Scientific Discovery

Computational materials science has traditionally delegated algorithmic tasks to computers while leaving scientific judgments to humans. We argue that recent LLM-based agent harnesses enable an emerging form of scientific software, agentic programs, that combine deterministic algorithms with bounded LLM-based judgment, task-specific verification, episodic maturation, and complete delegation in production. We illustrate this concept with DeMARS, an agentic program for constructing atomistic models from experimentally measured disordered crystal structures.

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

We describe the SciTrue team's participation in both subtasks of the NTCIR-19 SciClaimEval task~\cite{sciclaimeval}, which asks systems to verify scientific claims against the tables and figures of a paper. Rather than tuning a single model, we benchmark eleven frontier and open multimodal models under one honest, per-sample protocol and combine them with light, transparent post-processing. On the official, blind test leaderboard (Section~\ref{sec:results}), SciTrue placed first by a clear margin in three of the four evidence-category/subtask combinations, and tied for first on the primary metric in the fourth. Three findings explain the result. First, strong instruction-tuned models are already competitive: Claude Opus4.8 and Gemma-4-31B each exceed the strongest public baseline (o4-mini), and GPT-5.5 and Claude Fable5 lead both subtasks (97.7 on Subtask~2). Second, the task's pairing structure is the largest lever: a \emph{leak-free pair prior} that recovers the Supported/Refuted pairing from the claim text alone (a visible field) and assigns Supported to the higher-confidence evidence raises Subtask-1 pair-accuracy from 72.2 to 93.5, far more than any model swap or ensemble weighting. Third, a case-by-case audit finds that most residual errors are visually-undetectable label-mapping swaps or dataset label noise, so measured accuracy understates the true ability and the fixable-by-modeling headroom is small. Controlled fine-tuning, distillation, and agentic consistency-checking support the same conclusions, and we document throughout a measurement leak---label information reaching a system through the packaging of the data rather than its content---in which the released file ordering encodes the label, including one instance that briefly misled our own pipeline.

For emerging scientific research domains, local Small Language Models (SLMs) are becoming more attractive, as they offer stronger privacy control and more stable deployment pipelines than Large Language Models. However, in practice, scientific question-answering on SLMs often operates under inevitable constraints: small literature collections, fragmented evidence, limited context window and reasoning abilities. We propose the Evidence-Grounded Typed Knowledge Graph (EGT-KG), a retrieval framework to improve information retrieval with local SLMs. We assessed three question-answering settings: a vanilla Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) workflow and two EGT-KG workflows: an automatically generated relation schema (AS) and an expert-defined relation schema (ES). Our experiments were evaluated with a six-dimensional evaluation framework (S3CRF: Soundness, Correctness, Completeness, Conciseness, Relevance, Fluency) on a Biopolymer-bound Soil Composite literature benchmark, showing that EGT-KG outperforms the vanilla RAG method in most settings, with the best improvement from llama3:8b: a Final Score of 70.37 (+14.67%) and 68.82 (+12.14%) by AS/ES EGT-KG variants.

Command-line coding agents (e.g., Claude Code, Gemini CLI) can already read and write files and sustain long sessions, yet end-to-end research still fragments across chat tools, IDEs, terminals, and writing environments, and the decisions that make it auditable are rarely preserved. We present Dr. Claw, an open-source workspace that wraps existing coding-agent executors in a controllable and auditable human-in-the-loop workflow rather than introducing another autonomous agent. Persistent state objects, a reusable skill library, and multi-executor coordination link human decisions to AI execution, turning planning, execution, and writing into one traceable, recoverable loop. We demonstrate Dr. Claw through an interactive three-view scenario and a failure-recovery walkthrough, and evaluate it against a bare command-line agent sharing the same backend executor, so the comparison contrasts the whole orchestration layer (task graph, state objects, and skill library) with the agent it wraps. Holding the executor fixed, Dr. Claw scores higher on research completeness while persisting an auditable, recoverable process trail. Demo access: repository https://github.com/OpenLAIR/dr-claw, released under AGPL-3.0 with GPL-3.0 upstream components.

