonomous agentic harness with a zero-code interface for scientific data-processing algorithm discovery. CVEvolve combines a multi-round search strategy with tools for code execution, evaluation implementation, history management, holdout testing, and optional inspection of scientific data and visual outputs. The search alternates between discovery and improvement actions, and uses lineage-aware stochastic candidate sampling to balance exploration and exploitation. We demonstrate CVEvolve on X-ray fluorescence microscopy image registration, Bragg peak detection, high-energy diffraction microscopy image segmentation, and hybrid analytical-learning-based affine registration. Across these tasks, CVEvolve discovers algorithms that improve over baseline methods, while holdout test tracking helps identify candidates that generalize better than later over-optimized alternatives. These results show that zero-code, autonomous LLM-powered algorithm development can help domain scientists turn unstructured scientific image data into practical algorithms and downstream scientific discoveries.

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.

We demonstrate LLARS (LLM Assisted Research System), an open-source platform that bridges the gap between domain experts and developers for building LLM-based systems. It integrates three tightly connected modules into an end-to-end pipeline: Collaborative Prompt Engineering for real-time co-authoring with version control and instant LLM testing, Batch Generation for configurable output production across user-selected prompts $\times$ models $\times$ data with cost control, and Hybrid Evaluation where human and LLM evaluators jointly assess outputs through diverse assessment methods, with live agreement metrics and provenance analysis to identify the best model-prompt combination for a given use case. New prompts and models are automatically available for batch generation and completed batches can be turned into evaluation scenarios with a single click. Interviews with six domain experts and three developers in online counselling confirmed that LLARS feels intuitive, saves considerable time by keeping everything in one place and makes interdisciplinary collaboration seamless.

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

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.

Autonomous experimentation has transformed microscopy and materials discovery by enabling closed-loop optimization including imaging and spectroscopy tuning, strucutre property relationship discovery, and exploration of combinatorial libraries. However, most current workflows remain limited to selecting measurements within fixed objective or hypothesis spaces, rather than generating new physical models from experimental data. Here, we introduce an open hypothesis-learning framework that combines symbolic regression with large-language-model-based physical evaluation and implement it for autonomous scanning probe microscopy. Symbolic regression generates candidate analytical relationships directly from sparse measurements, while the language-model evaluator ranks these candidates according to physical plausibility, scaling behavior, and consistency with known mechanisms. We demonstrate the approach on autonomous piezoresponse force microscopy measurements of ferroelectric domain switching in a PZT thin film. Starting from five seed measurements, the workflow evolves from physically incomplete candidate expressions toward interpretable voltage-time growth laws consistent with kinetic domain-wall motion. This work extends autonomous microscopy from closed-loop optimization toward open hypothesis discovery, where candidate physical laws emerge from the experiment itself rather than being specified in advance. More broadly, the framework establishes a route for integrating symbolic regression, physical reasoning, and adaptive experimentation into hierarchical autonomous scientific workflows.

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.

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

Agentic data science (ADS) systems are rapidly improving their capability to autonomously analyze, fit, and interpret data, potentially moving towards a future where agents conduct the vast majority of data-science work. However, current ADS systems use statistical tools designed to be interpretable by humans, rather than interpretable by agents. To address this, we introduce Agentic-imodels, an agentic autoresearch loop that evolves data-science tools designed to be interpretable by agents. Specifically, it develops a library of scikit-learn-compatible regressors for tabular data that are optimized for both predictive performance and a novel LLM-based interpretability metric. The metric measures a suite of LLM-graded tests that probe whether a fitted model's string representation is "simulatable" by an LLM, i.e. whether the LLM can answer questions about the model's behavior by reading its string output alone. We find that the evolved models jointly improve predictive performance and agent-facing interpretability, generalizing to new datasets and new interpretability tests. Furthermore, these evolved models improve downstream end-to-end ADS, increasing performance for Copilot CLI, Claude Code, and Codex on the BLADE benchmark by up to 73%

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.

