Scientific Discovery

Accumulated scientific knowledge advances inquiry when prior findings help researchers choose new questions, design investigations, and interpret results. Realizing this value at scale requires access to the reasoning that connects research problems, scientific procedures, conclusions, and evidence. We introduce the Large Knowledge Model (LKM), a scientific knowledge infrastructure that transforms the literature into a shared, computationally accessible reasoning resource. LKM represents papers as source-grounded reasoning graphs, couples structural traversal with semantic retrieval over the same objects, and aligns related questions, claims, and reasoning chains across papers. This representation forms a Scientific Reasoning Landscape with three connected views: a Question Landscape that organizes research problems and open directions, a Workflow Landscape that exposes reusable scientific procedures, and an Evidence Landscape that connects conclusions to their support, disagreement, and conditions. The unified substrate supports reasoning-aware scientific search, evidence-grounded question answering, comparative evidence analysis, and research planning. Researchers and agents can retrieve relevant work through its scientific intent, synthesize answers with inspectable supporting arguments, and develop research plans informed by established workflows and unresolved evidence. We describe a corpus-scale system and evaluate scientific retrieval and knowledge-intensive question answering. With the answering model fixed, LKM retrieval improves accuracy by 9.30%, 4.20%, and 14.69% on ChemBench, PubMedQA, and SciBench, respectively. By connecting knowledge access to scientific reasoning and action, LKM provides a common foundation for discovering relevant research, reusing scientific knowledge, and coordinating cumulative inquiry across researchers, agents, and research cycles.

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

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.

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

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

The economic value of inference depends on how capacity and task information are distributed across stages of AI production. We study these organizational margins using controlled workflow experiments on externally verified software-engineering tasks. In two matched resource panels, direct execution records the same success rate of 59.6 percent at logical-token ceilings of 12,000 and 24,000, while success under information-constrained planning rises from 36.2 to 51.2 percent. The planning disadvantage narrows by 15.0 percentage points (95 percent task-cluster bootstrap interval: 4.2 to 25.8). A strict read-only planning campaign varies whether the planner sees the task issue. At 12,000 tokens, issue access raises success by about 16 percentage points over issue-hidden planning. Compared with direct execution, task-informed planning is about 10 points lower at 12,000 tokens; at 24,000 tokens, it shows a 29.6-point advantage. In the resource panels, direct execution uses substantially less than either ceiling, while the planning workflow's binding rate falls from 46.2 to 0.8 percent and downstream execution accounts for 89.9 percent of the increase in total use. Scale determines the capacity available to a system; workflow and information structure shape the productive value

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

Modern LLMs and AI agents increasingly support data engineering workflows that integrate evidence from unstructured sources. Such pipelines typically do data retrieval, integration, and ranking before proceeding to more complex agentic reasoning or actions, e.g., for scientific discovery. The core retrieval problem in these workflows jointly executes multi-attribute filtering, multi-vector search, exact relational joins, and thresholded embedding-similarity joins. Given a planned query and monotone scoring function, our DASE query engine constructs and ranks candidate evidence tuples. It comprises (i) a multi-step reasoning query model over structured predicates, multiple vectors, and relational links; (ii) SemJI, a sparse materialized embedding-similarity join index for rare near-neighbor pairs; and (iii) a co-designed execution layer that combines predicate-aware ANN traversal, batched access, and threshold-based score aggregation. On scientific-discovery workloads, DASE retrieves candidate evidence for multi-step reasoning queries 6x to 46x faster than strong RDBMS, rerank, and vector-database baselines at comparable recall; and for tasks that require semantic-operator post-processing, DASE acts as a high-recall prefilter that makes downstream LLM evaluation both cheaper and more accurate -- e.g., on SemBench E-Commerce it improves BigQuery quality from 0.67 to 0.80 while cutting cost from $2.42 to$0.54.

Scientific code repositories encode decades of human knowledge in executable models, methods, and tools. Yet fragmented toolchains, implicit domain conventions, and specialized correctness criteria make this knowledge difficult to convert into reliable learning experience-a challenge we call the scientific experience bottleneck. We introduce ScienceIDE, infrastructure for turning the world's scientific code into programmable environments for scientific agents. Guided by expert-defined scientific cases and acceptance criteria, agents transform repositories into executable environments that support task generation, execution, and scientific verification. These environments provide a shared foundation for supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and evaluation. Using verified interaction trajectories, we train PhAI-IDE-72B, PhAI-IDE-9B, and PhAI-IDE-4B. The model family shows gains in held-out scientific-code repair and across selected general-purpose benchmarks in code, reasoning, and knowledge, providing evidence of positive transfer from scientific experience to broader capabilities. ScienceIDE lays the foundation for an integrated workspace for agent learning and scientific practice, making humanity's scientific software a shared substrate for developing scientific intelligence. Code: https://github.com/aitofound/ScienceIDE