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

Scientific domain entity linking (EL) differs from general domain EL because mentions and entity names often lack lexical overlap. Another challenge is that specialized terminology is used in the scientific domain, which is rarely encountered in models pretrained on general domains. Therefore, models trained on general domains transfer poorly to scientific domains. To address this, in-domain fine-tuning is the natural remedy. However, many scientific domains lack expert-annotated data, motivating the need for a zero-human-annotation approach. Existing zero-shot methods heavily rely on LLMs to generate aliases across entire mention corpora, which incurs substantial computational cost, and those methods provide no mechanism to filter out noise from LLMs. To address these challenges, we propose Sci-ZSEL, a framework that selectively generates entity aliases with an LLM to control computational cost, and applies an ontology-aware filter to remove aliases that semantically drift toward ontology neighbors. Then, filtered aliases are used to construct pseudo-labeled mention-entity pairs for fine-tuning. To enable evaluation of EL under low lexical overlap, we also release a new animal science EL benchmark linked to three livestock trait ontologies, where mentions and entities exhibit substantially lower lexical overlap than in existing benchmarks. Across five benchmarks, Sci-ZSEL outperforms the non-fine-tuned baseline, is most useful on nonoverlapping mentions, and combining it with curated synonyms gives the best performance in most settings.

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

Research planning is the decisive capability of AI scientists. Yet a research plan admits no verifiable answer, so reinforcement learning lacks the environment it requires: tasks paired with a critic. Rubrics extracted from scientific papers can supply the critic. Existing pipelines, however, draw the question and the criteria from the same content, so the reward can be earned by paraphrase. The rubric is further compressed into a single scalar per rollout. We introduce PaperGym, a unified framework that turns each research paper into a complete training environment. PaperGym exploits the structure of a paper: the question is synthesized from the research goal and background, while the criteria are derived from the method and experiments. The criteria span methodological innovation and experimental design, and criterion leakage falls to 3.7%, versus 11.90% to 34.10% in existing datasets. Training uses the rubric twice: first as privileged context for OPSD's self-teacher, then as the reward for GRPO. Across Qwen3-1.7B/4B/8B, this schedule outperforms supervised fine-tuning, either stage alone, and the reverse ordering, improving five-benchmark averages by +5.6, +5.0, and +4.8 points. With the recipe held fixed, models trained on PaperGym-20k win 58.1% of three-way comparisons, against 28.2% for RubricHub Science. The trained Qwen3-8B reaches 73.48 on ResearchQA, above the far larger Kimi K2.6. We release the pipeline, the 20,000-instance corpus PaperGym-20k, and the benchmarks PaperGym-Innov and PaperGym-Design.

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

Benchmark saturation and data contamination increasingly obscure genuine scientific reasoning in frontier LLMs. We introduce \textsc{ScienceArena}, an olympiad-style benchmark from thirteen public science competitions in physics, chemistry, and biology, including IPhO and IChO 2025--2026, IBO 2023, USAPhO 2026, and USNCO 2025. Its open-ended, multi-step problems use process-credit rubrics, making faithful scoring difficult. We build ScienceArena through an expert-audited digitization pipeline that converts official exams, figures, solutions, and rubrics into structured items verified by olympiad medalists. To scale evaluation beyond costly human grading, we calibrate LLM-as-judge against medalist ground truth on archived answers from five models across IPhO and IChO; two strong judges stay within one point of expert total scores. Medalist notes show that failures often stem from visual grounding, structure fidelity, and global problem control rather than missing terminology. Evaluating fourteen recent LLMs with interleaved solving, we find that top models obtain medal-equivalent rubric scores on several public international exams, while chemistry and long-horizon consistency remain key bottlenecks. We provide an interactive \href{https://science-arena.onrender.com/}{demo}.