Research funding discovery remains fundamentally fragmented: researchers navigate disparate agency portals (e.g., in the United States, NSF, NIH, DARPA, Grants.gov, and many others) with heterogeneous interfaces, search capabilities, and data schemas. We present a compound AI system that unifies this landscape through two tightly coupled components: (1) an aggregation layer that autonomously collects, normalizes, and indexes almost 12,000 federal and nonprofit opportunities from fragmented sources via LLM-equipped browser agents, maintaining a biweekly-updated unified database; and (2) an agentic ReAct-based query processing layer that interprets research context (including from PDF documents) and employs hybrid search combining a structured index with selective web search to retrieve relevant opportunities - while avoiding LLM hallucination. The conversational interface supports iterative refinement through multi-turn interactions, allowing researchers to progressively apply constraints without reformulating their core research description. Results stream in real time with full transparency of intermediate reasoning, enabling appropriate calibration of user trust. Currently used by almost 3,000+ users, our approach demonstrates the feasibility of compound AI in reducing grant discovery time from 30--45 minutes (manual, fragmented portal searches) to under 10 minutes (unified, conversational search).

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.

Autonomous science is transforming how we discover materials and chemical systems for advanced energy technologies. However, many initially promising systems never reach deployment. This "valley of death" stems from optimization that prioritizes laboratory metrics over industrial viability. We propose a new strategy: "born-qualified" autonomous development, which embeds manufacturability, cost, and durability constraints from the outset. This approach is enabled by four pillars, including the development of multi-objective metrics, causal models, a modular infrastructure, and embedding manufacturing in the discovery loop. Realizing this vision will require sustained, community-wide commitment, but the potential return on that investment is commensurate with the scale of the challenge.

Scientific discovery is an extended process of ideation--surveying prior work, forming hypotheses, and refining reasoning--yet existing approaches treat this phase as a brief preamble despite its central role in research. We introduce SCISENSE, a sensemaking-grounded framework that operationalizes ideation as a structured sequence of eight cognitive stages (Pirolli & Card, 2005). We construct SCISENSE-Traj, a 100K-scale dataset of citation-conditioned research trajectories in two modes: Target, where an LLM reconstructs the ideation path leading to a known paper from its cited works, and Infer, where the LLM proposes novel directions from the same citations. We distill these into SCISENSE-LM, a family of sensemaking LLMs spanning 3B to 70B parameters. Contrary to the assumption that looser supervision promotes greater exploration, Target-trained models achieve a 2.0% improvement in trajectory quality over Infer-trained models while also producing more novel and diverse outputs. This advantage propagates downstream: coding agents conditioned on Target trajectories produce research artifacts with higher executability and quality than those conditioned on Infer trajectories. This suggests that targeted ideation reduces cognitive burden on downstream agents, freeing them to explore more creatively. SCISENSE offers both a practical tool for augmenting LLM-driven research workflows and a principled testbed for studying how planning shapes scientific discovery.

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

A long-standing challenge in economics lies not in the lack of intuition, but in the difficulty of translating intuitive insights into verifiable research. To address this challenge, we introduce AgentEconomist, an end-to-end interactive system designed to translate abstract intuitions into executable computational experiments. Grounded in a domain-specific knowledge base covering over 13,000 high-quality academic papers, the system employs a modular multi-stage architecture. Specifically, the Idea Development Stage generates literature-grounded hypotheses, the Experimental Design Stage configures simulator-aligned experimental parameters and protocols, and the Experimental Execution Stage runs experiments and returns structured analyses. Together, these stages form a human-in-the-loop, iterative workflow that translates economic intuitions into executable computational experiments. Through extensive experiments involving human expert evaluation and large language models (LLMs) as judges, we show that the system generates research ideas with stronger literature grounding and higher novelty and insight than state-of-the-art generic LLMs. Overall, AgentEconomist adopts a human-AI collaboration paradigm that enables researchers to focus on high-level intuitions, while delegating the labor-intensive processes of translation and computational execution to agents.