Multimodal coding agents are expected to turn visual inputs into usable artifacts, and they act through a harness, the layer of tools, context management, and execution environment around the model. Existing evaluations often isolate short tool calls, API traces, or screenshot resemblance, and a low score under these proxies cannot say whether the model saw poorly, planned poorly, or was failed by its harness. We study scientific overview figure reconstruction, an agent task in which a source image must become an editable PowerPoint slide that preserves text, topology, layout, and native document structure. We introduce ReFigBench, a benchmark and evaluation framework built on 1,000 real overview figures retrieved from arXiv papers with full provenance. Coding agents from four model families reconstruct every figure under two workflows, direct code generation and a specialized PPTX workflow, and the strongest model runs inside two commercial harnesses, yielding ten configurations. Evaluation combines deterministic artifact checks, repeated automated scoring by judges from two model families, and blinded human comparisons. Perception remains a bottleneck that iterative rendering only partly repays. Whether workflow effort converts into quality depends on the model together with its harness, since the same model gains from the specialized workflow inside one harness and loses inside the other, and the harness shifts scores even under an identical direct prompt. The specialized workflow erases native connectors in every configuration, human judges still prefer its renderings in most matchups, and even the strongest agent falls short of the rubric ceiling. These results expose the tension between fidelity and editability as the central challenge for practical multimodal document agents.

Identifying technological trends is a core scientometric task, yet traditional frequency-based approaches struggle to capture substantial meaning shifts of domain-specific terms. We hypothesise that contextual embeddings can complement frequency dynamics to effectively track diachronic semantic change. We compare frequency and embedding-based approaches across Astrophysics and NLP corpora spanning from 2010 to 2024. Candidate terms are extracted using KeyBERT (utilizing SciBERT as its underlying language model) and filtered for significant frequency increases using Fisher's exact test. These terms are then evaluated for genuine semantic shift by domain experts to establish ground-truth labels. To quantify semantic drift, each term's contextual embedding ''clouds'' from the two discrete periods are compared using multiple metrics: cosine distance, average pairwise distance, Hotelling-type T 2 , and maximum mean discrepancy. Results indicate that frequency-based methods align slightly better with human judgments of ''trend-related terms'' than semantic metrics (Precision@50 of 0.62 vs 0.60 in Astrophysics). The two signals show a correlation of around 0.6. Several terms identified exclusively by embedding metrics (e.g., ''primordial black holes'') represent critical conceptual developments invisible to pure frequency analysis. These findings indicate that semantic metrics may capture complementary information, highlighting the value of integrating contextual embeddings into scientometric trend analysis.

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

Precise retrieval of scientific information is fundamentally constrained by long-tailed concepts and high fact-sensitivity of scientific corpora. These challenges often limit the effectiveness of dense retrievers and hallucination-prone LLM augmentation. To address this, we present REPAIR, a self-evolving data augmentation framework for scientific dense retrievers. REPAIR iteratively synthesizes training data to address knowledge gaps by cycling through diagnosis of long-tail concepts, API-guided evidence expansion, and differentiation via hard negative mining. This process effectively grounds retrieval in factual reality to resolve fine-grained distinctions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that REPAIR significantly outperforms 19 strong baselines on nine materials science and biomedical benchmarks. Our work highlights that diagnosing and factually augmenting data to long-tail deficits is essential for robust scientific retrieval.

Forecasting scientific relations can guide discovery by identifying promising connections before they emerge. Existing approaches often model concept semantics and graph structure separately or summarize semantics over coarse historical snapshots, leaving semantic representations potentially misaligned with rapidly evolving graph evidence. We propose a time-aligned evolving concept graph framework that jointly models semantic and structural evolution. Its core idea is to treat dated papers as shared update events, reconstructing semantic and structural states from the same publication history through each prediction time. Pair-level fusion combines these states to forecast first co-occurrence, relation formation, and conditional relation type. Holding architecture and training fixed, refreshing context alongside graph updates improves mean relation AUPRC by 16.6% over frozen context. On a graph built from 187,848 papers with 270,687 concepts and 7.45 million co-occurrence links, the complete framework improves mean relation AUROC from 0.9290 for the strongest evaluated baseline to 0.9722, with mean population-weighted AUPRC 0.005778.

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

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

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

Domain-specialized language models are widely used for scientific question answering, but stronger general-purpose systems raise a sharper question: when does domain-specific fine-tuning remain valuable for open-ended scientific reasoning? We study this in astronomy with a curated QA benchmark from publicly available 2017--2026 Olympiad-style materials. The free-response subset contains 300 questions, including 204 text-only and 96 image-linked examples. We compare open-weight and API-served general-purpose, multimodal, and astronomy-specialized models using judge-based correctness and complementary reference metrics. Strong general-purpose models establish the highest correctness baseline in this testbed, while analyses of metric agreement, judge sensitivity, benchmark composition, and modality reveal variation not captured by a single leaderboard. These results motivate treating domain specialization as a task- and deployment-dependent property and highlight the role of domain-specific evaluation in determining which models, capabilities, and evaluation criteria are appropriate for scientific workflows.