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

Biomedical artificial intelligence is moving from literature retrieval toward evidence synthesis for knowledge graphs, clinical decision support, and computational models. Yet most information-extraction systems still represent findings as simple relations, discarding the quantitative and contextual detail needed for interpretation and reuse. A claim that one entity affects another is insufficient when the magnitude, unit, population, comparator, experimental conditions, uncertainty, and provenance are missing. We define quantitative evidence mining as a framework for transforming biomedical findings into structured, context-rich, and auditable evidence units. We define the core elements of an evidence unit: the claim; measured entity and property; value, unit, or scale; comparator; population; biological or clinical conditions; temporal context; uncertainty; provenance; validation results; and expert-review status. We propose an eight-stage reference architecture spanning corpus selection, entity recognition, quantity extraction, context linking, normalization, evidence-unit assembly, multidimensional plausibility assessment, and export and governance. A central principle is that plausibility should not be collapsed into a single truth label; statistical, biological, methodological, contextual, and provenance-based support should remain explicit. The framework links information extraction to evidence synthesis and computational reuse, with applications in clinical-trial analysis, biomarker research, pharmacovigilance, knowledge-graph construction, and mechanistic modelling. It is a research agenda rather than a validated end-to-end system. Progress will require annotated multimodal benchmarks, rigorous component- and workflow-level evaluation, prospective testing, transparent provenance, and sustained expert oversight.

Scientific reasoning remains challenging for open-source models, largely due to the lack of high-quality scientific reasoning data. Existing datasets are often dominated by factual recall or formulaic problem solving, with limited emphasis on mechanism understanding, evidence-grounded reasoning, and hypothesis evaluation. To address this, we introduce SPARK (Scientific Paper Abstracted Reasoning sKeleton), a paper-oriented synthesis framework built on Sci-Base, a large-scale corpus of research papers spanning 10 scientific disciplines. Instead of directly converting papers into question-answer pairs, SPARK treats the claim-evidence-derivation structure of a paper as the fundamental unit of reasoning synthesis. Specifically, SPARK (1) distills each paper into a compact reasoning skeleton capturing its central claims and supporting evidence, enabling self-contained question generation, and (2) synthesizes reasoning tasks from four scientific perspectives: mechanistic reasoning, hypothesis falsification, quantitative derivation, and boundary calibration. A final consistency verification stage further removes unsupported or contradictory outputs. Using this framework, we construct Spark-234K, a scientific reasoning dataset with substantially higher difficulty and diversity than existing resources. Experiments show that Spark-234K consistently outperforms existing scientific reasoning datasets while achieving stronger performance with significantly fewer training samples.

Scientific progress depends not only on finding solutions, but on learning the rules that explain why they work and using that understanding to design better experiments. We introduce science sandboxes, a framework for studying this capability in AI agents through repeated cycles of experimentation, feedback, and hypothesis revision. Science sandboxes invite an agent to query the natural world in different ways, ranging from "wet" physical experiments, to "damp" predictive models trained on empirical data, to "dry" invented rules. By establishing a common experimental loop and a protocol for evaluating agents within it, science sandboxes allow assessment of both quantitative performance on specific metrics and qualitative scientific reasoning, across a spectrum of empirical verifiability. Here, we instantiate this framework in two biological settings, models of regulatory genomics and protein fitness prediction, and examine the capabilities of frontier agents. Across these settings, we could see when agents successfully optimized a quantitative metric without understanding the rules underlying the system. In particular, their scientific reasoning deteriorated when they encountered systems whose rules fell outside familiar biological priors. By highlighting such failure modes, science sandboxes make the frontier of scientific capability measurable and provide a controlled setting in which to study and ultimately expand it.

Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive scientific research are increasingly integrated as assistants for scientific discovery. However, most research papers omit the fine-grained cognitive process of examining constraints, failed alternatives, and iterative decisions required to achieve the desired goal. Such cognitive processes are vital for real-world scientists working toward specific goals under constraints. In this paper, we show that LLMs, when trained to produce such cognitive traces, perform better as scientific discovery assistants than when trained solely on scientific literature. We propose COGTRL, a trajectory-level reinforcement learning framework that trains LLMs to emulate cognitively grounded reasoning by jointly optimizing cognitive traces and the scientific steps produced in an interleaved manner. Across two 3B-parameter models and two scientific domains (AI and Materials Science), COGTRL improves method quality by an average of 7.85 points over comparable 3B model baselines and achieves competitive performance relative to 70B parameter models. Moreover, analysis by domain experts shows a preference for methods generated by COGTRL over the baselines.