People commonly leverage structured content to accelerate knowledge acquisition and research problem solving. Among these, roadmaps guide researchers through hierarchical subtasks to solve complex research problems step by step. Despite progress in structured content generation, the roadmap generation task has remained unexplored. To bridge this gap, we introduce RoadMap, a novel benchmark designed to evaluate the ability of large language models (LLMs) to construct high-quality roadmaps for solving complex research problems. Based on this, we identify three limitations of LLMs: (1) lack of professional knowledge, (2) unreasonable task decomposition, and (3) disordered logical relationships. To address these challenges, we propose RoadMapper, an LLM-based multi-agent system that decomposes the research roadmap generation task into three key stages (i.e., initial generation, knowledge augmentation, and iterative "critique-revise-evaluate"). Extensive experiments demonstrate that RoadMapper can improve LLMs' ability for roadmap generation, while enhancing average performance by more than 8% and saving 84% of the time required by human experts, highlighting its effectiveness and application potential.

Scientific research has long been human-led, driving new knowledge and transformative technologies through the continual revision of questions, methods and claims as evidence accumulates. Although large language model (LLM)-based agents are beginning to move beyond assisting predefined research workflows, none has yet demonstrated end-to-end autonomous discovery in a real physical system that produces a nontrivial result supported by experimental evidence. Here we introduce Qiushi Discovery Engine, an LLM-based agentic system for end-to-end autonomous scientific discovery on a real optical platform. Qiushi Engine combines nonlinear research phases, Meta-Trace memory and a dual-layer architecture to maintain adaptive and stable research trajectories across long-horizon investigations involving thousands of LLM-mediated reasoning, measurement and revision actions. It autonomously reproduces a published transmission-matrix experiment on a non-original platform and converts an abstract coherence-order theory into experimental observables, providing, to our knowledge, the first observation of this class of coherence-order structure. More importantly, in an open-ended study involving 145.9 million tokens, 3,242 LLM calls, 1,242 tool calls, 163 research notes and 44 scripts, Qiushi Engine proposes and experimentally validates optical bilinear interaction, a physical mechanism structurally analogous to a core operation in Transformer attention. This AI-discovered mechanism suggests a route towards high-speed, energy-efficient optical hardware for pairwise computation. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of an AI agentic system autonomously identifying and experimentally validating a nontrivial, previously unreported physical mechanism, marking a milestone for research-level autonomous agents.

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.

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.

OpenPodcar2 is a robust, ROS2-interfaced, low-cost, open source hardware and software, autonomous vehicle platform based on an off-the-shelf, hard-canopy, mobility scooter donor vehicle. It is a modification of the previous OpenPodcar design, which extends it with robust electronics and ROS2 interfacing, to enable both research and also potential deployment use cases. The platform consists of (a) hardware components: documented as a bill of materials and build instructions; (b) integration to the general purpose OSH R4 mechatronics board and a Gazebo simulation of the vehicle, both presenting a common ROS2 interface (c) higher-level ROS2 software implementations and configurations of standard robot autonomous planning and control, including the nav2 stack which performs SLAM and enacts commands to drive the vehicle from a current to a desired pose around obstacles. OpenPodcar2 can transport a human passenger or similar load at speeds up to 15km/h, for example for use as a last-mile autonomous taxi service or to transport delivery containers similarly around a city center. It is small and safe enough to be parked in a standard research lab robust enough for some deployment cases. Total build cost was around 7,000USD from new components, or 2,000USD with a used Donor Vehicle. OpenPodcar2 thus provides a research balance between real world utility, safety, cost and robustness.

