Scientific Discovery

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

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

The delivery of traditional substance education has remained problematic due to challenges in scalability, personalization, and the currency of information in a rapidly evolving substance use landscape. While artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising frontier for enhancing educational delivery, its application in providing real-time, authoritative substance use education remains largely underexplored. We built an agentic-based AI web application that combined Drug Enforcement Administration records with peer-reviewed literature in real-time to provide transparent context-sensitive substance use education. The system uses retrieval-augmented generation with a carefully filtered corpus of 102 documents and dynamic PubMed queries. Document storage was semantically chunked and placed in a vector representation in order to be easily retrieved. We conducted an expert evaluation study in which a panel of five subject matter experts generated 30 domain-specific questions, and two independent raters assessed 90 system interactions (30 primary questions plus two contextual follow-ups each) using a five-point Likert scale across four criteria: factual accuracy, citation quality, contextual coherence, and regulatory appropriateness. Mean ratings ranged from 4.18 to 4.35 across the four criteria (overall category range: 4.05-4.52), with substantial inter-rater agreement (Cohen's kappa = 0.78). These findings suggest that agentic AI architectures integrating authoritative regulatory sources with real-time scientific literature represent a promising direction for scalable, accurate, and verifiable health education delivery, warranting further evaluation through longitudinal user studies.

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.

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

We present Collaborative Agent Reasoning Engineering (CARE), a disciplined methodology for engineering Large Language Model (LLM) agents in scientific domains. Unlike ad-hoc trial-and-error approaches, CARE specifies behavior, grounding, tool orchestration, and verification through reusable artifacts and systematic, stage-gated phases. The methodology employs a three-party workflow involving Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs), developers, and LLM-based helper agents. These helper agents function as facilitation infrastructure, transforming informal domain intent into structured, reviewable specifications for human approval at defined gates. CARE addresses the "jagged technological frontier", characterized by uneven LLM performance, by bridging the gap between novice and expert analysts regarding domain constraints and verification practices. By generating concrete artifacts, including interaction requirements, reasoning policies, and evaluation criteria, CARE ensures agent behavior is specifiable, testable, and maintainable. Evaluation results from a scientific use case demonstrate that this stage-gated, artifact-driven methodology yields measurable improvements in development efficiency and complex-query performance.

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.

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

Inertial Confinement Fusion (ICF) holds transformative promise for sustainable, near-limitless clean energy, yet remains constrained by prohibitively high costs and limited experimental opportunities. This paper presents Human-in-the-Loop Meta Bayesian Optimization (HL-MBO), a framework that integrates expert knowledge with few-shot, uncertainty-aware machine learning to accelerate discovery in data-scarce, high-stakes scientific domains. HL-MBO introduces a meta-learned surrogate model with an expert-informed acquisition function to recommend candidate experiments. To foster trust and enable informed decisions, HL-MBO also provides interpretable explanations of its suggestions. We show HL-MBO outperforms current BO methods on ICF energy yield optimization, as well as benchmarks in molecular optimization and critical temperature maximization for superconducting materials.

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

We introduce SPUR, a comprehensive benchmark for scientific experimental image perception, understanding, and reasoning, comprising 4,264 question-answering (QA) pairs derived from 1,084 expert-curated images. SPUR features three key innovations: (1) Panel-Level Fine-Grained Perception: evaluating the visual perception of multimodal large language models (MLLMs) across three dimensions (numerical, morphological, and information localization) on six fine-grained panel types; (2) Cross-Panel Relation Understanding: utilizing complex images with an average of 14.3 panels per sample to evaluate MLLMs' ability to decipher intricate cross-panel relations; (3) Expert-Level Reasoning: assessment of qualitative and quantitative reasoning across five experimental paradigms to determine if models can infer conclusions from evidence as human experts do. Comprehensive evaluation of 20 MLLMs and four multimodal Chain-of-Thought (MCoT) methods reveals that current models fall significantly short of the expert-level requirements for scientific image interpretation, underscoring a critical bottleneck in AI for Science (AI4S) research.

Scientific reasoning rarely stops at what is directly observable; it often requires uncovering hidden structure from data. From estimating reaction constants in chemistry to inferring demand elasticities in economics, this latent structure recovery is what distinguishes scientific reasoning from curve fitting. Large language models (LLMs) can often recall and apply relevant scientific formulas, but we show that this ability is surprisingly easy to suppress. We show that adding in-context examples makes models rely less on pretrained domain knowledge, even when those examples are generated by the very same formula. Rather than reinforcing knowledge-driven derivation, examples shift computation toward empirical pattern fitting. We document this knowledge displacement on 60 latent structure recovery tasks across five scientific domains, 6,000 trials, and four models. This displacement is consistent across domains, but its accuracy consequences depend on how the displaced strategy compares to the one that replaces it: the same shift can lower accuracy, leave it unchanged, or appear to improve it. In all cases, however, the model shifts away from knowledge-driven reasoning. For practitioners deploying LLMs on scientific tasks, the message is cautionary: in-context examples may displace, rather than reinforce, the knowledge they are intended to support.