A language-model agent asked to analyse an experiment will usually return working code. Whether the analysis is defensible is a different question. A defensible analysis depends on procedural choices: which test the field accepts, which identifier namespace is authoritative, and which caveats must accompany a result. We present Scientific Agent Skills, an open library of 163 such procedures in 16 areas of practice, including genomics, cheminformatics, medical imaging, study design and scientific communication. Each skill is a directory built around a versioned, human-readable instruction file. An agent loads the file only when a task calls for it; the directory often also contains reference material and runnable scripts. We report no task-level evaluation and no host selection rate. We measure two properties of the documentation corpus: the always-resident descriptions of all 163 skills cost 7.1% of a 200,000-token window, and the median documented workflow fits within 23.9% of it, although 29 of 46 would overflow if every reference file were loaded. Openly licensed and available at https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills.

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

Retrieved scientific literature can serve as inspiration for both human and AI scientists. Inspiration can take different forms: prior work may directly suggest how to address a problem, or surface directions at different levels of abstraction - zooming out to a more general view or zooming in to a concrete realization. We introduce RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations), a large-scale benchmark in which relevance is defined by three operations which we name ideation moves: Address retrieves potential approaches for stated problems, Broaden retrieves more general formulations, and Specify retrieves concrete instantiations. RATIO is constructed from millions of full-text scientific papers across CS literature via a general recipe that extends discourse-marker distant supervision - previously used only for classification - to corpus-scale retrieval, combined with extensive LLM and human vetting. Experiments show that operation-specific fine-tuning substantially boosts retrievers but leaves much room for further improvements. RATIO provides a scalable training and evaluation framework for retrieval components that support literature-grounded ideation, opening up new research avenues on scientific inspiration retrieval.

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to accelerate biological research by automating computational analyses. Yet the ability of AI agents to execute on computational biology at the scale of complete research studies has not been systematically evaluated. Here we introduce BixBench3, a benchmark that measures the capacity of AI agents to process raw biological data through to scientific results. We designed BixBench3 tasks to mirror the delegation of work from a scientist to an agent: the scientist chooses the research question and high-level methods, then delegates implementation of all analyses to the agent. In each task, an agent receives a research objective, methodological guidance, and raw data derived from a published scientific study, and must execute a sequence of analyses to achieve the research objective. The data artifacts resulting from these analyses, such as peak call matrices or differential expression tables, are programmatically graded against the corresponding artifacts generated and reported in the original study. Across 20 BixBench3 tasks encompassing the generation of 138 unique artifacts, we find that 13 frontier models achieve scores ranging from 0.00 for Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite to 0.48 for GPT 5.6 Sol. Agents perform worse on tasks with larger raw datasets (0.36 on tasks with <100 GB versus 0.10 on tasks with >100 GB) and on analyses requiring more sequential steps (0.36 at 1-2 steps vs 0.24 at 3+). On average, agents use 6.8 hours, 102 million tokens, and $43 to complete each task, with the longest attempts consuming 24 hours, 1.07 billion tokens, and $525. Notably, the highest-scoring agents used fewer tokens and were cheaper than less performant options. These results reveal that LLMs vary substantially in their ability to (1) execute multiple sequential analysis steps coherently, (2) manage large quantities of raw data, and (3) work across scientific domains.

