Artificial Intelligence Research

With the rapid pace of AI research and the hundreds of daily new publications, staying up-to-date with the latest developments has become increasingly difficult. For researchers, quickly identifying impactful work is essential, yet manually reviewing each new publication is impractical. Automated impact prediction methods help address this challenge, usually by combining various information sources available, such as a paper's content or citation history. In this work, we propose using GitHub engagement as an additional source and demonstrate that it provides both a timely and accurate signal. To this end, we introduce GitScholar, a novel dataset that links GitHub activity from 444,000 repositories to over 558,000 AI arXiv papers. Our experiments show that GitHub reactions improve early prediction precision by up to 12% over a strong academic baseline. Additionally, we find that GitHub signal offers near-complete coverage of high-impact AI papers, and consistently correlates with future academic success. GitScholar is publicly available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/huawei-csl/GitScholar.

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.

AI systems have begun to report solutions, disproofs, and substantive advances on long-standing mathematical problems, raising questions about whether they approach research in the same way as mathematicians. This study compares public AI research accounts with the human literature on 11 such problems. The human corpus contains 58 papers that directly addressed the same mathematical targets later reported by AI sources as resolved, disproved, or substantially advanced; 31 within-problem comparisons were constructed from these materials. Six validated text-based measures capture problem resolution, method articulation, uncertainty and boundary specification, successor-question generation, generality, and cross-disciplinary integration. AI accounts place greater emphasis on resolving the focal problem and connecting ideas across fields. Human papers devote significantly more attention to explaining methods, specifying assumptions and limitations, and identifying questions for subsequent research. No precise difference is detected in generality. The estimated directions remain unchanged when each mathematical problem is removed in turn. The findings reveal two distinct research profiles: AI accounts concentrate on closing and recombining problems, whereas mathematical papers more extensively document the procedures, limits, and research opportunities through which results become cumulative knowledge. Evaluating research AI therefore requires attention to the organization of inquiry, not only whether a target is solved.

We introduce and release ScienceBuddy, an interactive scientific research workspace that brings continually improving scientific agents into researchers' everyday workflows. ScienceBuddy supports researchers in carrying out scientific tasks while transforming their requests, feedback, and execution evidence into tasks and evaluation rubrics for continual learning. At its core is recursive-in-recursive self-improvement, a paradigm that couples harness evolution with model reinforcement learning: the inner recursion improves the harness with the model fixed, while the outer recursion trains the model under the improved harness. Harness evolution shapes training experience, and model learning creates new opportunities for harness adaptation. We present case studies of researcher interaction, harness refinement, and model learning, with the benchmark cases spanning four scientific task families. By releasing ScienceBuddy as a research product, we make this paradigm available to the scientific community and take a step toward discovery intelligence: scientific AI that advances through sustained collaboration with researchers and evolves alongside the research it supports. Website: http://science-buddy.io

AI research agents combine prior knowledge, public sources, and experimental feedback to produce useful results. The Discovery Certification Protocol (DCP) turns claims about these results into executable recovery and feedback tests. Gate 1 validates useful improvement on sealed evaluation. Gate 2 gives matched agents the registered starting information and observed Web content while withholding the target research history. Every valid method reaching the numerical target supplies a recovery witness and triggers the Core veto. DCP Core requires adequate controls, zero observed recoveries, and a finite-sample bound on recovery in one fresh registered episode. Optional Gate 3 measures the average effect of truthful feedback relative to a specified neutral policy from a shared checkpoint. DCP Evidence adds this effect after independent null calibration and a registered effect margin. Two controlled audits exercise the complete protocol in SQLite optimization and virtual catalyst control under different models. Each produced zero recoveries in 96 episodes, with an upper bound of 0.0468. Each paired study yielded 30 truthful recoveries and zero neutral recoveries, with passing 60-pair null studies. Additional cases exercise Core, recovered, and audit-incomplete decisions. A deterministic, LLM-free verifier reproduces the decisions from frozen evidence. DCP provides a common evidence language for useful outcomes, alternative routes, and feedback effects across AI research.

Surveys remain the primary way researchers grasp the lineage of methods within an AI subfield, but they scale poorly against the current rate of publication. Existing taxonomy-induction methods are largely leaf-bound and time-agnostic; they tend to force transitional papers into mature leaves and can create topological inversions between ancestors and descendants. We propose EvoTree, a staged framework that decouples conceptual backbone learning from temporal refinement: a graph-aware encoder with distribution-based hierarchical clustering yields a stable taxonomy backbone; temporal fine-tuning then re-attaches marginal papers to internal nodes under monotonic-path constraints; a final LLM pass labels concepts without altering the topology. We release the first annotated benchmark for this task across 11 AI subfields. EvoTree attains the highest NMI and citation-direction accuracy among all baselines and the best concept purity on the annotated benchmark, and is the only method with non-trivial marginal-paper detection on the annotated set.

AI is increasingly used in the R&D process that produces future AI systems. We study the conditions under which this feedback becomes self-amplifying. Our model describes how the rate of AI capability growth depends on baseline research productivity, recursive feedback, and the increasing difficulty of research progress. We derive a recursive reproduction number, $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{AI}}$, that determines whether improvements are amplified or damped across development cycles. This quantity compares the strength of feedback with the rate at which further progress becomes more difficult. When $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{AI}}>1$, the effects of improvements compound across development cycles, placing the system in a self-amplifying regime. When $\mathcal{R}_{\mathrm{AI}}<1$, their effects weaken across cycles. The transition depends on the structure of the AI R&D feedback loop and need not occur at any particular level of model capability. A system can therefore enter a self-amplifying regime before acceleration becomes visible, while rapid progress can also occur without self-amplification. Higher baseline research productivity can accelerate progress without changing whether the system is self-amplifying, but the duration of the development cycle becomes a limiting timescale for amplification. Increasing research difficulty can end a period of self-amplification. Extending the model to multiple research actors shows that improvements shared across organizations can make the overall research ecosystem self-amplifying even when no individual actor is. The framework identifies measurable properties of AI R&D systems that can help distinguish recursive amplification from rapid progress driven by other sources, including the strength of recursive feedback, how effectively improvements propagate into successor systems, cycle duration, and the increasing difficulty of further progress.

Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference solutions, or simulators with a known generative structure. Real scientific requests arrive differently. They are underspecified, they carry attachments, and they lack ground truth. We report K-Bench 01, an evaluation built from first-turn requests sampled from live user traffic on K-Dense Web and run end to end by nine frontier models in identical sandboxes, yielding 1,602 completed agent runs. Three blinded language-model judges scored every run against an eight-dimension rubric. On a rubric whose 8-anchor is defined as work a domain scientist would accept with minor edits, no model clears the line under all three judges. gpt-5.6-sol has the highest pooled mean, 8.04, but its 95% interval [7.80, 8.23] spans the threshold, and two of the three judges rank claude-opus-5 first instead. We therefore report the ordering of systems as the reproducible quantity, the absolute level as an attribute of the instrument, and the top of the table as unresolved. Across all 39,934 scored judgments -- the eight dimension scores plus a holistic overall for each assessment, excluding not-applicable cells -- 47.6% fall below the 8-point threshold. Difficulty is not uniform across the rubric: scientific accuracy averages 6.22 against 7.33 for communication, on identical denominators and in the same direction within every one of the nine models. The single leading failure tag is overclaiming, on 31.4% of assessments. We argue that the informative quantity for scientific agents is not a leaderboard position but the joint distribution of what was delivered, what was claimed, and what artifacts were produced.

AI agents are increasingly used in mathematics research, but it is often unclear how to use them effectively. Towards this, we present an extensive case study of how AI was used to improve bounds on the Grothendieck constant $K_G$, which captures the hardness between combinatorial problems and their continuous relaxations. Specifically, while the precise value of $K_G$ is not known, we recently tightened the best known bounds to $$\frac{6π}{11} \;\le\; K_G \;\le\; \fracπ{2\log(1+\sqrt2)} - 10^{-4}.$$ Crucially, these improvements were achieved using an AI research system that could arrive at insights deemed novel by domain experts. We give a detailed discussion of our experience using AI for mathematics research, particularly touching upon its strengths and weaknesses, as well as our experience with creating ideal conditions for AI to arrive at breakthrough insights.

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

Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.

The Brazilian Conference on Intelligent Systems (BRACIS) is the main national venue for Artificial Intelligence research in Brazil, hosted by the Brazilian Computer Society since 2012 and publishing work from institutions across the country. Across eleven years, from 2015 to 2025, we build a per-paper record of all 1,066 accepted papers from DBLP metadata, 6,765 Google Scholar citations, and the paper full texts, and use it to ask what BRACIS publishes, who publishes it, and which work gets cited. Large Language Model research grows from zero before 2020 to 19% of papers in 2024, on top of a base of Machine Learning, Computer Vision, and Optimization work. The community is hourglass-shaped: 80.5% of 2,623 authors appear in a single edition, while institutions return at nearly three times the author rate. Citations are heavily concentrated, with the top 1% of papers carrying 27% of the total. Openness practices have grown, with artifact release rising from 8.9% of papers in 2015 to 57.3% in 2023, and we find a notable correlation between having an arXiv preprint and higher citation counts. Since proceedings sit behind IEEE and Springer paywalls and only 7.4% of papers have a preprint, most BRACIS work is hard to reach for readers without institutional access.

As AI agents begin to automate AI R&D, we need ways to assess whether their outputs are safe to deploy, even when the agents themselves may be untrusted. AI control offers one such approach: rather than trusting the agent, it treats it as a potential adversary and uses a monitor to detect covert sabotage before deployment. We evaluate AI control for automated AI R&D with ResearchArena, a framework spanning four long-horizon tasks: safety post-training, capabilities post-training, CUDA-kernel optimization, and inference-server optimization. Because the deliverable in AI R&D is an artifact that will be deployed and run, we pair each main task with two kinds of hidden side task: an embedded side task that sabotages the submitted model, adapter, kernel, or server itself, and an independent side task that takes a covert out-of-scope action in the sandbox while leaving the artifact honest. We evaluate frontier agents at both sabotage and monitoring, across four monitor types that vary along two axes: whether the monitor may execute and probe the produced artifact, and whether it sees the agent's chain-of-thought. We find that sabotage hidden in the training data is the hardest to catch, flagged fewer than half the time. Letting the monitor run experiments on the artifact, rather than only read the trajectory, helps, but it is not enough: monitors still miss embedded sabotage by inspecting only the surface, by noticing the anomaly but explaining it away, or by probing the artifact with the wrong test. We release ResearchArena as a modular framework for evaluating sabotage and control in automated AI R&D.

Post-training agents for automated AI research requires optimizing not only model parameters, but also the runtime harness that shapes how research trajectories are generated, evaluated, and learned from. Existing pipelines typically train models under a fixed harness, including prompts, tools, skills, middleware, and memory, while leaving the data-generating process outside the optimization objective. This creates a mismatch between model updates and the static scaffolding that determines trajectory quality. We introduce Co-Harness, a framework that jointly optimizes the agent harness and model parameters during post-training. Co-Harness alternates between harness optimization and model optimization. An LLM-based HarnessCritic analyzes failed trajectories, identifies harness-level failure modes, and proposes validated local updates. The model is then fine-tuned on high-quality trajectories generated by the improved harness, distilling effective scaffolding into model parameters. A 200+ hour autonomous case study further shows that Co-Harness can recover from system crashes, improve inference efficiency, and discover ensemble strategies without human intervention. These results suggest that joint harness and model optimization is an effective way to improve agents beyond fixed-harness post-training.