We describe tus-nlp's Lit3R (Retrieve-Relate-Read) system for LitTraceQA, a shared task for literature-grounded question answering that requires systems to retrieve relevant papers, identify supporting evidence, and generate answers. Lit3R combines off-the-shelf retrieval, reranking, and large language model (LLM) components without task-specific training. The retriever iteratively combines BM25-based sparse and dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and LLM-based verification, and complements retrieval based on the question with paper-to-paper expansion. The reader first identifies supporting evidence within individual papers and then synthesizes evidence across papers to produce the final answer and evidence trace. On the official test set, our system ranked 4th on the leaderboard. Our code is available at https://github.com/tus-ist-nlp/littraceqa.

Scientific research increasingly relies on large, heterogeneous data sources, motivating interest in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems that provide natural language access to scientific knowledge and research workflows. Researchers are exploring the viability of these systems as natural language interfaces for document search and for generating analysis code and pipeline components. At the same time, concerns about data privacy and control over research infrastructure have motivated interest in open-weight models and open-source deployments hosted within research institutions. In astronomy, this development follows a long history of computational infrastructure development, from archival databases and Structured Query Language (SQL)-based systems to large language model (LLM)-assisted research tools. This paper presents a domain-expert evaluation of faithfulness for AquiLLM, an open-weight, offline RAG-LLM platform designed to support scientific research groups in the use and preservation of tacit and formal knowledge. We define faithfulness as the extent to which generated responses remain grounded in retrieved scientific context without unsupported claims or omissions. We report results from an astronomy case study evaluating AquiLLM across retrieval and scientific analysis tasks. AquiLLM performs most reliably on explicit retrieval-oriented questions grounded in the RAG collection, while faithfulness degrades for queries requiring synthesis or ambiguity resolution. These results highlight both the promise and limitations of open-weight RAG-LLM systems for scientific research and demonstrate the importance of domain-expert evaluation beyond standard benchmark leaderboards.

Research data repositories are essential infrastructure for scientific inquiry and for ensuring that datasets follow FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles. However, repository reuse depends on the quality and completeness of geospatial and thematic metadata, which researchers generally provide voluntarily. Given limited curation resources, it is unsurprising that even Harvard Dataverse, the world's largest general-purpose research repository, contains many incomplete metadata records. Missing fields represent lost information and reduce interoperability. We find that datasets with more missing metadata receive fewer downstream citations and have fewer resolvable connections to other datasets. The implications are particularly important for geospatial datasets: only 0.3% of research datasets include a bounding box, and most represent archival points rather than complete geographic shapes. Our analysis shows that geospatial metadata helps connect concepts across disciplines. After embedding Harvard Dataverse datasets in a metadata knowledge graph, we find that datasets are twice as likely to connect across scientific disciplines through shared geospatial metadata as through keywords. This suggests that geographic metadata is a more reliable basis for cross-disciplinary interoperability than keyword vocabularies, which often remain discipline-specific. We train and fine-tune a small language model using datasets from Harvard Dataverse. Through geospatial metadata enrichment, we increase the share of datasets from different disciplines connected through metadata elements from 58.5% to 63.2%.

As artificial intelligence's capabilities improve, it is increasingly viewed as a general scientific method. But how true are these claims? Does AI outperform all techniques, or only some, and how is this changing? To assess the claims, we assemble a corpus of 2,507 head-to-head comparisons between AI and other scientific analysis techniques across 27 scientific disciplines from papers published between 2000 and early 2025. We find a profound dichotomy. Relative to traditional statistics, AI often outperforms, but at a significantly higher computational cost. But there are also nearly a quarter of cases where AI is both more expensive and performs worse than traditional statistical techniques and this fraction has been stable for a decade. Relative to scientific computing, AI often underperforms, but at lower computational cost. This has begun to change: since 2020, AI's performance against scientific computing has notably strengthened and it now outperforms on more than half of comparisons. These patterns suggest that AI is therefore not a universal replacement for existing methods, but rather a valuable -- and improving -- part of a new AI-enabled scientific frontier.

Scientific agents contribute to hypothesis discovery by synthesizing evidence, assessing proposals, and developing new explanations. Recent systems combine scientific agents with evolutionary search through critique, comparison, and revision. However, how different forms of agent collaboration affect hypothesis quality remains an open question. Answering this question requires separating the effects of agents' scientific capabilities from those of their collaboration. A framework must therefore preserve agents' scientific roles and support rules for combining, revising, and retaining hypotheses. Building on this view, we introduce HypoEvolve, which makes collaboration explicit through successive updates to a hypothesis population. Specifically, we propose a generational genetic algorithm to coordinate specialized large language model (LLM) agents that integrate mechanistic arguments, reconsider assumptions, and assess evidence and testability. Each generation specifies how scientific judgments and new proposals reshape the population, making collaboration effects on hypothesis quality directly testable. Moreover, we design our evaluation around scientifically meaningful hypotheses that explain how a proposed intervention could work. Drug repurposing links these explanations to target-level biological claims assessed against external evidence. Specifically, we adapt DepMap and Open Targets into complementary external measures grounded in experimental, genetic, and clinical evidence. Across 34 cancer types, HypoEvolve achieves the highest scores against six baselines on both measures. DepMap selectivity reaches 0.171, versus 0.115 for the strongest baseline. Gains over single-pass generation also generalize to held-out cancer types. HypoEvolve advances a vision of autonomous science in which AI research teams achieve a capacity for discovery beyond that of individual models.