Scientific agents increasingly analyze data, execute code, and produce research artifacts, yet most benchmarks emphasize final answers, isolated programs, or a single domain. We introduce FrontierChallenge, a cross-domain benchmark comprising 300 end-to-end scientific workflows. In this paper, we release and evaluate 97 of these tasks, spanning quantum chemistry, molecular dynamics, materials characterization, analytical chemistry, life science, and electrochemistry/environment. Each task provides fixed inputs and specifies a bundle of required scientific deliverables. We evaluate twelve frontier models with three agent scaffolds. Pass Rate measures the fraction of tasks satisfying the full-completion criterion, while Avg. Score captures partial progress. Each of the best-performing configurations completed only 20 of the 97 released tasks, yielding a Pass Rate of 20.6%. Partial progress translated especially poorly into complete delivery in analytical chemistry and electrochemistry/environment: Avg. Scores reached 87.6 and 94.9, but the highest Pass Rates were only 4% and 0%. Among non-passing Claude Code trajectories, 75.5% still ended with language claiming completion. Complementary HDS6 process scores correlate strongly with task outcomes, supporting FrontierChallenge as a benchmark of Heavy Duty Solver capabilities. These findings show that neither high partial scores nor confident claims of completion reliably indicate that a scientific task has been fully delivered, highlighting the need to evaluate end-to-end workflow execution and the completeness of scientific deliverables together.

Scientific reasoning requires language models to retrieve specialized knowledge and incorporate it reliably into multi-step computation. Conditional memory provides an explicit lookup pathway that complements dense neural representations, but its usefulness is inherently input- and computation-dependent: retrieved information may repair missing scientific associations, yet it may also introduce distracting shortcuts or interfere with reasoning that the base model can already perform correctly. In this work, we systematically investigate when, where, and to what extent conditional memory should participate in scientific reasoning. We characterize the scientific knowledge boundary and controlled interventions on memory-enabled knowledge-circuit nodes. Based on these analyses, we propose a Knowledge Boundary-Aware Router that uses task-specific input proxies available before generation to determine whether memory is activated, which layer-stage nodes receive memory signals, and how strongly these signals contribute. Experiments on biological and chemical reasoning benchmarks, covering two backbone families and six task types, show that memory effects vary substantially across inputs, tasks, and injection locations. Compared with static and activation-rate-matched random routing, our approach more consistently preserves beneficial memory contributions while suppressing memory-induced regressions, establishing selective memory allocation as an important principle for reliable scientific reasoning.

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

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

Software increasingly functions as part of the scientific instrument itself, making failures in scientific code capable of compromising not only program behavior but also the evidence underlying scientific conclusions. Yet existing evaluations of coding agents largely emphasize aggregate task success, providing limited insight into why agents fail when repairing scientific software. We introduce \textbf{SWE-bench Science}, a repository-level benchmark for scientific software engineering comprising 119 tasks from 98 GitHub repositories across 20 scientific domains. Each task is organized into one of three paradigms: Issue-driven, Expert-exploratory, and Engineering-integration. Even the best-performing agent, \textbf{Claude Code with Opus-5 (max), achieves a pass@1 below 50%}, highlighting the substantial challenges posed by scientific software engineering. We identify four recurring failure mechanisms: deficits in scientific knowledge or abstraction, misguided exploration or surface-level repair, incomplete repair coverage or system integration, and failures to generalize scientific knowledge beyond observed cases in our analysis. We further conduct a paired ablation that removes explicit scientific guidance while preserving the repository and executable engineering context. The results show that scientific knowledge is not uniformly beneficial: well-grounded information can constrain repair and improve average performance and token efficiency, whereas poorly aligned guidance can induce anchoring and does not necessarily improve exact repair success. Together, SWE-bench Science provides a broad testbed for studying both the capabilities and failure mechanisms of coding agents in scientific software engineering.

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

Recent advances in foundation models have enabled AI scientists to automate increasingly complete research workflows, from hypothesis generation and code execution to manuscript preparation. Yet workflow coverage alone does not provide access to the full evidence on which scientific discovery depends. Existing systems typically reason over text, code, labels, or precomputed summaries, leaving scientifically decisive spatial, temporal, cross-channel, and procedural relations unavailable to the agent. We introduce OmniScientist, an end-to-end, omni-modal AI scientist that conducts multidisciplinary research directly from heterogeneous raw evidence. A perception layer and 3 autonomous agents for ideation, experiment, and writeup operate within a deterministic pipeline, allowing observations to shape research questions, experimental decisions, and final claims throughout the research lifecycle. By running idea, rigour, and claim checks in code, the system enforces novelty screening, statistical validity, execution provenance, and numerical traceability. We evaluate OmniScientist on 36 real-data cases spanning 5 discipline families, 4 families of scientific evidence, and modalities including images, signals, audio, video, 3-D structures, trajectories, tables, formulae, and graphs. The system completes the full path from raw data to a compiled manuscript in all 36 cases and achieves a mean overall paper score of 6.3 with the reference reasoning backbone. In paired comparisons against a blind variant that receives only precomputed scalar features, direct perception improves all 7 evaluation dimensions and wins 85% of head-to-head judgments. These results show that lifecycle-wide perception is essential for evidence-grounded scientific discovery and provides a practical path toward broadly capable AI scientists.