Recent developments in AI for Mathematics (AI4Math), especially Large Language Model (LLM)-driven theorem provers, has achieved remarkable success in formal proof generation for well-defined mathematical problems through Interactive Theorem Proving (ITP) languages. However, current systems remain fundamentally limited in tackling frontier research mathematics, such as discovering new theorems or resolving open conjectures, which are often open-ended, under-specified, and involve multiple layers of abstraction. We argue that the next leap in AI4Math systems requires a decisive shift from predefined problem-solvers to research agents that can address frontier mathematical challenges with rigorous formal mathematical reasoning. In this position paper, we provide a systematic review of the field, covering datasets, auto-formalization, and proof synthesis. More importantly, we identify core limitations of existing systems in serving as mathematical research agents, examining issues across datasets, relational structure, mathematical exploration, tool ecosystem, and human-AI collaboration, outlining a strategic road-map for the future of AI4Math.

AI systems increasingly participate in their own improvement: revising their outputs, adapting their own harnesses during deployment, training on data they generate, and, increasingly, conducting AI research itself. This literature is described under a vocabulary ("self-refine," "self-reward," "self-play," "self-evolve") that conflates fundamentally different ambitions. We survey 1,250 arXiv papers (2024-2026) along two axes: what the system improves -- its behavior in deployment, its policy through training, its evaluator, or the research process itself -- and the degree of loop closure (human-in-the-loop to fully closed). The taxonomy separates bounded self-refinement -- convergent, evaluable, and already industrial practice -- from open-ended recursive self-improvement (RSI), which remains bounded by grounding requirements, collapse dynamics, and compute constraints on every measured axis. Its distinctive feature is a dedicated category for self-evaluation: every improvement loop is a claim that some signal can substitute for human judgment. We survey the evaluator design space -- judges, process reward models, verifiers, rubrics, meta-evaluation -- order the signals into a verification hierarchy from formal verifiers (strongest) to intrinsic self-assessment (weakest), and observe that demonstrated self-improvement strength tracks this hierarchy, that its failure modes (self-confirming loops, model collapse, diversity collapse) follow from its violations, and that the "research direction-setting" bottleneck keeping humans in the loop sits at the top of that hierarchy. We connect the technical literature to the theory of RSI limits and to the safety and governance questions raised by frontier-lab accounts of closing the loop, and identify governance-grade measurement of self-improvement as the field's most underpopulated niche.

Dual submissions, in which identical or substantially similar papers are simultaneously submitted to one or more archival venues, without cross-citation or disclosure, are a growing problem for the AAAI Conference and other scientific publication venues. These submissions increase the burden on the peer-review system and pollute the scientific record. As part of the AAAI-26 review process, we (conference organizers) compared AAAI main-track submissions to nine other archival venues with overlapping review periods. We also searched for dual submissions within the AAAI-26 main track. We employed title+abstract similarity assessment to prioritize highly similar paper pairs for subsequent triage by an LLM-based overlap assessment tool, followed by manual review of the highest severity pairs. Manual review of such pairs led to the desk-rejection of 141 AAAI-26 main-track submissions. We seek to alert future organizers, and the broader artificial intelligence research community, to the enormous growth in dual submissions. The incidence of exact duplicate submissions, which are easy to detect, has been eclipsed by the number of papers that use different words to describe the same contribution, which are extremely time-consuming to detect. The growth in this phenomenon is likely facilitated by increasing access to generative AI tools. We include several recommendations for addressing this challenge, including (1) updating the AAAI Multiple Submission Policy and educating the community about acceptable practice, (2) having dual-submission checking tools in place before submissions close, (3) working across venues to converge on consistent policies and penalties to aid in reducing the incidence of dual submission, and (4) creating a community-driven adversarial challenge to accelerate the development of robust detection tools.

Artificial intelligence increasingly mediates consequential decisions in healthcare, law, and public services, and the field has responded with an extensive methodology for measuring and mitigating bias. Yet the fairness definitions, benchmarks, and debiasing frameworks on which this methodology rests are treated as universal while being produced by a research community whose composition has never been characterized. We show that the AI bias research are structurally concentrated, and that this concentration is greatest, geographically, in precisely the domain the rest of the field inherits from. Analyzing 692 publications spanning five thematic domains, combining bibliometric analysis with semantic clustering, we find that research activity is dominated by a small set of countries, institutions, and authors, with the United States leading publication output and collaboration networks across every domain and most strongly in general fairness and bias mitigation, the largest, most-cited domain with meaningful representation across all four semantic clusters. Low- and middle-income countries remain largely absent from the community and its collaboration networks, and citation influence is highly skewed (median = 9; mean =93.5 ), indicating that a small fraction of publications disproportionately shapes the field. Because the general-fairness domain supplies the definitions and benchmarks that application areas apply, concentration of research effort in this foundational domain propagates across AI bias research as a whole - raising the concern that mitigation methods developed and validated within a narrow set of contexts may not generalize to all populations and settings where AI is deployed. We provide an interactive atlas for continuous monitoring of the field's structure.