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

Automatic Related Work Generation (RWG) significantly reduces the human time and effort required to author the Related Work Section (RWS) of a research paper. However, prior methods leveraging multi-agent Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on a predefined workflow, where each agent is responsible for a specific step in the entire process. This rigid, static inter-agent coordination limits the adaptive collaboration required to synthesize complex scientific literature. To address this limitation, we propose CREW (Collaborative Reinforcement Learning for Related Work Generation), a novel framework where LLM agents bypass heuristic pipelines to dynamically coordinate by autonomously selecting actions, such as Retrieve, Disseminate, Compose, and Critique, driven by a policy optimized via Independent Proximal Policy Optimization (IPPO). Extensive experiments on a standard RWG benchmark demonstrate that our approach yields substantial quality improvements over strong existing baselines, while significantly reducing token costs. Code is available at https://github.com/YenPBao/CREW-Collaborative-MARL.git

Multi-teacher on-policy distillation (OPD) is becoming the standard way to integrate specialist capabilities into one model: train experts with RL, then distill them into the student on its own rollouts. Existing recipes assign supervision at the sequence level - each prompt goes to one domain teacher and every token receives the same weight - which implicitly assumes that a teacher is uniformly useful across a response. We find instead that useful teacher signal is sparse and heterogeneous along a reasoning trajectory, which raises a finer question: who should teach which token? Verifier-Gated Multi-Expert On-Policy Distillation (VG-OPD) answers it by verification: the counterfactual gain of an expert on a specific answer criterion licenses that expert to teach, its disagreement with the student localizes the supervision, and criterion importance sets its weight; the gated KL enters GRPO as an additive token-level advantage. Instantiated for scientific reasoning with RL-trained capability experts, VG-OPD attains the best overall performance on seven benchmarks for 4B and 8B students, ranking first on five at both scales, with the largest gains on knowledge-intensive scientific reasoning tasks. Further analysis shows that the gains come from localizing verified supervision rather than from adding teachers or distillation loss: misplacing the same supervision budget is the single most damaging change, and indiscriminate distillation drags RL below its own floor where gated distillation lifts it.

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

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

Real-world Earth observation (EO) agents must translate high-level scientific questions into executable workflows to acquire observations, prepare data, perform domain computations, and derive conclusions from runtime evidence. Existing EO agents typically start from supplied observations, while benchmarks typically provide prepared inputs or candidate answers, leaving full-chain open-world EO execution largely untested. We present Earth-Agent-Pro, an execution-adaptive Plan-and-Execute framework using expert-authored skills to constrain planning and runtime tool use. Workflow-centered structured memory records planned steps, accepted evidence, and their dependencies, enabling repair of only the affected workflow suffix when runtime evidence invalidates a step. Separate large language model adapters use sequence-level supervised fine-tuning for planner workflow composition and node-level group relative policy optimization with locally verifiable rewards for executor tool-argument grounding. Earth-Bench-Pro instantiates 248 expert-curated task cores as 744 questions under three matched regimes. Its 248 Open-World Execution questions span RGB imagery, spectral observations, and remote sensing products, pairing high-level requests with runtime data requirements, executable trajectories, and open-ended answers grounded in execution evidence. With a shared GPT-5 backbone, Earth-Agent-Pro achieves 66.13% LLM-as-Judge accuracy, exceeding ReAct by 20.95 points in this metric and 24.44 points in Tools-In-Order. Joint adapter tuning raises Qwen3.5-9B LLM-as-Judge accuracy from 38.31% to 50.00%, an 11.69-point gain over the untuned configuration. Planning-only evaluation and execution with the reference workflow show that the adapters improve workflow composition and argument grounding, respectively. Code and datasets will be released soon.

Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks, including those featured in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026), suggest that frontier language models still struggle with advanced physics, a demanding test of their scientific reasoning and quantitative problem-solving abilities. Yet this impression does not always align with domain experts' experiences using these models in their work. We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts, focusing on text-only problems with verifiable final answers. For each subfield of physics, faculty and graduate researchers with relevant expertise carefully review problem statements, reference solutions, and model responses to distinguish genuine model errors from grader errors, incorrect reference solutions, and ambiguous or underspecified questions. Most audited cases initially evaluated as incorrect reflect these benchmarking issues rather than errors in the models' physics reasoning. We then ask experts to address these benchmarking issues by correcting erroneous reference solutions and repairing or excluding flawed questions. We find that GPT-5.6-Sol's measured mean@4 rises from 47.3% to 78.7% on HLE-Physics and from 61.0% to 87.2% on CMT-Benchmark, while its corrected pass@4 reaches 94.4% on the 54 retained CritPt challenges. Corrected scores are computed on the retained evaluation subsets following expert review. Scores on the audited subsets of UGPhysics, PRISM-Physics, and PHYBench also rise substantially after correction. These findings suggest that current benchmarks substantially understate frontier models' ability to solve well-posed physics problems. Near-saturation on these closed-ended tasks highlights the need for more demanding, expert-validated evaluations.