Deriving governing equations from empirical observations is a longstanding challenge in science. Although artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated substantial capabilities in function approximation, the discovery of explainable and extrapolatable equations remains a fundamental limitation of modern AI, posing a central bottleneck for AI-driven scientific discovery. Here, we present machine collective intelligence, a unified paradigm that integrates two fundamental yet distinct traditions in computational intelligence--symbolism and metaheuristics--to enable autonomous and evolutionary discovery of governing equations. It orchestrates multiple reasoning agents to evolve their symbolic hypotheses through coordinated generation, evaluation, critique, and consolidation, enabling scientific discovery beyond single-agent inference. Across scientific systems governed by deterministic, stochastic, or previously uncharacterized dynamics, machine collective intelligence autonomously recovered the underlying governing equations without relying on hand-crafted domain knowledge. Furthermore, the resulting equations reduced extrapolation error by up to six orders of magnitude relative to deep neural networks, while condensing 0.5-1 million model parameters into just 5-40 interpretable parameters. This study marks an important shift in AI toward the autonomous discovery of principled scientific equations.

Success-driven social learning, in which individuals preferentially adopt the ideas and methods that appear most successful, is a foundational principle of collective behavior across systems ranging from ant colonies to scientific communities. But science is a particular kind of collective search -- one in which the quality of an explanation is itself difficult to assess. Is success bias adaptive in this setting? In agent-based simulations of collective theory building, we find that it is not. Scientists in our model systematically overestimate the quality of their own theories, creating an illusion of understanding: a persistent gap between perceived and actual performance. Success bias amplifies this illusion; communities that favor apparently successful theories explore a narrower range of possibilities, efficiently filtering out poor explanations but failing to discover better ones. This effect intensifies with problem complexity, as scientists in more complex environments become increasingly unable to assess how well their theories actually perform. Most strikingly, when agents optimize their social behavior to maximize the perceived success of their theories, they paradoxically undermine their actual performance, and produce levels of inequality that mirror those found in real scientific communities.

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

We introduce HalluCiteChecker, a toolkit for detecting and verifying hallucinated citations in scientific papers. While AI assistant technologies have transformed the academic writing process, including citation recommendation, they have also led to the emergence of hallucinated citations that do not correspond to any existing work. Such citations not only undermine the credibility of scientific papers but also impose an additional burden on reviewers and authors, who must manually verify their validity during the review process. In this study, we formalize hallucinated citation detection as an NLP task and provide a corresponding toolkit as a practical foundation for addressing this problem. Our package is lightweight and can perform verification in seconds on a standard laptop. It can also be executed entirely offline and runs efficiently using only CPUs. We hope that HalluCiteChecker will help reduce reviewer workload and support organizers by enabling systematic pre-review and publication checks. Our code is released under the Apache 2.0 license on GitHub and is distributed as an installable package via PyPI. A demonstration video is available on YouTube.

AI-for-Science (AI4Science) is increasingly transforming scientific discovery by embedding machine learning models into prediction, simulation, and hypothesis generation workflows across domains. However, the effectiveness of these models is fundamentally constrained by the AI-readiness of scientific data, for which no scalable and systematic evaluation mechanism currently exists. In this work, we propose SciHorizon-DataEVA, a novel agentic system to scalable AI-readiness evaluation of heterogeneous scientific data. At the evaluation-criteria level, we introduce the Sci-TQA2 principles, which organize AI-readiness into four complementary dimensions: Governance Trustworthiness, Data Quality, AI Compatibility, and Scientific Adaptability. Each dimension is decomposed into measurable atomic elements that enable fine-grained and executable assessment. To operationalize these principles at scale, we develop Sci-TQA2-Eval, a hierarchical multi-agent evaluation approach orchestrated through a directed, cyclic workflow. Our Sci-TQA2-Eval dynamically constructs dataset-aware evaluation specifications by combining lightweight dataset profiling, applicability-aware metric activation, and knowledge-augmented planning grounded in domain constraints and dataset-paper signals. These specifications are executed through an adaptive, tool-centric evaluation mechanism with built-in verification and self-correction, enabling scalable and reliable assessment across heterogeneous scientific data. Extensive experiments on scientific datasets spanning multiple domains demonstrate the effectiveness and generality of SciHorizon-DataEVA for principled AI-readiness evaluation.

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.