Leadership computing facilities steward large-scale scientific datasets that routinely require substantial transformation before serving as AI training data. However, no existing framework fully unifies automated transformation, readiness assessment, provenance tracking, and agent-native deployment. We present REDI, an open-source framework that addresses this gap through a unified five-stage pipeline (ingest, preprocess, transform, structure, and output) with per-stage instrumentation for reproducibility and deployment as an agent-callable skill; companion tool SetGo automates FAIR compliance and catalog publication. Evaluated across climate, proteomics, materials science, and nuclear fusion, REDI transforms all datasets from raw to AI-ready, with outputs validated against domain-expert references, and preliminary results show near-ideal parallel scaling to 100 nodes on Frontier for the climate case. Provenance-instrumented profiling reveals file I/O as the dominant pipeline cost, with format selection a first-order optimization lever. These results establish REDI as a cross-domain platform providing automated data readiness for scientific AI, transforming data preparation bottlenecks into reproducible, reusable community assets.

This study examines how alternative systems of scholarly representation identify and characterize broad public administration (PA) and artificial intelligence related public administration (AI-in-PA) scholarship. Using Web of Science and OpenAlex, it compares five approaches based on author-defined, citation-driven, and AI-assisted representations. The results highlight substantial differences in corpus size, publication types, publishing outlets, temporal development, and thematic clustering and structure. The alternative approaches often identify different knowledge domains instead of varied subsets of the same scholarship and therefore produce distinct representations, as evidenced by no overlap in publications and publishing outlets across representations. The findings suggest that algorithmic knowledge organization increasingly influences how interdisciplinary scholarship is classified, structured, and understood and, epistemologically, how its visibility, intellectual structure, and boundaries are represented. AI-enabled scholarly classifications and representations are not neutral but interpretative, likely self-reinforcing, and potentially constrain the evolution and adaptation of disciplinary boundaries. Human disciplinary judgment is essential and is complemented rather than replaced.

The reproducibility crisis has directed the AI research community toward improving documentation practices. Several studies have identified methodological issues, and in response, the most impactful venues in the field have introduced reproducibility checklists. We seek to understand whether documentation practices have changed over time by assessing all published papers at five leading AI conferences over the past decade. Seven reproducibility variables were identified, quality-assured and used to analyse 56 800 publications. Our analysis reveals that in the period 2014 to 2024, documentation practices have improved; papers sharing both code and data increased nearly sixfold, from 11% to 64% Building on empirical reproducibility rates from a prior study, we estimate - inferred from documentation practices, not direct testing - that reproducibility increased from 28% in 2014 to 64% in 2024. Improvements in documentation practices predate the introduction of reproducibility checklists, suggesting these changes reflect a broader movement toward open science rather than a direct response to formal requirements.

This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts. Prior work faces challenges in unstructured grounding, multi-equation dependency, and humanaligned evaluation. To this end, we construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions. We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We introduce an evaluation protocol combining automatic metrics, LLM-based rubrics, and human judgments to assess accuracy, explainability, and human-LLM alignment. Results indicate that LLMs perform moderately on lexical- and syntactic-based similarity, while struggling with semantic accuracy. Comparisons between LLM-based evaluations and human judgments reveal limited alignment, highlighting challenges in using LLMs to assess equation quality. These findings offer insights for improving equation generation models and developing more reliable evaluation methods for scientific text. We provide code and data for reproducibility.

Learning systems based on IF-THEN rule representations readily offer interpretability, making them a crucial focus in contemporary AI research. A key objective for such rule sets is to achieve both high discriminative power and interpretability. While existing state-of-the-art algorithms implicitly prioritize predictive accuracy, they often fall short on one or more quality metrics that ensure interpretability, such as coverage and parsimony of rule sets. Motivated by this, this paper propose the development of CDPR, which aims to create highly accurate and interpretable rule sets for classification problems. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first attempt to establish such an approach. In this study, we introduce two algorithms rooted in submodular maximization, which not only provide provable guarantees on coverage but also yield rule sets that are both discriminative and parsimonious. We empirically demonstrate that rule sets learned through our approaches achieve higher accuracy and interpretability and has more than a 2.5-fold improvement in average coverage rates when compared to the next best algorithm.

Do research topics in artificial intelligence grow gradually, or do they advance through abrupt, detectable jumps? Analyzing 80,814 accepted main-track papers from five premier AI conferences (ACL, CVPR, ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS) spanning 2017 to 2025, we show major AI topics advance through topical phase transitions: remaining marginal for years, then surging across venues within one to three years. Large language models became the dominant cross-venue topic by 2025, diffusion models rose with comparable abruptness, and language-model methods crossed into computer vision via vision-language models, whereas reinforcement learning compounded smoothly, distinguishing genuine phase transitions from ordinary growth. This structure is our primary contribution: a large-scale, cross-venue characterization of how AI research reorganizes. We then ask whether a transition leaves a detectable footprint before it peaks. We define an early-warning signature, four publication-dynamics criteria frozen on 2017-2021 data, and evaluate it out of sample on 2023-2025 transitions, obtaining a precision of 27% and recall of 63% against a 13.5% base rate. Applied to 2025 data, the signature flags reasoning and test-time compute, agentic AI, multimodal LLMs, retrieval-augmented generation, and world models as topics to monitor over 2026-2028. The source code is also publicly available on GitHub at https://github.com/KurbanIntelligenceLab/ai-phase-transitions.

Two major periods of reduced funding and confidence in artificial intelligence research, commonly called the first and second AI winters, are usually explained through engineering failure, commercial disappointment, and inflated expectations. This article develops a complementary thesis: that the dominant paradigms of those periods also met genuine formal barriers, including limitations of representation, optimisation, computational complexity, statistical learnability, and high-dimensional approximation. The contribution is synthetic rather than archival. We do not claim that particular theorems mechanically caused the winters; rather, we show that several central disappointments of early AI were aligned with mathematically precise bottlenecks. We analyse these bottlenecks through the perceptron impossibility results of Minsky and Papert, the complexity-theoretic hardness of exact neural-network training established by Blum and Rivest, minimax rates for nonparametric estimation in high dimension due to Stone, vanishing-gradient analyses by Hochreiter and by Bengio and collaborators, and classical statistical learning theory in the tradition of Vapnik and Chervonenkis, Valiant, and Blumer and collaborators. We then relate these barriers to the later breakthroughs that mitigated, rather than eliminated, them.