We introduce document embedding geometry as a quantitative observable of conceptual reorganization and develop a counterfactual ablation framework for measuring how individual concepts influence the organization of scientific knowledge, providing a quantitative framework for detecting scientific revolutions. The observable is defined by the geometric perturbation induced when removing documents associated with a candidate concept from the embedding space before and after its historical emergence. Statistical validation is performed using five historical case studies spanning physics, mathematics, and machine learning: special relativity, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the Higgs mechanism, deep learning, and the attention mechanism underlying transformer architectures. Across the historical case studies, the framework identifies measurable geometric signatures associated with conceptual reorganization, while the validation studies expose important limitations arising from document assignment and sparse historical data. These results establish embedding geometry as a medium for quantifying conceptual reorganization, providing a new approach for studying how scientific fields restructure over time.

Generalisations are common in scientific communication, even though they are semantically ambiguous. An automated method is needed to identify and categorise claims according to their level of generalisation, in order help detect an over-reliance on generalisations and possible misrepresentations of scientific findings. We introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of generalisations in the scientific domain, NLPGenX, which labels claims according to their level of generality and framing within the text. We operationalise this taxonomy with an LLM-powered framework, NLPGenA, that automatically classifies sentences from scientific articles into 5 different generalisation classes. We validate our framework with human annotators and use the framework to construct a large-scale dataset of NLP papers annotated according to generality, with auxiliary labels for hedging and vague descriptors (NLPGens). We use NLPGens to analyse the use of generalisations in NLP papers across multiple venues and subdomains, and to examine associations with citation counts, hedging, and vague descriptors.

Autonomous research agents are increasingly expected to search the literature, analyze experimental evidence, and generate scientific hypotheses. These capabilities require multi-step evidence grounded reasoning that progressively acquires, integrates, and verifies evidence before reaching a conclusion. Existing multimodal benchmarks, however, largely evaluate final-answer accuracy, leaving open whether predictions are actually supported by traceable scientific evidence. We introduce Sci-MMR, a benchmark for multi-step evidence-grounded scientific reasoning built on structured argument graphs linking scientific claims, citation-grounded knowledge, visual evidence, and supporting regions. Sci-MMR comprises 235 multi-hop reasoning tasks spanning four scientific disciplines, with an average of nine figure panels per task. Evaluating eight frontier multimodal models, we find that answer accuracy consistently exceeds complete-evidence recovery rate by more than 20%, revealing a substantial gap that answer-only evaluation is structurally unable to capture. Through controlled interventions, we identify two fundamental bottlenecks. First, evidence acquisition: models struggle to extract complete structured evidence from scientific figures, accounting for 57.2% of failures. While cropping tools yield modest gains (+4.5 points), providing gold evidence improves accuracy by up to 37.0 points, indicating difficulty in assembling complete multi-region evidence. Second, evidence integration: models struggle to translate available evidence into correct conclusions, accounting for 31.8% of failures, while even with gold evidence the strongest model achieves only 69.1% accuracy on the hardest tasks. These findings indicate that current answer-centric benchmarks substantially overestimate the evidence-grounded reasoning capabilities of multimodal research agents

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

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

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

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

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.

Existing benchmarks for autonomous AI scientists evaluate only final outputs---generated code, hypotheses, or papers---yet discard the reasoning process by which those outputs were obtained. This makes it impossible to audit scientific methodology, diagnose failure modes, or distinguish systematic reasoning from fortunate guessing. We present \textbf{OpenDiscoveryTrace}, a public dataset of 558 complete AI scientific agent trajectories that captures how models reason, not just what they produce. Each trajectory records a structured 9-field-per-step trace---including thoughts, tool calls, observations, errors, revision triggers, and self-reported confidence---as models execute 124 scientific tasks spanning drug discovery, materials science, genomics, and scientific literature analysis. The dataset covers seven models: three frontier models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Gemini 3.1 Pro; 124 trajectories each, fully balanced across domains and difficulty levels) and four open-weight models (Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, Phi-3.5-mini, and Qwen2.5-1.5B; 30 each), plus 60 live-retrieval variant trajectories. Pilot analysis on 363 LLM-judged trajectories reveals that process traces expose behavioral differences invisible to output-only evaluation: all three frontier models achieve comparable success rates (84--89%), yet Claude Opus 4.6 produces 30$\times$ more errors than GPT-5.4 (2.5 vs. 0.08 per trajectory, $p < 0.0001$, Cliff's $\delta = 0.613$), with qualitatively different error profiles---66.7% tool misuse for Claude versus 83.6% reasoning errors for GPT-5.4. We define five benchmark tasks with baselines from logistic regression, random forests, LSTMs, and Transformer models. The dataset, trace schema, agent harness, and benchmark definitions are publicly available under CC BY 4.0 to support research on process-level evaluation, scientific agent auditing, and AI governance.