Autonomous neutron spectroscopy must solve three distinct tasks: detection (where is the signal?), inference (which Hamiltonian governs it?), and refinement (what are the parameters?). No single controller solves all three equally well. We present TAS-AI, a hybrid agnostic-to-physics-informed framework for autonomous triple-axis spin-wave spectroscopy that separates these tasks explicitly. In blind reconstruction benchmarks, model-agnostic methods such as random sampling, coarse grids, and Gaussian-process mappers reach a global error threshold more reliably and with fewer measurements than physics-informed planning, supporting the claim that discovery and inference are distinct tasks requiring distinct controllers. Once signal structure is localized, the physics-informed stage performs in-loop Hamiltonian discrimination and parameter refinement: in a controlled square-lattice test between nearest-neighbor-only and J1-J2 Hamiltonians, TAS-AI reaches a decisive AIC-derived evidence ratio (>100) in fewer than 10 measurements, while motion-aware scheduling cuts wall-clock time by 32% at a fixed measurement budget. We also identify a failure mode of posterior-weighted design, algorithmic myopia, in which the planner over-refines the current leading model while under-sampling low-intensity falsification probes. A constrained falsification channel sharply reduces time spent committed to the wrong model and accelerates correct model selection without modifying the Bayesian inference engine. In controlled two-model ablations, both a deterministic top-two max-disagreement rule and an LLM-based audit committee achieve this gain under identical constraints. We demonstrate the full workflow in silico using a high-fidelity digital twin and provide an open-source Python implementation.

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.

Recent work has used LLM agents to reproduce empirical social science results with access to both the data and code. We broaden this scope by asking: Can they reproduce results given only a paper's methods description and original data? We develop an agentic reproduction system that extracts structured methods descriptions from papers, runs reimplementations under strict information isolation -- agents never see the original code, results, or paper -- and enables deterministic, cell-level comparison of reproduced outputs to the original results. An error attribution step traces discrepancies through the system chain to identify root causes. Evaluating four agent scaffolds and four LLMs on 48 papers with human-verified reproducibility, we find that agents can largely recover published results, but performance varies substantially between models, scaffolds, and papers. Root cause analysis reveals that failures stem both from agent errors and from underspecification in the papers themselves.

Scientific workflow systems automate execution -- scheduling, fault tolerance, resource management -- but not the semantic translation that precedes it. Scientists still manually convert research questions into workflow specifications, a task requiring both domain knowledge and infrastructure expertise. We propose an agentic architecture that closes this gap through three layers: an LLM interprets natural language into structured intents (semantic layer); validated generators produce reproducible workflow DAGs (deterministic layer); and domain experts author ``Skills'': markdown documents encoding vocabulary mappings, parameter constraints, and optimization strategies (knowledge layer). This decomposition confines LLM non-determinism to intent extraction: identical intents always yield identical workflows. We implement and evaluate the architecture on the 1000 Genomes population genetics workflow and Hyperflow WMS running on Kubernetes. In an ablation study on 150 queries, Skills raise full-match intent accuracy from 44% to 83%; skill-driven deferred workflow generation reduces data transfer by 92%; and the end-to-end pipeline completes queries on Kubernetes with LLM overhead below 15 seconds and cost under $0.001 per query.

Scientific research relies on accurate information retrieval from literature to support analytical decisions. In this work, we introduce a new task, INformation reTRieval through literAture reVIEW (IntraView), which aims to automate fine-grained information retrieval faithfully grounded in the provided content in response to research-driven queries, and propose IntrAgent, an LLM-based agent that addresses this challenging task. In particular, IntrAgent is designed to mimic human behaviors when reading literature for information retrieval -- identifying relevant sections and then iteratively extracting key details to refine the retrieved information. It follows a two-stage pipeline: a Section Ranking stage that prioritizes relevant literature sections through structural-knowledge-enabled reasoning, and an Iterative Reading stage that continuously extracts details and synthesizes them into concise, contextually grounded answers. To support rigorous evaluation, we introduce IntraBench, a new benchmark consisting of 315 test instances built from expert-authored questions paired with literature spanning five STEM domains. Across seven backbone LLMs, IntrAgent achieves on average 13.2% higher cross-domain accuracy than state-of-the-art RAG and research-agent baselines.