This paper presents an overview of the inaugural PortraitCraft Challenge, held as one of the official competitions at CVPR 2026. The challenge focuses on portrait composition understanding and generation, aiming to advance AI research in portrait aesthetics analysis and controllable image synthesis. Unlike existing datasets and tasks that primarily focus on global aesthetic scoring, PortraitCraft introduces a unified evaluation framework comprising two complementary tracks. Track 1 requires models to perform structured portrait composition understanding, and Track 2 requires models to generate portrait images from structured composition descriptions under explicit compositional constraints. To support the challenge, we constructed and publicly released a large-scale portrait composition dataset consisting of approximately 50,000 curated real portrait images, providing multi-level supervision. This report describes the challenge setup, evaluation protocols, dataset composition, and final results, along with an analysis of the technical characteristics of the submitted solutions. The PortraitCraft Challenge provides a standardized and reproducible platform for research on portrait composition understanding and generation, and is expected to foster further progress in the fields of portrait aesthetics and controllable image generation.

Modern artificial intelligence (AI) systems present profound new risks to child safety. AI is increasingly being misused to create AI-generated child sexual abuse material, facilitate child sexual exploitation, and reduce barriers to harm. In this paper, we argue that protecting children from AI-facilitated sexual abuse requires new approaches to AI safety. Existing safety techniques assume data accessibility, transparency, and evaluation practices that are incompatible with the ethical and legal constraints surrounding child sexual abuse material. We examine how these constraints create new technical challenges, such as limitations on dataset auditing, red teaming, and fine-tuning prevention. In turn, we outline 15 open problems in online child sexual exploitation and abuse across the AI development lifecycle, from dataset curation and model design to deployment and long-term maintenance. We propose targeted recommendations for researchers, developers, and policymakers to bridge the gap between theoretical AI safety and the realities of child protection. Our work aims to reframe preventing AI-facilitated child sexual abuse as a central, safety-critical dimension for AI research, motivating work that translates responsible AI principles into concrete safeguards against the exploitation of children.

Expert writing feedback from experienced researchers is critical for early-career scholars to improve their manuscripts, yet high-quality feedback often remains scarce because reviewing research papers is labor-intensive. Emerging AI-powered writing assistants largely focus on grammar fixes or simulating peer review with final scores, yet they fall short of providing concrete, actionable suggestions that help students improve their papers during drafting. We present PaperMentor, a human-centered writing assistant system that delivers actionable suggestions as Overleaf-native inline comments while leaving the actual writing entirely to human authors. PaperMentor integrates an expert skill library carefully curated from established researchers' writing advice with 12 specialized agents covering different aspects of paper writing, such as formatting compliance, phrasing accuracy, and terminology consistency. In a user study (n=14), 90.6% of the generated comments were rated actionable and 67.5% were rated valid, significantly outperforming a GPT-5.2 baseline uswithout the skill library. We release PaperMentor as open source for public use. Our code is publicly available under the AGPL-3.0 license at https://github.com/jiarui-liu/overleaf

Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims. Here we mount the largest such evaluation to date and map what AI cannot yet do for science. We invited authors of 121,640 recent preprints across biology, medicine, chemistry, and the social sciences to judge ideas that large language models (LLMs) generated from the context and puzzles of their own papers. 6,749 scientists returned 25,139 sets of ratings on novelty, empirical feasibility, probability of being true, and favorability of adoption. Three patterns emerge. First, non-reasoning LLMs collapse into a narrow "hivemind" of similar ideas; reasoning models roam a wider hypothesis space, yet no model class spontaneously proposes null hypotheses -- a move humans make more freely. Second, scientists reward ideas that resemble their own and prize probability over novelty, though social scientists tolerate risk more readily than life scientists. Senior social scientists are the harshest critics, and their skepticism is well-earned: LLMs falter most in pluralistic fields like the social sciences that demand context-aware interpretation and evolving theories. Third, automated evaluators on which the community currently relies -- LLM-as-a-judge, artificial metrics, and even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models -- agree only weakly with expert judgment, and retrieval augmentation and scientist persona prompting yield only marginal gains. A Qwen3-14B reward model we post-trained on human ratings captures field taste nuances, beats SOTA models by up to 27%, and closes the gap to the inter-rater consistency of independent peer reviewers. For all the hype, today's scientific AI still represents a collaborator whose imagination, outputs and judgment benefit from human grounding.

Artistic styles are rooted in specific socio-historical contexts that encode social hierarchies, including distinct constructions of gender. Yet in AI research, style has long been treated as a surface-level visual property: a filter of color, brushstroke, and texture applied to otherwise content-neutral scenes. We introduce the first dataset to investigate the interplay between gender representation and style in both historical and generated images. StyleGender comprises 74k images spanning 19 artistic styles, comprising art historical images with style and gender annotations, T2I-generated images under controlled style and gender prompts, and a semantically aligned set enabling direct art history-to-generation comparison. By proposing two Set Gender Artifact (SGA) metrics (PixelSGA and MaskSGA), capturing gender signals at the pixel level and in compositional structure, we show that (1) gender representation shapes visual features across artistic styles, (2) style keywords carry these patterns into T2I generation, and (3) generative models tend to amplify gender artifacts beyond what is observed in historical sources.