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

Scientific workflow management (WMSs) systems automate execution, yet orchestrate using fixed, hand-tuned rules. LLM agents promise more autonomous orchestration, but it remains unclear where to introduce agentic reasoning, how to bound its risk, and when it actually helps. We present Avatar, an actor-based architecture comprising an orchestrator, an executor, and a provenance monitor. Each actor's decision policy is pluggable (rule-based or LLM-backed) via a single adapter-validated action catalog, so conventional and agentic control run on the same core across different WMSs. We present an implementation using the Academy framework and evaluate Avatar across three workloads. We observe that Avatar's rule mode reproduces native execution, with a single unchanged core running all three. Moreover, LLM-backed Avatar reports a reduction of compute wastage by $55\%$ and cuts GPU-busy time by $40\%$. Overall, we envision Avatar as a step toward workflow systems that reason about their own orchestration rather than follow pre-fixed rules.

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.

Scientific figures are the interface through which research claims are inspected and reused, but final published panels rarely expose the data or plotting code that produced them. Recovering this hidden provenance from pixels is therefore underdetermined. We introduce SciFigure2Code, an AI-reconstructed benchmark that instead evaluates presentation recovery: generating editable Python programs that preserve how a scientific panel is arranged and read. Role-specialized Codex agents generate, execute, visually refine, and audit silver-standard presentation programs that capture geometry, visual hierarchy, encodings, annotations, and typography without claiming to recover original measurements or author source code. This reconstruction-and-audit protocol turns final published panels into auditable reference packages; the resulting resource contains 6,740 reviewed panels and SciFigureBench, a balanced 337-panel test set across 31 chart subtypes, five domains, and three complexity levels. Across 14 zero-shot models in image-only and caption-assisted settings, execution, multi-component layouts, axes, legends, and scientific labels remain weak. Claude Opus 4.7 achieves the highest image-only Overall score, Claude Opus 4.6 leads caption-assisted reconstruction, and two-stage plan-then-code prompting improves Overall for all four tested models. SciFigure2Code provides an auditable testbed for agents that construct editable, visually faithful scientific figure presentations.

Behavioral foundation models have been proposed as stand-ins for human participants across settings, but it is unclear whether theories discovered on them generalize to humans or merely characterize the simulator. We ran the Automated Cognitive Scientist (\textsc{AutoCog}), a closed-loop discovery system in which LLM agents design theory-discriminating experiments, collect responses, arbitrate between competing theories, and synthesize successors, entirely on behavior simulated by Centaur, a foundation model of human behavior. In a multi-attribute decision-making setting, the theories \textsc{AutoCog} found on Centaur generalized to human data: they outperformed canonical theories on ten held-out experiments and were rivaled only by theories found by running the same loop on people. We argue that this succeeds despite the simulator's inevitable imperfections because a discovery loop that arbitrates between competing theories demands less of its simulator than estimation does. The simulator only needs to capture the regularities that distinguish the theories, and not necessarily reproduce behavior precisely. Imperfect simulators can therefore widen the search over theories, with human data then testing whether the surfaced theories generalize.

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

Scientific ideation is the capacity to formulate novel and testable hypotheses from scientific evidence, and autonomous AI scientists depend on it. Existing evaluations largely assess it by asking models to generate ideas from a static, curated set of reference papers. That passive setup departs from the retrieval-and-reasoning workflow of modern AI scientists, and it becomes less discriminative as models improve. We introduce AgentIdeaBench, a multidisciplinary benchmark that evaluates scientific ideation under two matched settings, static observation and active exploration. We report matched Static-Active evaluations for 33 LLMs across 40 densely scored subfields spanning five disciplines, using a multidimensional, literature-verified scoring framework whose critics assess originality against retrieved prior art. Active exploration reveals considerably more capability headroom, and that headroom is unevenly distributed across models. Performance scales about twice as fast as under static observation, and the exploration gain is capability-gated, favoring the strongest models over the weakest. The gain reflects better grounding, improving feasibility, clarity, and specificity while leaving measured originality unchanged under our critics. We further explore Scientific World Modeling, a generation-time loop that refines a draft hypothesis through structured thought experiments. It benefits mid-capability models, and its impact diminishes among frontier models that appear to have internalized such reasoning patterns already. AgentIdeaBench gives future work on scientific ideation a measurement basis suited to the agent era.

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

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) lets a system improve the model-building machinery from its own failures, so every later model inherits the gain. Yet RSI has been validated almost exclusively on coding and formal benchmarks such as science QA and mathematics. This format bound limits RSI to improvement within a machine-checkable slice, not general capability where questions are open and correctness is settled by argument, replication, or measurement. We argue RSI must next operate across real, diverse scientific, engineering, and meta-scientific domains, not where formal evaluation is merely tractable. To that end we present MetaRSI-v1, where improvement is the scheduled composition of three typed operators over one unified paradigm. Data-RSI amplifies existing competence and marks its boundary; Harness-RSI edits a five-slot scaffold without touching weights; Model-RSI internalizes capability into parameters through bounded training. Sharing one loop kernel and artifact vocabulary, they make data, scaffold, and model changes composable rather than exclusive. A two-axis optimizer jointly decides operator order and each operator's proposal policy, while a meta-level policy revises the schedule across terms. We validate MetaRSI-v1 under the field's standard evaluations, on code and closed-form science, with no external teacher: the target model plays every role in its own loop. MetaRSI-v1 reframes self-improvement from a single-surface edit to a composition across the full model-production pipeline, opening two paths: a model route internalizing capability through training, and a harness route leaving weights untouched and thus extending self-improvement to any model reachable through an interface, with Data-RSI redefined as the shared substrate feeding both. The framework further yields refutable laws on where loops exist, how operators compose, and what supervision buys.