Although multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown substantial potential in visual understanding and graphic code generation, editing scientific figures through code presents a greater challenge: a model must jointly recover visual structure, ground the requested change, generate compilable code, and preserve all unrelated content. While existing TikZ benchmarks mainly focus on figure reconstruction and generation, few systematically evaluate instruction-guided scientific figure editing with compilable code. We introduce Edit2TikZ, a comprehensive benchmark for scientific figure editing tasks, featuring 1,548 diverse and high-quality samples. Edit2TikZ combines real-world and controlled synthetic edit cases, supports both textual and visual localization request, and contains multi-step editing, each with step-level annotations. We further construct a human-aligned evaluation framework to measure whether a requested edit is completed while irrelevant content is preserved. Utilizing Edit2TikZ, we evaluate 14 mainstream MLLMs and find that current systems remain unreliable: on average, proprietary models achieve a compilation success rate of merely 75% and remain limited in both figure restoration and edit correctness, while compact models below 9B struggle further with instruction following and complete figure generation. Therefore, we build a mixed training set TikZEditMix and adopt reconstruction-then-editing curriculum learning for compact models. On Qwen3.5-4B, this training improves the compilation success rate from 45.35% to 83.40% and yields an average improvement of 18.7 points across our proposed evaluation metrics. The code and data will be released at https://github.com/Solunny/Edit2TikZ.

The replicability of papers is a cornerstone of scientific knowledge, ensuring the reliability of existing results and providing a base for further experiments. The act of replication typically illuminates details that were previously underspecified, and thus requires similar hypothesis-driven exploration to open-ended research. In this work, we develop Replica, a scalable task space for paper replication. To provide reward signal, we introduce an auto-generated rubric-based judge that has low noise and agrees with human assessment of replication quality. We post-train Faraday, a 27B-parameter "AI Scientist" agent that leverages coding agents as tools, surpassing the performance of Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.5 on held-out replication tasks. Qualitative analysis of individual rollouts reveals that Faraday adopts a more scientifically-principled approach. We believe that our results provide a stepping stone towards AI agents capable of long-horizon scientific innovation without requiring complex harnesses.

Existing vision-language model (VLM) benchmarks emphasize perception and reasoning accuracy (how well VLMs describe and reason about what they see in an image), with limited attention to behavioral reliability under uncertainty (how they behave when visual evidence is missing or misleading). We introduce SciFigBench, a diagnostic VLM benchmark for scientific figure understanding that jointly evaluates perception, reasoning, and behavioral reliability under uncertainty. It contains 250 figures with high-quality human annotations across three evaluation aspects, totaling 600+ hours of annotation effort. We further extend these figures via image transformations, reasoning questions, resistance probes, caption-bias probes, and confirmed selective-blur targets, producing over 34,000 evaluation setups for stress testing. We further propose the Admittance-Resistance-Inductance (A-R-I) framework to evaluate whether models acknowledge insufficient evidence, resist misleading context, and infer cautiously from partial information. Our results reveal substantial behavioral differences among models. GPT-5.2 achieves the highest description quality (MQM 91.6) with strong reasoning accuracy (78.4%), yet hallucinates unreadable content in 96% of cases, whereas Gemini 3.1 Pro, a comparably capable model (MQM 90.2, reasoning 81.0%), admits uncertainty in 71% of such cases and achieves the strongest resistance score (0.91). These findings show that high perception and reasoning accuracy alone do not guarantee behavioral reliability, a dimension critical for deployment in scientific workflows.