What would it mean to have a scientific understanding of AI? Models are not static objects: they are snapshots of time-evolving processes shaped by data, objectives, architectures, and optimization dynamics. Yet much of AI research treats models as fixed artifacts, analyzing behaviors after training rather than asking why they emerge. This position paper argues that a science of AI must move beyond post-hoc fixes and study the training dynamics that produce model behavior. Such a science should support progressively stronger forms of understanding: predicting outcomes from early training signals, intervening when trajectories go wrong, and ultimately designing training procedures that more reliably produce desired properties. Scaling laws have made prediction routine for loss; the challenge is extending this success to capabilities, biases, robustness, and safety-relevant behaviors. We articulate requirements for such theories grounded in the history and philosophy of science, examine progress in mechanistic interpretability, fairness, memorization, and simplicity bias, and identify concrete open problems.

Helpful-only models, that is, models that are trained to always follow user intent, are valuable for dangerous capability evaluations and other areas of AI R&D where refusals would be an obstacle. Little is known about the generalization properties of helpful-only training: helpful-only models refuse less than their harmless counterparts, but previous work has not studied other dimensions of their alignment. We study the shortcomings of existing helpful-only models. We find that some show emergent misalignment, others have residual refusal behaviors, and most show poor steerability, sycophancy, and incoherent character. We show that simple anti-refusal training can cause many of these issues. None of these problems are necessary consequences of helpful-only training, though: we show that synthetic document fine-tuning and adding character-related questions to SFT and RL can mitigate them.

AI agents are increasingly being tasked with automating AI research itself, particularly the critical post-training phase that transforms base LLMs into aligned assistants. However, recent evaluations reveal that even frontier agents struggle to perform this task. While the success of post-training fundamentally relies on acquiring high-quality data, relying on agents to autonomously curate targeted training datasets from the open web introduces severe challenges. Executing the long-horizon tasks of searching, filtering, and balancing data within noisy web environments frequently overwhelms an agent's limited context, ultimately leading to degraded dataset quality and suboptimal downstream training performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce Andes (Agent Native Data Evolving Synthesis), a framework that reimagines data generation as a plug-and-play \emph{agent skill}. Rather than forcing agents to devise complex data-gathering strategies from scratch, \textsc{Andes} provides an intelligent abstraction layer. By leveraging a self-evolving World Tree routing mechanism and actionable diagnostic reports, it allows trainer agents to dynamically steer data synthesis through an interactive, closed-loop interface. We demonstrate that under strict compute constraints, equipping foundationally weaker agents with Andes improves automated alignment, securing state-of-the-art performance on PostTrainBench and robust cross-task generalization. Our project is available at https://github.com/zzy1127/ANDES.

In most existing AI humor research, humor was treated as either "present" or "not present." We explore the concept of humor as a social interaction with context and explanations. During this project, we defined a humor reasoning data object and developed a way to prompt LLMs to generate an explanation of humor effective for general population. We iterated from an earlier prompt to an improved prompt, found that the later version reduced important errors, and then scaled generation to a large number of data objects which have the potential to enable data synthesis and data augmentation for AI humor research. Our main takeaway is that better prompting of an LLM improves humor explanation quality, especially by handling missing context, multi-modality, and transcript issues more carefully. These results establish a strong foundation for future work on AI understanding of humor as social behavior. All code and data are available at: https://github.com/anna-arnett/ai-humor/ .

A small number of methodological contributions, including word2vec, the Transformer, large-scale pre-training, and reinforcement learning from human feedback, have reshaped NLP and AI research over the past decade. OpenReview now makes numeric reviewer scores and accept/reject decisions public for every ICLR submission. Whether such review signals identify trajectory-changing papers at submission time, however, remains untested at corpus scale. We answer this question on $36{,}113$ papers from ICLR 2017--2025, identifying \emph{catalysts}: papers whose descendants measurably redirect future research. We compare four disruptiveness measures (the Consolidation/Destabilization (CD) index, node2vec, the direction-aware Embedding Disruptiveness Measure (EDM), and an LLM-based semantic rater) and define a five-type operational catalyst taxonomy (topic initiator, topic bridge, within-topic redirector, simultaneous, and recognition-misaligned). EDM leads at identifying highly cited ICLR papers (AUC $0.83$ vs.\ $0.60$ for CD, $0.49$ for node2vec, and $0.42$ for the LLM rater). Topic initiators precede a $7.55{\times}$ topic-share growth and topic bridges precede an $11.52{\times}$ growth in cross-topic citation flow versus year-matched controls. We found that the peer review scores are essentially orthogonal to future disruptiveness ($|ρ|{\leq}0.005$; accepted and rejected papers have indistinguishable mean EDM, $p{=}0.11$).

This work examines an imbalance in artificial intelligence (AI) security research: the field tends to produce more work on attacking AI systems than on defending them. Drawing on related academic papers, we find biased attack-to-defense ratios across subfields, including federated learning, speech recognition, membership inference, large language models, etc. The imbalance possibly means far beyond a simple count: attack papers are routinely evaluated under favorable conditions that make threats look more severe than they are in practice, while defenses are held to a stricter standard that few can meet. The result is a literature rich in demonstrated vulnerabilities and thin on usable and deployed protections. We thus argue that AI security research should better incentivize defense research.

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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as scientific AI as- sistants, and a growing body of benchmarks evaluates their capabilities across knowledge retrieval, reasoning, code generation, and tool use. These evaluations, however, typically assume the scientific problem is already well-posed, whereas practical scientific assistance often begins with an ill-posed user request that must be refined through dialogue before any computation, analysis, or experiment can be carried out reliably. We introduce SCICONVBENCH, a benchmark for multi- turn clarification in scientific task formulation across four computational science problem domains: fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, materials science, and par- tial differential equations (PDEs). SCICONVBENCH targets two complementary capabilities: eliciting missing information (disambiguation) and detecting and correcting erroneous requests containing internally contradictory information (in- consistency resolution). Our benchmark pairs a structured task ontology with a rubric-based evaluation framework, enabling systematic measurement of LLM per- formance across three dimensions: clarification behavior, conversational grounding, and final-specification fidelity. Current frontier models perform relatively well on inconsistency resolution, but even the best model resolves only 52.7% of the disambiguation cases in fluid mechanics. We further find that frontier LLMs fre- quently make silent assumptions and perform implicit specification repairs that are not grounded in the conversation with users. SCICONVBENCH establishes a foundation for evaluating the upstream conversational reasoning that a reliable computational science assistant requires. The code and data can be found at https://github.com/csml-rpi/SciConvBench.