Autonomous coding agents are increasingly proposed as AI-scientist systems that conduct analyses and write research reports, but executing a prescribed analysis is not the same as making a discovery. Existing benchmarks are configured for reproduction: tasks, data, and rubrics are built around a hidden target study, and recovery of its result is rewarded. We present TruthInsightBench, a benchmark configured for discovery. Its 40 blind tasks, drawn from 40 peer-reviewed studies across 10 scientific domains, expose only a neutral scientific objective and frozen data; source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths are withheld, leaving the agent to determine what claim the data support. A fixed LLM-based judge scores the evidentiary maturity of an agent's own claims along six dimensions, operationalized as 29 artifact-grounded items, with automated, deterministic aggregation and no per-instance human grading, so evaluation can be repeated automatically as agents evolve. On one frozen base model, four coding agents form a narrow plateau (58.4-60.3 of 100) with no statistically reliable pairwise separation: they execute and document analyses competently, with comparatively strong evidence auditability and novelty, but largely lack the discriminating acts that establish a trustworthy claim (controls, robustness, falsifiability, and cross-dataset generalization). The bottleneck is scientific judgment rather than coding, and genuine discovery remains out of reach. TruthInsightBench makes this gap a measurable target; data and scoring code are at https://github.com/TruthInsight-stack/TruthInsightBench.

Making science computable requires representations of both scientific knowledge and the physical world in which scientific claims are tested. A computable representation of the physical laboratory is established through typed research objects, capability-bound operations and a compositional workflow algebra. It provides the physical-world counterpart to machine-readable knowledge, expressing workflows as programs over evolving laboratory states with explicit dependencies, decisions, iteration and concurrency. The representation was implemented in a modular agentic robotic laboratory by binding formal operations to executable Function Skills. For diverse scientific intents, capability-relative workflows were generated, while stateful simulation propagated object transformations and verified operation preconditions and laboratory constraints before dispatch. The proposed representation and its engineering framework jointly establish a general computational interface between agent reasoning and capability-bound physical transformations, providing a foundation for end-to-end autonomous scientific discovery.

Scientific knowledge graphs organize entities and relations extracted from scientific literature, but they remain inherently incomplete. Missing typed links in such graphs can therefore represent plausible scientific hypotheses, such as unexplored associations between materials and applications. However, scientific hypothesis discovery is challenging because true discoveries are extremely sparse among typed candidate pairs: graph neural networks (GNNs) are efficient but unreliable for ambiguous cases, while large language models (LLMs) are knowledgeable but too costly to apply exhaustively and are not naturally grounded in graph structures. We propose HyGRAIL, a cost-aware and evidence-grounded framework that combines heterogeneous GNN triage with LLM-based hypothesis review. HyGRAIL first uses a GNN to score candidate hypotheses and identify a validation-calibrated ambiguous region, routing only graph-uncertain cases to LLM review. For each routed hypothesis, HyGRAIL retrieves node-level associations and multi-hop relational paths from the knowledge graph (KG), then converts this structured evidence into natural language through template-based or LLM-based naturalization. An LLM review agent finally judges each hard hypothesis using the naturalized evidence and validation-selected decision criteria. On MatKG, HyGRAIL achieves the best F1 score of 0.429, improving over the strongest prior baseline by 0.242 F1 points and over the GNN-only baseline by 0.322. Meanwhile, GNN triage reduces the LLM call rate by 54.36% on average. Ablation studies further show that retrieved graph evidence is crucial for reliable hypothesis verification and that compact, two-sided evidence is more effective than simply increasing retrieval quantity.

Scientific equation discovery has long been central to scientific progress, proceeding through iterative cycles of hypothesis generation, observational testing, and refinement under scientific constraints. As LLM capabilities advance and their role in AI for Science expands, it remains an open problem whether they can genuinely discover scientific laws and how this ability should be evaluated. Existing evaluations, however, often either simplify discovery through synthetic settings or reuse published targets that may already be familiar to LLMs. We therefore introduce SCILAWS-BENCH, a benchmark for scientific law discovery built from published research and real scientific data. It comprises 118 problems drawn from 381 scientific papers, covering 291 candidate laws and roughly 8M real data points across six scientific disciplines. Each problem is instantiated in two complementary settings: (1) SCILAWS-REAL asks models to propose laws from fixed real observations and evaluates held-out predictive fit and scientific validity derived from the source literature, and (2) SCILAWS-PARALLEL asks models to actively query residual-calibrated worlds and recover synthesized hidden laws derived from published forms. This two-setting task design preserves each problem's scientific context while separately evaluating fixed-record law discovery and active recovery of a newly synthesized hidden law. We find that predictive fit can diverge from scientific validity, memorization shapes whether models reproduce or move beyond published formulas, and our best-of-N study reveals a selection bottleneck. Our work provides a paper-grounded benchmark and new empirical perspectives for evaluating AI for scientific discovery. Project page: https://yiyihum.github.io/SciLaws-Bench