Preserving a speaker's voice identity while generating speech in a different language remains a fundamental challenge in spoken language technology, particularly in specialized domains such as scientific communication. In this paper, we address this challenge through our system submission to the International Conference on Spoken Language Translation (IWSLT 2026), the Cross-Lingual Voice Cloning shared task. First, we evaluate several state-of-the-art voice cloning models for cross-lingual speech generation of scientific texts in Arabic, Chinese, and French. Then, we build voice cloning systems based on the OmniVoice foundation model. We employ data augmentation via multi-model ensemble distillation from the ACL 60/60 corpus. We investigate the effect of using this synthetic data for fine-tuning, demonstrating improvements in intelligibility (WER & CER) and speaker similarity (SIM), with gains varying across languages.

This paper is accepted and in press for AI and Ethics. This paper includes the supplementary data file at the end of the manuscript. This study examines whether large language models (LLMs) can reliably answer scientific questions and demonstrates how easily they can be influenced by fringe scientific material. The authors modified custom LLMs to prioritise knowledge in selected fringe papers on the Fine Structure Constant and Gravitational Waves, then compared their responses with those of domain experts and standard LLMs. The altered models produced fluent, convincing answers that contradicted scientific consensus and were difficult for non-experts to detect as misleading. The results show that LLMs are vulnerable to manipulation and cannot replace expert judgment, highlighting risks for public understanding of science and the potential spread of misinformation.

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

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

Discovering causal regularities and applying them to build functional systems--the discovery-to-application loop--is a hallmark of general intelligence, yet evaluating this capacity has been hindered by the vast complexity gap between scientific discovery and real-world engineering. We introduce SciCrafter, a Minecraft-based benchmark that operationalizes this loop through parameterized redstone circuit tasks. Agents must ignite lamps in specified patterns (e.g., simultaneously or in timed sequences); scaling target parameters substantially increases construction complexity and required knowledge, forcing genuine discovery rather than reliance on memorized solutions. Evaluating frontier models including GPT-5.2, Gemini-3-Pro, and Claude-Opus-4.5 under a general-purpose code agent scaffold, we find that all plateau at approximately 26% success rate. To diagnose these failures, we decompose the loop into four capacities--knowledge gap identification, experimental discovery, knowledge consolidation, and knowledge application--and design targeted interventions whose marginal contributions serve as proxies for corresponding gaps. Our analysis reveals that although the general knowledge application capability still remains as the biggest gap across all models, for frontier models the knowledge gap identification starts to become a major hurdle--indicating the bottleneck is shifting from solving problems right to raising the right problems for current AI. We release SciCrafter as a diagnostic probe for future research on AI systems that navigate the full discovery-to-application loop.

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

Vision-language models (VLMs) are increasingly proposed as general-purpose tools for scientific data interpretation, yet their reliability on real astronomical observations across diverse modalities remains untested. We present AstroVLBench, a comprehensive benchmark comprising over 4,100 expert-verified instances across five tasks spanning optical imaging, radio interferometry, multi-wavelength photometry, time-domain light curves, and optical spectroscopy. Evaluating six frontier models, we find that performance is strongly modality-dependent: while one model (Gemini 3 Pro) emerges as the most consistently capable across tasks, task-specific strengths vary, and all models substantially underperform domain-specialized methods. Mechanistic ablations reveal that performance depends not only on directing attention to salient visual features but also on grounding those features in physical knowledge. Phenomenological prompts describing what to look for improve accuracy by sharpening model focus, but physical prompts explaining why those features matter perform better overall and yield more balanced classifications with reduced class-specific bias. Consistent with this picture, presenting the underlying one-dimensional measurements directly as numerical tables instead of rendered plots yields up to 13 percentage points improvement. Reasoning quality analysis further demonstrates that, without explicit physical grounding, models may reach correct predictions from phenomenologically plausible cues while providing physically imprecise justifications, establishing that accuracy alone is insufficient for trustworthy scientific deployment. These findings provide the first systematic, multi-modal baselines for VLMs in observational astronomy and identify the specific representation, grounding, and reasoning bottlenecks where current models fail.