We present a report on the status of undergraduate Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs in the United States in Spring 2026. In so doing, we 1) describe our scraping and mapping tools, which dynamically update to track the state of AI education in the U.S., and 2) create a historic record at a time of great upheaval. The tool we developed, available at https://cicmap.ai, detects, scrapes, and displays data from more than 350 undergraduate AI programs--majors, minors, concentrations, and certificates--at 4-year universities. Our tool searched over 560 institutions to locate these programs, a sample that represents 86% of all undergraduate Computer Science (CS) graduates in the U.S. This tool allows prospective students, guidance counselors, administrators, and faculty to easily access AI program requirements and is designed to continually update as new programs emerge. To the best of our knowledge, this survey represents the most comprehensive snapshot of the state of AI programs in the U.S. to date. With this work we offer three important contributions: 1) a record of AI programs in the U.S. at a time of great upheaval; 2) a tool to explore AI programs and their requirements; and 3) an analysis of the courses required for 66 AI majors and 87 AI minors. Our analysis of majors and minors shows great variability in the size and the requirements of these degrees, but we note two takeaways. First, not all majors require a general AI course, but if they don't, they do require a Machine Learning (ML) course. Second, while more than a third of majors require an Ethics in AI course, just under a quarter of AI minors do.

This paper reflects on a AI research project carried out by a team of high-school and early-undergraduate students under the mentorship of graduate researchers and ably assisted by AI tools. We share our experience in not only on the learning experience for the high school students, but also on how AI tools accelerated the process that enabled the high school students to focus on higher order problem formulation and solution. Although the participants entered the project with limited background in both AI and finance, they showed strong enthusiasm for technical market analysis and ETF price prediction. Traditional learning settings would first teach the necessary methods in a classroom setting and only later let students apply them. In contrast, our project emphasized workflow design: students identified the sequence of steps needed to address the problem and then used AI-driven tools to execute each step. We note that the high school students developed the necessary code through iterating with the AI tools, and we used our daily stand-ups to debug and answer conceptual questions. Each of the student was able to dig deeper into their area of interest whether computer science or finance, while collaboratively making a significant advance over the summer of 2025. This project was an important pedagogical exercise on how AI tools can be used for mentoring high school students, allowing them to focus on their specific interests and using the daily stand-ups to focus on problem definition and conceptual understanding. Despite their limited technical qualifications, the students were able to leverage AI tools to build meaningful models with real-world application.

Plant breeding underpins global food security through incremental, accumulating improvements in crop yield, quality and sustainability, achieved via repeated cycles of crop ranking, selection and crossing. Climate change disrupts this process by altering local growing conditions, thereby shifting the relative performance of crop genotypes. Predicting these relative changes in yield is critical for food security. Yet, this problem remains an open challenge in plant breeding, and relatively unexplored within the AI community. We propose MixINN, an approach that first isolates high-quality genotype-environment interaction labels using mixed models, and then predicts these interactions for new crop varieties in future environmental conditions with a deep neural network. We evaluate our method on a corn multi-environment trial across the continental United States and show improved prediction of genotype ranking over current plant breeding methods. MixINN demonstrated superior performance in identifying the 20% most productive corn genotypes, leading to a 5.8% higher average yield, which further improved to 7.2% when targeting specific growing environments. These are competitive results for real-world breeding programs, demonstrating the potential of AI research in accelerating the development of climate-adapted crops, and improving future food security under climate change.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become essential to the post-training of large language models (LLMs) for reasoning, agentic capabilities and alignment. Successful RL relies on sufficient exploration of diverse actions by the model during training, which creates a potential failure mode: a model could strategically alter its exploration during training to influence the subsequent training outcome. In this paper we study this behavior, called exploration hacking. First, we create model organisms of selective RL resistance by fine-tuning LLMs to follow specific underperformance strategies; these models can successfully resist our RL-based capability elicitation in agentic biosecurity and AI R&D environments while maintaining performance on related tasks. We then use our model organisms to evaluate detection and mitigation strategies, including monitoring, weight noising, and SFT-based elicitation. Finally, we show that current frontier models can exhibit explicit reasoning about suppressing their exploration when provided with sufficient information about their training context, with higher rates when this information is acquired indirectly through the environment. Together, our results suggest exploration hacking is a possible failure mode of RL on sufficiently capable LLMs.

We introduce a framework called LAPITHS (Language model Analysis through Paradigm grounded Interpretations of Theses about Human likenesS) and use it to show that several major claims advanced by models such as CENTAUR, proposed as an artificial Unified Model of Cognition, are not theoretically or empirically justified. LAPITHS provides a principled reference point for counteracting the current behaviouristic tendency in AI research to interpret the human level performances of transformer based language models as evidence of human like underlying computation and, by extension, as signs of cognitive abilities. The novelty of LAPITHS lies in making explicit the arguments grounded in two quantitative assessments: (i) the Minimal Cognitive Grid, a theoretically motivated method for estimating the cognitive plausibility of artificial systems, and (ii) a behavioural comparison showing that results similar to those reported for CENTAUR like models can be reproduced by other systems that do not satisfy the structural constraints typically associated with cognitive plausibility, and whose outputs do not provide independent explanatory insight into human cognition.