Scientific progress depends on the continual generation of innovative re-search ideas. However, the rapid growth of scientific literature has greatly increased the cost of knowledge filtering, making it harder for researchers to identify novel directions. Although existing large language model (LLM)-based methods show promise in research idea generation, the ideas they produce are often repetitive and lack depth. To address this issue, this study proposes a multi-agent iterative planning search strategy inspired by com-binatorial innovation theory. The framework combines iterative knowledge search with an LLM-based multi-agent system to generate, evaluate, and re-fine research ideas through repeated interaction, with the goal of improving idea diversity and novelty. Experiments in the natural language processing domain show that the proposed method outperforms state-of-the-art base-lines in both diversity and novelty. Further comparison with ideas derived from top-tier machine learning conference papers indicates that the quality of the generated ideas falls between that of accepted and rejected papers. These results suggest that the proposed framework is a promising approach for supporting high-quality research idea generation. The source code and dataset used in this paper are publicly available on Github repository: https://github.com/ChenShuai00/MAGenIdeas. The demo is available at https://huggingface.co/spaces/cshuai20/MAGenIdeas.

Building trustworthy AI systems for mental health support is a shared priority across stakeholders from multiple disciplines. However, "trustworthy" remains loosely defined and inconsistently operationalized. AI research often focuses on technical criteria (e.g., robustness, explainability, and safety), while therapeutic practitioners emphasize therapeutic fidelity (e.g., appropriateness, empathy, and long-term user outcomes). To bridge the fragmented landscape, we propose a three-layer trust framework, covering human-oriented, AI-oriented, and interaction-oriented trust, integrating the viewpoints of key stakeholders (e.g., practitioners, researchers, regulators). Using this framework, we systematically review existing AI-driven research in mental health domain and examine evaluation practices for ``trustworthy'' ranging from automatic metrics to clinically validated approaches. We highlight critical gaps between what NLP currently measures and what real-world mental health contexts require, and outline a research agenda for building socio-technically aligned and genuinely trustworthy AI for mental health support.

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

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.

As AI systems are increasingly used to conduct research autonomously, misaligned systems could introduce subtle flaws that produce misleading results while evading detection. We introduce Auditing Sabotage Bench, a benchmark for evaluating the ability of auditors to detect and fix sabotage in ML research codebases. Our benchmark consists of 9 ML research codebases with sabotaged variants that produce qualitatively different experimental results. Each sabotage modifies implementation details, such as hyperparameters, training data, or evaluation code, while preserving the high-level methodology described in the paper. We evaluated frontier LLMs and LLM-assisted human auditors on our benchmark and found that both struggled to reliably detect and fix sabotage: the best performance was an AUROC of 0.77 and a top-1 fix rate of 42%, achieved by Gemini 3.1 Pro. We also tested LLMs as red teamers and found that LLM-generated sabotages were weaker than human-generated ones but still sometimes evaded same-capability LLM auditors. We release the benchmark to support research on monitoring and auditing techniques for AI-conducted research.

The integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into scientific workflows presents exciting opportunities to accelerate biomedical discovery. However, the reactive nature of LLMs, which respond only when prompted, limits their effectiveness in collaborative settings that demand foresight and autonomous engagement. In this study, we introduce CoLabScience, a proactive LLM assistant designed to enhance biomedical collaboration between AI systems and human experts through timely, context-aware interventions. At the core of our method is PULI (Positive-Unlabeled Learning-to-Intervene), a novel framework trained with a reinforcement learning objective to determine when and how to intervene in streaming scientific discussions, by leveraging the team's project proposal and long- and short-term conversational memory. To support this work, we introduce BSDD (Biomedical Streaming Dialogue Dataset), a new benchmark of simulated research discussion dialogues with intervention points derived from PubMed articles. Experimental results show that PULI significantly outperforms existing baselines in both intervention precision and collaborative task utility, highlighting the potential of proactive LLMs as intelligent scientific assistants.