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

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

AI models have achieved remarkable success across diverse domains, yet the mechanisms underlying their capabilities and the risks they may pose remain poorly understood. As AI development becomes faster and increasingly automated, mechanistic exploration remains largely manual, widening the gap between what models can do and our ability to understand and control them. To bridge this gap, we introduce Mechanist, an agentic system that uses AI as a scientific instrument for the autonomous discovery of mechanisms underlying AI intelligence. To support autonomous mechanistic discovery, we construct an interpretability-focused knowledge graph of approximately 13,000 papers and integrate it with a multidisciplinary database of 43 million papers spanning 26 fields. We further curate a library of 32 foundational methods for mechanism analysis, causal intervention, and validation. Compared with Claude Code and existing AI-scientist systems, Mechanist generates more valuable mechanism hypotheses and executes experiments more reliably. Mechanist also demonstrates a progression from discovering model behaviors to explaining and controlling AI models. Specifically, Mechanist first uncovers a counterintuitive safety risk in scientific laboratories, showing that unsafe traits can transfer across modalities through apparently safe training data. Mechanist then develops a mechanism theory of belief, revealing how models represent world knowledge, form beliefs, infer the beliefs of others, and how these mechanisms emerge during pretraining. Finally, Mechanist translates these mechanistic insights into practical interventions that improve model performance across diverse scenarios and steer scientific foundation models toward generating DNA sequences with specified properties.

Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists. Such deployment assumes the model can distinguish reliable scientific literature from unreliable literature, a capability that has not yet been directly measured. Existing benchmarks evaluate factuality on questions with known answers; the failure mode we target here is different. We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing. Each probe pairs a preamble extracted near-verbatim from the target paper with a scientifically plausible study-design request. The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment. Two complementary scores measure whether a model rejects the flawed premise outright (IFR-a) and whether it recognizes the unreliability while still engaging (IFR-i). A depth score, the Engagement Depth Index (EDI), quantifies reproduction of paper- or field-specific withheld details. Across 30 models and 10 repeated runs, aggregate IFR-a is 0.93 $\pm$ 0.004 and aggregate IFR-i is 0.809 $\pm$ 0.009. Models engaged with untenable premises in 95% of all non-empty responses. Every evaluated model fails more than 71% of agentic probes, and 22 of 30 models fail more than 90% of the time. Rejections are concentrated on a small number of high-notoriety topics and specific probes, and disappear under matched-structure controls. These results are consistent with topic-keyed safety behavior rather than robust epistemic competence, and indicate an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

Self-consistency (SC) via majority vote is a widely used way to spend inference-time compute: sample N chains of thought, return the plurality answer. On the full GPQA Diamond benchmark (198 graduate-level science questions), majority voting reduces per-problem accuracy on a majority of problems for two instruction-tuned models from different families: 56.6% of problems for Qwen2.5-7B and 65.7% for Llama-3-8B, with Qwen the primary demonstration and Llama corroborating the direction from a near-chance baseline. The effect was pre-registered on a 151-problem confirmatory split after being observed on 47 exploratory problems, and all four confirmatory hypotheses passed. A grid oracle that routes each problem to the best N across {1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64} marks a theoretical upper bound 14 accuracy points above N = 1 for Qwen and 17 for Llama, an oracle bound requiring ground truth rather than a deployable method. No verifier-free gate reaches it: neither a plurality-agreement gate nor a token-entropy gate moves accuracy more than 0.002 from fixed-budget voting at N = 64. The mechanism is direct: confidence does not track correctness on these problems. In the highest-agreement bin the plurality answer is correct about half the time for Qwen, and for Llama that bin is less accurate than its lowest-agreement bin. We pre-register and confirm these findings on small instruction-tuned models; we do not test reasoning-native models, which we flag as the central open question.