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

Process Reward Models (PRMs) have achieved remarkable success in augmenting the reasoning capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) within static domains such as mathematics. However, their potential in dynamic data analysis tasks remains underexplored. In this work, we first present a empirical study revealing that general-domain PRMs struggle to supervise data analysis agents. Specifically, they fail to detect silent errors, logical flaws that yield incorrect results without triggering interpreter exceptions, and erroneously penalize exploratory actions, mistaking necessary trial-and-error exploration for grounding failures. To bridge this gap, we introduce DataPRM, a novel environment-aware generative process reward model that (1) can serve as an active verifier, autonomously interacting with the environment to probe intermediate execution states and uncover silent errors, and (2) employs a reflection-aware ternary reward strategy that distinguishes between correctable grounding errors and irrecoverable mistakes. We design a scalable pipeline to construct over 8K high-quality training instances for DataPRM via diversity-driven trajectory generation and knowledge-augmented step-level annotation. Experimental results demonstrate that DataPRM improves downstream policy LLMs by 7.21% on ScienceAgentBench and 11.28% on DABStep using Best-of-N inference. Notably, with only 4B parameters, DataPRM outperforms strong baselines, and exhibits robust generalizability across diverse Test-Time Scaling strategies. Furthermore, integrating DataPRM into Reinforcement Learning yields substantial gains over outcome-reward baselines, achieving 78.73% on DABench and 64.84% on TableBench, validating the effectiveness of process reward supervision. Code is available at https://github.com/zjunlp/DataMind.

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

Scientific Deep Research (DR) agents answer user queries by synthesizing research papers into multi-section reports. User feedback can improve their utility, but existing protocols only score the final report, making it hard to study and learn which intermediate actions DR agents should take to improve reports. We collect DRACULA, the first dataset with user feedback on intermediate actions for DR. Over five weeks, nineteen expert CS researchers ask queries to a DR system that proposes actions (e.g., "Add a section on datasets"). Our users select actions they prefer, then judge whether an output report applied their selections successfully, yielding 8,103 action preferences and 5,230 execution judgments. After confirming a DR agent can execute DRACULA's actions, we study the predictability of user-preferred actions via simulation-how well LLMs predict the actions users select-a step toward learning to generate useful actions. We discover: (1) LLM judges initially struggle to predict action selections, but improve most when using a user's full selection history, rather than self-reported or extrapolated user context signals; (2) Users' selections for the same query differ based on unstated goals, bottlenecking simulation and motivating affordances that let users steer reports; and (3) Our simulation results inform an online intervention that generates new actions based on the user's past interactions, which users pick most often in follow-up studies. Overall, while work extensively studies execution, DRACULA reveals a key challenge is deciding which actions to execute in the first place. We open-source DRACULA's study design, user feedback, and simulation tasks to spur future work on action feedback for long-horizon agents.

Asking inquisitive questions while reading, and looking for their answers, is an important part in human discourse comprehension, curiosity, and creative ideation, and prior work has investigated this in text-only scenarios. However, in scientific or research papers, many of the critical takeaways are conveyed through both figures and the text that analyzes them. While scientific visualizations have been used to evaluate Vision-Language Models (VLMs) capabilities, current benchmarks are limited to questions that focus simply on extracting information from them. Such questions only require lower-level reasoning, do not take into account the context in which a figure appears, and do not reflect the communicative goals the authors wish to achieve. We generate inquisitive questions that reach the depth of questions humans generate when engaging with scientific papers, conditioned on both the figure and the paper's context, and require reasoning across both modalities. To do so, we extend the linguistic theory of Questions Under Discussion (QUD) from being text-only to multimodal, where implicit questions are raised and resolved as discourse progresses. We present MQUD, a dataset of research papers in which such questions are made explicit and annotated by the original authors. We show that fine-tuning a VLM on MQUD shifts the model from generating generic low-level visual questions to content-specific grounding that requires a high-level of multimodal reasoning, yielding higher-quality, more visually grounded multimodal QUD generation.

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

The volume of scientific submissions continues to climb, outpacing the capacity of qualified human referees and stretching editorial timelines. At the same time, modern large language models (LLMs) offer impressive capabilities in summarization, fact checking, and literature triage, making the integration of AI into peer review increasingly attractive -- and, in practice, unavoidable. Yet early deployments and informal adoption have exposed acute failure modes. Recent incidents have revealed that hidden prompt injections embedded in manuscripts can steer LLM-generated reviews toward unjustifiably positive judgments. Complementary studies have also demonstrated brittleness to adversarial phrasing, authority and length biases, and hallucinated claims. These episodes raise a central question for scholarly communication: when AI reviews science, can we trust the AI referee? This paper provides a security- and reliability-centered analysis of AI peer review. We map attacks across the review lifecycle -- training and data retrieval, desk review, deep review, rebuttal, and system-level. We instantiate this taxonomy with four treatment-control probes on a stratified set of ICLR 2025 submissions, using two advanced LLM-based referees to isolate the causal effects of prestige framing, assertion strength, rebuttal sycophancy, and contextual poisoning on review scores. Together, this taxonomy and experimental audit provide an evidence-based baseline for assessing and tracking the reliability of AI peer review and highlight concrete failure points to guide targeted, testable mitigations.