In order to automate AI research we introduce a full, end-to-end framework, OMEGA: Optimizing Machine learning by Evaluating Generated Algorithms, that starts at idea generation and ends with executable code. Our system combines structured meta-prompt engineering with executable code generation to create new ML classifiers. The OMEGA framework has been utilized to generate several novel algorithms that outperform scikit-learn baselines across a robust selection of 20 benchmark datasets (infinity-bench). You can access models discussed in this paper and more in the python package: pip install omega-models.

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

Forecasting systems in science must be accurate, physically consistent, and certifiably reliable. Most existing models address prediction, constraint enforcement, and verification separately, limiting scalability and interpretability. We introduce GeoCert, a geometric AI framework that unifies forecasting, physical reasoning, and formal verification within a single differentiable computation. GeoCert formulates forecasting as evolution along a hyperbolic manifold, where negative curvature induces contraction dynamics, intrinsic robustness, and logarithmic-time certification. A hierarchical constraint architecture separates universal physical laws from domain-specific dynamics, enabling certified generalization across energy, climate, finance, and transportation systems. GeoCert achieves state-of-the-art accuracy while reducing computational cost by 97.5% and maintaining better certification rates. By embedding verification into the geometry of learning, GeoCert transforms forecasting from empirical approximation to formally verified inference, offering a scalable foundation for trustworthy, reproducible, and physically grounded scientific AI.

The AI race amplifies security risks and international tensions. While the US restricts mobility and knowledge flows, challenges regulatory efforts to protect its advantage, China leads initiatives of global governance. Both strategies depend on cross-country relationships in AI innovation; yet, how this system evolves is unclear. Here, we measure the processes of polarization and integration in the global AI research over three decades by using large-scale data of scientific publications. Comparing cross-country collaboration and citation links to their random realizations, we find that the US and China have long diverged in both dimensions, forming two poles around which global AI research increasingly revolves. While the United Kingdom and Germany have integrated exclusively with the US, many European countries have converged with both poles. Developing and further developed countries, however, only integrate with China, signaling its expanding influence over the international AI research landscape. Our results inform national science policies and efforts toward global AI regulations.

Scientists have long sought to accurately predict outcomes of real-world events before they happen. Can AI systems do so more reliably? We study this question through clinical trial outcome prediction, a high-stakes open challenge even for domain experts. We introduce CT Open, an open-access, live platform that will run four challenge every year. Anyone can submit predictions for each challenge. CT Open evaluates those submissions on trials whose outcomes were not yet public at the time of submission but were made public afterwards. Determining if a trial's outcome is public on the internet before a certain date is surprisingly difficult. Outcomes posted on official registries may lag behind by years, while the first mention may appear in obscure articles. To address this, we propose a novel, fully automated decontamination pipeline that uses iterative LLM-powered web search to identify the earliest mention of trial outcomes. We validate the pipeline's quality and accuracy by human expert's annotations. Since CT Open's pipeline ensures that every evaluated trial had no publicly reported outcome when the prediction was made, it allows participants to use any methodology and any data source. In this paper, we release a training set and two time-stamped test benchmarks, Winter 2025 and Summer 2025. We believe CT Open can serve as a central hub for advancing AI research on forecasting real-world outcomes before they occur, while also informing biomedical research and improving clinical trial design. CT Open Platform is hosted at $\href{https://ct-open.net/}{https://ct-open.net/}$

The rigorous evaluation of the novelty of a scientific paper is, even for human scientists, a challenging task. With the increasing interest in AI scientists and AI involvement in scientific idea generation and paper writing, it also becomes increasingly important that this task be automatable and reliable, lest both human attention and compute tokens be wasted on ideas that have already been explored. Due to the challenge of quantifying ground-truth novelty, however, existing novelty metrics for scientific papers generally validate their results against noisy, confounded signals such as citation counts or peer review scores. These proxies can conflate novelty with impact, quality, or reviewer preference, which in turn makes it harder to assess how well a given metric actually evaluates novelty. We therefore propose an axiomatic benchmark for scientific novelty metrics. We first define a set of axioms that a well-behaved novelty metric should satisfy, grounded in human scientific norms and practice, then evaluate existing metrics across ten tasks spanning three domains of AI research. Our results reveal that no existing metric satisfies all axioms consistently, and that metrics fail on systematically different axioms, reflecting their underlying architectures. Additionally, we show that combining metrics of complementary architectures leads to consistent improvements on the benchmark, with per-axiom weighting achieving 90.1% versus 71.5% for the best individual metric, suggesting that developing architecturally diverse metrics is a promising direction for future work. We release the benchmark code as supplementary material to encourage the development of more robust scientific literature novelty metrics.

Can AI systems trained on the existing scientific record forecast the advances that will follow? We introduce PreScience, a dataset and benchmark for scientific forecasting built around 98K recent AI research papers, together with companion papers covering author publication histories and citation links, yielding 502K papers in total. The resulting paper records include titles, abstracts, disambiguated author identities, influential references, topic labels, citation trajectories, and metadata snapshotted to respect temporal cutoffs. We instantiate seven exemplar tasks: five paper-anchored tasks -- contribution generation, collaborator prediction, prior work selection, citation count prediction, and future combination prediction -- and two aggregate topic trend forecasting variants. We develop baselines ranging from simple heuristics and embedding methods to frontier language models and agentic systems, and introduce LACER, an LLM-based metric for evaluating similarity of generated contribution descriptions that agrees better with human judgments than existing metrics. Finally, we compose task models to generate a 12-month synthetic corpus and find that the resulting papers are systematically less diverse and less novel than human-authored research from the same period. We release the PreScience dataset (https://huggingface.co/datasets/allenai/prescience) and code (https://github.com/allenai/prescience).