Scientific agents must learn not only how to reason, but also what to believe. However, existing LLM agents typically express scientific hypotheses in free-form text, leaving their beliefs implicit and difficult to test or revise. We introduce EvoSCM, which equips scientific agents with explicit structural causal models that evolve as new experimental evidence is collected. EvoSCM maintains a population of competing SCM hypotheses, each encoding a candidate causal explanation of the environment, and evolves them through a closed discovery loop. In each round, the agent abduces latent mechanisms from accumulated evidence, designs discriminative interventions, and commits to falsifiable predictions that it tests through experimentation. Discrepancies between prediction and observation are inductively distilled into correction rules that revise the causal structures and mechanisms of each hypothesis, and the agent then deductively validates the revised population against accumulated evidence and structural consistency to guide the next round. We evaluate EvoSCM on DiscoverPhysics, a benchmark requiring agents to uncover the hidden dynamics of noncanonical physical worlds through experimentation. EvoSCM consistently improves scientific discovery over baselines, yielding more accurate explanations and predictions while making more effective use of experimental interactions.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong performance in generating scientific figures from text or images. However, publication-ready figures often require iterative refinement, making scientific figure editing an important yet largely unexplored step toward interactive figure creation. Existing approaches rely on costly proprietary agentic systems, focus primarily on evaluation, or construct training supervision from synthetically generated edits. Instead, we leverage naturally occurring scientific revision and development trajectories as a scalable source of supervision. To this end, we introduce DaEdiTikZ, the first large-scale dataset of revision-derived scientific figure edits, constructed by mining 391K plausible TikZ edit pairs from arXiv, GitHub, and TeX SE and inferring 781K directed edit instructions with a VLM conditioned on rendered figures and TikZ code. We further introduce DaEdiTikZ-Bench, a human-refined benchmark with 690 instances, and train two compact Qwen3.5-based EdiTikZ models (4B and 9B) by jointly learning image-to-TikZ reconstruction and instruction-conditioned editing, followed by reinforcement learning (RL) with complementary rewards for rendered fidelity and edit application. Automatic evaluation places our 9B model above all tested baselines, while human evaluation with 9 annotators and 4,320 ratings places it above GPT-5.6-Sol and on par with Gemini-3.1-Pro. Under severe out-of-distribution shifts, it remains competitive with GPT-5.6-Sol near its 2K training sequence-length regime.

Synthetic data has become a common component of machine learning research. While widely adopted, its use in privacy-sensitive contexts has quietly shifted from a claim of residual inference risk under stated assumptions to an appearance-based property inferred from data generation itself. In this position paper, we argue that this shift reflects an implicit change in community standards for what counts as sufficient privacy evidence, rather than a misunderstanding of well-established privacy principles. Drawing on an empirical analysis of recent publications across major ML venues, we show that synthetic data is frequently used in privacy-sensitive settings without explicit articulation of threat models, inference risks, or falsifiable privacy claims. As a result, privacy assurance often remains implicit, difficult to verify, and unevenly distributed, with heightened exposure for rare and minority records. We argue for treating privacy as an explicit, evidence-based scientific claim and recommend that ML venues adopt norms requiring privacy-relevant assertions to be clearly scoped, testable, and contestable.

Scientific knowledge about AI models is produced faster than the community can organize it. Every few months a new foundation model reshapes the field and hundreds of papers, blogs, and technical reports document how each behaves or fails. Yet, these findings remain scattered and effectively unretrievable. To address this gap we present Modelpedia, an automated, LLM-assisted framework that extracts findings about models from published papers, links it to the model, dataset, method, and concept it concerns, and aggregates the result into a searchable public catalog. Applying the prototype to accepted ICLR 2024 and 2025 papers, we extract over a thousand findings and, treating the catalog itself as an object of study, run a meta-analysis of how the community investigates models. Now, we invite the community to explore, contribute to, and build on the open catalog, and to help establish model findings as a shared foundation for the meta-science of AI.

Scientific methodology figures are essential for communicating complex methods clearly, yet creating them remains labor-intensive and typically requires multiple rounds of refinement. Recent image-generation models can synthesize visually appealing raster figures, but producing a human-satisfactory result in a single generation step remains difficult. Moreover, precise edits to raster figures are challenging for both humans and models. We formulate scientific figure generation as recursive SVG program construction and propose \textsc{FigTree}, a \textit{multi-agent} system that automatically transforms a scientific paper into a structured vector figure. \textsc{FigTree} grounds figure content in the source paper, decomposes a figure into a hierarchy of local regions, generates each region as a short SVG program, and assembles the resulting fragments. A render-critic refinement loop jointly inspects the rendered figure and its underlying program, enabling visual defects to be traced to specific statements and accurately repaired. We conduct extensive evaluations of \textsc{FigTree} on figure quality and editability, showing that \textsc{FigTree} produces high-quality figures, while also enabling more effective editing than existing raster-based methods.

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