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 relentless expansion of scientific literature presents significant challenges for navigation and knowledge discovery. Within Research Information Retrieval, established tasks such as text summarization and classification remain crucial for enabling researchers and practitioners to effectively navigate this vast landscape, so that efforts have increasingly been focused on developing advanced research information systems. These systems aim not only to provide standard keyword-based search functionalities but also to incorporate capabilities for automatic content categorization within knowledge-intensive organizations across academia and industry. This study systematically evaluates the performance of off-the-shelf Large Language Models (LLMs) in analyzing scientific texts according to a given classification scheme. We utilized the hierarchical ORKG taxonomy as a classification framework, employing the FORC dataset as ground truth. We investigated the effectiveness of advanced prompt engineering strategies, namely In-Context Learning (ICL) and Prompt Chaining, and experimentally explored the influence of the LLMs' temperature hyperparameter on classification accuracy. Our experiments demonstrate that Prompt Chaining yields superior classification accuracy compared to pure ICL, particularly when applied to the nested structure of the ORKG taxonomy. LLMs with prompt chaining outperform the state-of-the-art models for domain (1st level) prediction and show even better performance for subject (2nd level) prediction compared to the older BERT model. However, LLMs are not yet able to perform well in classifying the topic (3rd level) of research areas based on this specific hierarchical taxonomy, as they only reach about 50% accuracy even with prompt chaining.

Existing multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) frameworks for code generation typically use execution feedback and improve iteratively using Input/Output (I/O) test cases. However, this does not work for scientific workflows, where I/O test cases do not exist, and generating them requires solving the very problem at hand. To address this, we introduce MOSAIC, a training-free multi-agent framework for scientific code generation without I/O supervision. Instead of execution feedback, MOSAIC employs a student-teacher knowledge distillation framework that grounds generation through domain-specific examples and structured problem decomposition. To further mitigate hallucinations across chained subproblems, we introduce a Consolidated Context Window (CCW) for maintaining consistent reasoning across agents. Experiments on the SciCode benchmark show that MOSAIC improves accuracy, executability, and numerical precision over existing approaches while relying on lightweight models.

Formalising informal mathematical reasoning into formally verifiable code is a significant challenge for large language models. In scientific fields such as physics, domain-specific machinery (\textit{e.g.} Dirac notation, vector calculus) imposes additional formalisation challenges that modern LLMs and agentic approaches have yet to tackle. To aid autoformalisation in scientific domains, we present FormalScience; a domain-agnostic human-in-the-loop agentic pipeline that enables a single domain expert (without deep formal language experience) to produce \textit{syntactically correct} and \textit{semantically aligned} formal proofs of informal reasoning for low economic cost. Applying FormalScience to physics, we construct FormalPhysics, a dataset of 200 university-level (LaTeX) physics problems and solutions (primarily quantum mechanics and electromagnetism), along with their Lean4 formal representations. Compared to existing formal math benchmarks, FormalPhysics achieves perfect formal validity and exhibits greater statement complexity. We evaluate open-source models and proprietary systems on a statement autoformalisation task on our dataset via zero-shot prompting, self-refinement with error feedback, and a novel multi-stage agentic approach, and explore autoformalisation limitations in modern LLM-based approaches. We provide the first systematic characterisation of semantic drift in physics autoformalisation in terms of concepts such as notational collapse and abstraction elevation which reveals what formal language verifies when full semantic preservation is unattainable. We release the codebase together with an interactive UI-based FormalScience system which facilitates autoformalisation and theorem proving in scientific domains beyond physics.https://github.com/jmeadows17/formal-science

While mechanistic interpretability (MI) has produced important insights into neural network internals, the field has yet to establish a standardized system to audit experiments. As such, many of its findings remain underutilized in safety-critical applications such as medical AI and autonomous systems, as stakeholders cannot certify their validity. Recent work demonstrates this concretely: two papers found conflicting conclusions for the same behavior, and a third study revealed that both were partially correct but incomparable due to methodological inconsistencies. Without standardized auditing, such ambiguities hinder adoption in high-stakes contexts requiring strong correctness guarantees. We call for the MI community to work towards developing a novel reviewing system that complements peer review via: (1) Continuous reviewing supported by a \emph{Collaborative Reviewing Platform} where meta-science results and discussions (such as critiques, negative results, post-hoc extensions, reproductions, replications, and partial results) that fit outside of papers are organized and discussed, allowing for comments and revisions to be made at any time (2) Generalizing good practices found on this platform into expert-verified guidelines and protocols to improve auditing efficiency, and (3) Source-based auditing systems that track arguments which claims depend on. This position paper encourages constructive debate over the necessity, design and implementation of such a framework, providing early concrete examples to help catalyze these dialogues. Overall, we propose that auditing MI itself is essential for its application in AI safety, industry, and governance.