We present AgentGA, a framework that evolves autonomous code-generation runs by optimizing the agent seed: the task prompt plus optional parent archives that initialize a fresh workspace. The outer loop searches over these reusable starting conditions rather than editing code directly. Each generation launches a fresh autonomous run in an isolated workspace, while selected parent archives provide inherited artifacts that descendants can inspect and reuse. AgentGA couples a population-level genetic algorithm with long-horizon agents; selection uses deterministic 1:1 elite tournaments and operator allocation is adapted online with a modified Hedge controller. We instantiate the approach for tabular AutoML on the 16-competition Weco-Kaggle Lite benchmark. Across the full benchmark, AgentGA averages 71.90% Exceeds % of Human versus 51.38% for the AIDE reference, winning 15/16 competitions. Within AgentGA runs, descendants conditioned on inherited parent archives win 51.9% of 1,680 parent-child tournaments versus 8.6% for de novo proposals. These results support agent-seed optimization as a practical design choice for autonomous code-search systems.

Academic paper search is a fundamental task in scientific research, yet most existing approaches organize retrieval around predefined workflows or structured interaction protocols that struggle with complex, conditional queries. To address this limitation, we propose PaperScout, an autonomous agent that reformulates paper search as a sequential decision-making process. Unlike static workflows, PaperScout dynamically decides whether, when, and how to invoke search and expand tools based on accumulated retrieval context. However, training such agents presents a fundamental challenge: standard reinforcement learning methods, typically designed for single-turn tasks, suffer from a granularity mismatch when applied to multi-turn agentic tasks, where token-level optimization diverges from the granularity of sequence-level interactions, leading to noisy credit assignment and unstable training dynamics. We introduce Proximal Sequence Policy Optimization (PSPO), a process-aware, sequence-level policy optimization method that aligns optimization with agent--environment interaction. Comprehensive experiments on both synthetic and real-world benchmarks demonstrate that PaperScout significantly outperforms strong structured retrieval and RL baselines in both recall and relevance, validating the effectiveness of our adaptive agentic framework and optimization strategy.

Foundation models now enable autonomous agents to interact with real-world websites, but existing benchmarks emphasize general-purpose browsing, underrepresent research-oriented environments and scholarly discovery workflows, and often depend on live sites whose changing content and structure undermine reproducibility. arXiv provides a realistic, reproducible, hierarchically structured, information-centric testbed without privacy-sensitive interactions. We introduce WebArxiv, a static-snapshot benchmark comprising 510 time-invariant tasks, each with a unique deterministic ground truth. Its diverse, realistic scholarly tasks go beyond simple information lookup and rule following to emphasize multi-constraint paper retrieval, fine-grained content extraction, and cross-paper comparison. Evaluations of a range of foundation-model-based web agents show that WebArxiv remains challenging. Behavioral analysis reveals that agents over-rely on fixed interaction histories, causing incomplete or repetitive reasoning. We therefore equip agents with a lightweight dynamic-memory mechanism for adaptive retrieval and reasoning over relevant context. The benchmark and code are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/74E4423BVNW/README.md.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated their potential in automating the scientific research ideation. Existing approaches primarily focus on prompting techniques, often producing ideas misaligned with expert standards - novelty, feasibility, and effectiveness, which are widely recognized by the research community as the three key subdimensions of high-quality ideas. Also, balancing these dimensions remains challenging due to their inherent trade-offs. To address these limitations, we propose the first framework that employs a two-stage approach combining Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) and controllable Reinforcement Learning (RL) for the task. In the SFT stage, the model learns foundational patterns from pairs of research papers and their corresponding follow-up ideas. In the RL stage, multi-dimensional reward models guided by fine-grained feedback evaluate and optimize the model across key dimensions. During inference, dimensional controllers coordinated by a sentence-level decoder enable dynamic context-aware steering of the idea generation process. Our framework provides a balanced approach to research idea generation, achieving high-quality outcomes in the experiment by dynamically navigating the trade-offs among novelty, feasibility, and effectiveness.