The era of Big Science has long been defined by increasingly large and specialized research teams pushing the frontiers of knowledge. However, recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), are beginning to reshape academic writing and scientific research, potentially disrupting the longstanding trend toward ever-larger teams and transforming other dimensions of research team structure. Drawing on 147,074 full-text publications from the PLoS family and the Nature portfolio since 2020, we examined whether and how AI-assisted writing influences team structure and team outcomes in science. Using multiple methods, including ordinary least square, quantile regression, Poisson regression, logistic regression and propensity score matching, we found that research teams using AI-assisted writing tend to be younger and smaller. Importantly, this shift toward more compact, junior-leaning teams does not come at the expense of scientific impact. On the contrary, we observed a higher probability of research teams that employed AI-assisted writing producing highly impactful publications. These results highlight the significant role of AI-assisted writing in reshaping not only how research is produced, but also how research teams are formed and assembled. Our findings call for policy improvements in research evaluation, funding, and training to address this emerging trend.

Recent text-to-image (T2I) models have demonstrated impressive capabilities in photorealistic synthesis and instruction following. However, their reliability in knowledge-intensive settings remains largely unexplored. Unlike natural image generation, knowledge visualization requires not only semantic alignment but also strict adherence to domain knowledge, structural constraints, and symbolic conventions, exposing a critical gap between visual plausibility and scientific correctness. To systematically study this problem, we introduce KVBench, a curriculum-grounded benchmark for evaluating knowledge-intensive T2I generation. KVBench covers six senior high-school subjects: Biology, Chemistry, Geography, History, Mathematics, and Physics. The benchmark consists of 1,800 expert-curated prompts derived from over 30 authoritative textbooks. Using this benchmark, we evaluate 14 state-of-the-art open- and closed-source models, revealing substantial deficiencies in logical reasoning, symbolic precision, and multilingual robustness, with open-source models consistently underperforming proprietary systems. To address these limitations, we further propose KE-Check, a two-stage framework that improves scientific fidelity via (1) Knowledge Elaboration for structured prompt enrichment, and (2) Checklist-Guided Refinement for explicit constraint enforcement through violation identification and constraint-guided editing. KE-Check effectively mitigates scientific hallucinations, narrowing the performance gap between open-source and leading closed-source models. Data and codes are publicly available at https://github.com/zhaoran66/KVBench.

LLM-based agents are rapidly being adopted for scientific data analysis, automating tasks once limited by human time and expertise. This capability is often framed as an acceleration of discovery, but it also accelerates a familiar failure mode, the rapid production of plausible, endlessly revisable analyses that are easy to generate, effectively turning hypothesis space into candidate claims supported by selectively chosen analyses, optimized for publishable positives. Unlike software, scientific knowledge is not validated by the iterative accumulation of code and post hoc statistical support. A fluent explanation or a significant result on a single dataset is not verification. Because the missing evidence is a negative space, experiments and analyses that would have falsified the claim were never run or never published. We therefore propose that non-experimental claims produced with agentic assistance be evaluated under a falsification-first standard: agents should not be used primarily to craft the most compelling narrative, but to actively search for the ways in which the claim can fail.

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

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

In this paper, we make the case that a scientific theory of deep learning is emerging. By this we mean a theory which characterizes important properties and statistics of the training process, hidden representations, final weights, and performance of neural networks. We pull together major strands of ongoing research in deep learning theory and identify five growing bodies of work that point toward such a theory: (a) solvable idealized settings that provide intuition for learning dynamics in realistic systems; (b) tractable limits that reveal insights into fundamental learning phenomena; (c) simple mathematical laws that capture important macroscopic observables; (d) theories of hyperparameters that disentangle them from the rest of the training process, leaving simpler systems behind; and (e) universal behaviors shared across systems and settings which clarify which phenomena call for explanation. Taken together, these bodies of work share certain broad traits: they are concerned with the dynamics of the training process; they primarily seek to describe coarse aggregate statistics; and they emphasize falsifiable quantitative predictions. We argue that the emerging theory is best thought of as a mechanics of the learning process, and suggest the name learning mechanics. We discuss the relationship between this mechanics perspective and other approaches for building a theory of deep learning, including the statistical and information-theoretic perspectives. In particular, we anticipate a symbiotic relationship between learning mechanics and mechanistic interpretability. We also review and address common arguments that fundamental theory will not be possible or is not important. We conclude with a portrait of important open directions in learning mechanics and advice for beginners. We host further introductory materials, perspectives, and open questions at learningmechanics.pub.

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

Analyzing the reasoning patterns of students in science classrooms is critical for understanding knowledge construction mechanism and improving instructional practice to maximize cognitive engagement, yet manual coding of classroom discourse at scale remains prohibitively labor-intensive. We present an automated discourse analysis system (ADAS) that jointly classifies teacher and student utterances along two complementary dimensions: Utterance Type and Reasoning Component derived from our prior CDAT framework. To address severe label imbalance among minority classes, we (1) stratify-resplit the annotated corpus, (2) apply LLM-based synthetic data augmentation targeting minority classes, and (3) train a dual-probe head RoBERTa-base classifier. A zero-shot GPT-5.4 baseline achieves macro-F1 of 0.467 on UT and 0.476 on RC, establishing meaningful upper bounds for prompt-only approaches motivating fine-tuning. Beyond classification, we conduct discourse pattern analyses including UTxRC co-occurrence profiling, Cognitive Complexity Index (CCI) computation per session, lag-sequential analysis, and IRF chain analysis, revealing that teacher Feedback-with-Question (Fq) moves are the most consistent antecedents of student inferential reasoning (SR-I). Our results demonstrate that LLM-based augmentation meaningfully improves UT minority-class recognition, and that the structural simplicity of the RC task makes it tractable even for lexical baselines.

Upper-limb exoskeletons (ULEs) have the potential to restore functional independence in individuals with severe motor impairments; however, the clinical relevance of wrist degrees of freedom (DoF), particularly abduction-adduction (Ab-Ad), remains insufficiently evaluated. This study investigates the functional and user-perceived impact of wrist Ab-Ad assistance during two activities of daily living (ADLs). Wrist Ab-Ad assistance in a tongue-controlled 6-DoF ULE, EXOTIC2, was evaluated in a within-subject study involving one individual with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and five individuals with spinal cord injury. Participants performed drinking and scratch stick leveling tasks with EXOTIC2 under two conditions: with and without wrist Ab-Ad assistance. Outcome measure included task success, task completion time, kinematic measures, and a usability questionnaire capturing comfort, functional perception, and acceptance. Enabling wrist Ab-Ad improved task success rates across both ADLs, with consistent reductions in spillage (from 77.8% spillages to 22.2%) and failed placements (from 66.7% to 16.7%). Participants utilized task-specific subsets of the available wrist range of motion, indicating that effective control within functional ranges was more critical than maximal joint excursion. Questionnaire responses indicated no increase in discomfort with the additional DoF and reflected perceived improvements in task performance. In conclusion, wrist Ab-Ad assistance enhances functional task performance in assistive exoskeleton use without compromising user comfort. However, its effectiveness depends on task context, control usability, and individual user strategies. This study provides clinically relevant, user-centered evidence supporting the inclusion of wrist Ab-Ad in ULEs, emphasizing the importance of balancing functional capability with usability in assistive device design.

Multi-agent systems built from teams of large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed for collaborative scientific reasoning and problem-solving. These systems require agents to coordinate under shared constraints, such as GPUs or credit balances, where cooperative behavior matters. Behavioral economics provides a rich toolkit of games that isolate distinct cooperation mechanisms, yet it remains unknown whether a model's behavior in these stylized settings predicts its performance in realistic collaborative tasks. Here, we benchmark 35 open-weight LLMs across six behavioral economics games and show that game-derived cooperative profiles robustly predict downstream performance in AI-for-Science tasks, where teams of LLM agents collaboratively analyze data, build models, and produce scientific reports under shared budget constraints. Models that effectively coordinate games and invest in multiplicative team production (rather than greedy strategies) produce better scientific reports across three outcomes, accuracy, quality, and completion. These associations hold after controlling for multiple factors, indicating that cooperative disposition is a distinct, measurable property of LLMs not reducible to general ability. Our behavioral games framework thus offers a fast and inexpensive diagnostic for screening cooperative fitness before costly multi-agent deployment.

We present pAI/MSc, an open-source, customizable, modular multi-agent system for academic research workflows. Our goal is not autonomous scientific ideation, nor fully automated research. It is narrower and more practical: to reduce by orders of magnitude the human steering required to turn a specified hypothesis into a literature-grounded, mathematically established, experimentally supported, submission-oriented manuscript draft. pAI/MSc is built with a current emphasis on machine learning theory and adjacent quantitative fields.

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

Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

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

The rapid growth of scientific software has created practical barriers for bioinformatics research. Although powerful statistical, artificial intelligence (AI)-based methods are now widely available, their effective use is often hindered by fragmented distribution, inconsistent documentation, complex dependencies, and difficult-to-reproduce execution environments. As a result, reusing published tools and workflow adaptation to own date remains technically demanding and time-intensive, even for experienced users. Here, we present PoSyMed, an open and modular platform for the controlled integration, composition, and execution of bioinformatics tools and workflows. PoSyMed combines a backend-centered platform architecture with formal tool descriptions, controlled container-based build and execution processes, persistent workflow state, and a dialogue-based user interface. Large language models (LLM) are integrated not as autonomous decision-makers, but as human-computer interface with bounded semantic assistants that help identify tools, propose workflow steps, and support parameterization within a typed, validated, and human-supervised execution environment. PoSyMed is designed to improve reproducibility, traceability, and transparency in practical biomedical analysis within one platform. We describe the system architecture and evaluate its behavior across representative biological software scenarios with respect to workflow support, interaction design, and platform extensibility. PoSyMed is publicly available at https://apps.cosy.bio/posymed.

Language models are increasingly used in scientific discovery to generate hypotheses, propose candidate solutions, implement systems, and iteratively refine them. At the core of these trial-and-error loops lies evaluation: the process of obtaining feedback on candidate solutions via verifiers, simulators, or task-specific scoring functions. While prior work has highlighted the importance of evaluation, it has not explicitly formulated the problem of how evaluation-driven discovery loops can be scaled up in a principled and effective manner to push the boundaries of scientific discovery, a problem this paper seeks to address. We introduce Simple Test-time Evaluation-driven Scaling (SimpleTES), a general framework that strategically combines parallel exploration, feedback-driven refinement, and local selection, revealing substantial gains unlocked by scaling evaluation-driven discovery loops along the right dimensions. Across 21 scientific problems spanning six domains, SimpleTES discovers state-of-the-art solutions using gpt-oss models, consistently outperforming both frontier-model baselines and sophisticated optimization pipelines. Particularly, we sped up the widely used LASSO algorithm by over 2x, designed quantum circuit routing policies that reduce gate overhead by 24.5%, and discovered new Erdos minimum overlap constructions that surpass the best-known results. Beyond novel discoveries, SimpleTES produces trajectory-level histories that naturally supervise feedback-driven learning. When post-trained on successful trajectories, models not only improve efficiency on seen problems but also generalize to unseen problems, discovering solutions that base models fail to uncover. Together, our results establish effective evaluation-driven loop scaling as a central axis for advancing LLM-driven scientific discovery, and provide a simple yet practical framework for realizing these gains.

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

Many recent document embedding models are trained on document-as-image representations, embedding rendered pages as images rather than the underlying source. Meanwhile, existing benchmarks for scientific document retrieval, such as ArXivQA and ViDoRe, treat documents as images of pages, implicitly favoring such representations. In this work, we argue that this paradigm is not well-suited for text-rich multimodal scientific documents, where critical evidence is distributed across structured sources, including text, tables, and figures. To study this setting, we introduce ArXivDoc, a new benchmark constructed from the underlying LaTeX sources of scientific papers. Unlike PDF or image-based representations, LaTeX provides direct access to structured elements (e.g., sections, tables, figures, equations), enabling controlled query construction grounded in specific evidence types. We systematically compare text-only, image-based, and multimodal representations across both single-vector and multi-vector retrieval models. Our results show that: (1) document-as-image representations are consistently suboptimal, especially as document length increases; (2) text-based representations are most effective, even for figure-based queries, by leveraging captions and surrounding context; and (3) interleaved text+image representations outperform document-as-image approaches without requiring specialized training.

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

Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used in modern weapons systems. Notably, these systems have recently been involved in mass killings and destruction at scale. Furthermore, there is currently a strong interest and competition among powerful players to accelerate the proliferation of weapons with automated or AI-based components, a phenomenon known as AI arms race. This competition poses a risk of causing even more deaths and devastation in the future, as well as increased power and wealth inequality. In this work, we aim to shed light on the role of AI researchers as implicated subjects in the harms caused by weapons enabled by AI technologies. We investigate and discuss the specifics of this implication and explore ways to transfigure this position of implication into one of differentiated, long-distance solidarity with the victims of technologically fortified injustices.

Large language models (LLMs) show strong capabilities in general reasoning but typically lack reliability in scientific domains like quantum mechanics, which demand strict adherence to physical constraints. This limitation arises from the scarcity of verifiable training resources and the inadequacy of coarse feedback signals in standard alignment paradigms. To address the data challenge, we introduce QuantumQA, a large-scale dataset constructed via a task-adaptive strategy and a hybrid verification protocol that combines deterministic solvers with semantic auditing to guarantee scientific rigor. Building on this foundation, we propose the verification-aware reward model (VRM) tailored for Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR), which employs an adaptive reward fusion (ARF) mechanism to dynamically integrate deterministic signals from a scientific execution suite (SES) with multidimensional semantic evaluations for precise supervision. Experimental results demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms baselines and general-purpose preference models. Notably, our optimized 8B model achieves performance competitive with proprietary models, validating that incorporating verifiable, rule-based feedback into the reinforcement learning loop offers a parameter-efficient alternative to pure scaling.

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

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.