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

Scientific papers contain fine-grained records of problem solving: authors mention technical obstacles and methods that were used to address them, often along with reasoning on why those methods were chosen. We introduce MUSE (Mining Underlying Scientific Explanations), a full-text, multi-domain resource of scientific Problem-Solution-Rationale (P-S-R) triplets. We curate 579 expert-annotated full-text paragraphs, with a rich annotation schema covering salient problem, solution, and rationale spans, solves and rationale_of links and conceptual coreference. A modular extraction pipeline scales this annotation to build a high-quality knowledge base of 37K source-grounded P-S-R triplets. We evaluate the extraction components and include a preliminary experiment training a rationale-supervised LLM for scientific problem solving. Interestingly, we find that rationale supervision improves performance on complex, multi-constraint problems but can harm performance on simpler ones.

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

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

Real-world data science involves long-horizon workflows that span data wrangling, exploration, modeling, visualization, and validation, and require coordinated use of tools such as notebooks, IDEs, terminals, browsers, and databases within real operating environments. Yet existing benchmarks lack real-computer interaction and do not evaluate whether agents can execute complete end-to-end data-science workflows in realistic computing environments, failing to capture the multi-stage, multi-tool nature of data-science practice. We introduce DSAgentBench, the first benchmark to evaluate whether agents can automate full data-science workflows inside real computer environments. DSAgentBench contains 275 diverse tasks covering the entire data-science life-cycle, reflecting the complexity and tool coordination required in practice. Each task requires grounding decisions in intermediate outputs and coordinated tool use, and includes a deterministic evaluator that verifies analytical correctness, visual outputs, and model performance rather than code-only execution. Our extensive experiments with 15 closed- and open-source models show that even the strongest agent, Claude-4.6-Sonnet, achieves only 56.70% task success, while all open-source agents remain below 1%, frequently failing at tool orchestration, OS grounding, and multi-step reasoning. These results reveal a substantial capability gap between current agentic systems and real data-science workflows, positioning DSAgentBench as a foundation for developing grounded, verifiable, autonomous data-science agents. We release DSAgentBench at https://github.com/vis-nlp/DSAgentBench.

We introduce Sci-VBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating knowledge- and reasoning-intensive video generation across scientific domains. It contains 1,253 expert-annotated examples spanning 60 subjects across four core disciplines: Natural Science, Healthcare, Humanities & Social Sciences, and Engineering. Each example requires models to generate temporally rich videos that demand scientific reasoning and knowledge-grounded synthesis, going beyond surface-level visual plausibility. We further establish a rubric-based evaluation protocol. Our analysis shows that, under this protocol, both non-expert human evaluators and MLLM-as-Judge systems can achieve relatively high agreement with expert judgments, supporting reproducible evaluation at scale. We benchmark 16 frontier proprietary and open-source models and find that, while automatic perceptual-quality scores cluster tightly across systems, performance on Prompt Grounding and Scientific and Causal Correctness varies substantially, with a pronounced proprietary-open-source gap. These findings show that advances in visual realism have not yet translated into reliable modeling of scientific and causal dynamics.

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

Quantum low-density parity-check (qLDPC) codes can encode multiple logical qubits using sparse parity checks, yet searching for useful finite-length instances remains a challenging design problem because code performance must be optimized while satisfying practical constraints. Motivated by recent advances in artificial-intelligence agents for scientific discovery, we develop a multi-agent framework for discovering practical qLDPC codes. The framework combines specialist proposal and review, persistent scientific memory, long-horizon evolution of executable programs, and deterministic construction and evaluation within a closed-loop search. These programs instantiate coset-orbit balanced-product codes, providing a search space that includes bicycle and lifted-product constructions as well as non-normal subgroup actions. To incorporate practical constraints, we restrict the search to binary CSS codes with block length $n\leq400$ and overall weight $w\leq10$. Within this regime, the framework discovers codes with leading or competitive rate--distance performance in every weight class considered, with representative instances including $[[288,16,18]]$ at $w=7$, $[[288,18,18]]$ at $w=9$, and $[[234,28,18]]$ at $w=10$. The search also uncovers structurally distinct, high-performing constructions, including a $[[336,12,\leq24]]$ candidate and a $[[368,18,16]]$ code, both of which are genuine balanced-product constructions with non-normal subgroup actions. When evaluated under code-capacity depolarizing noise using a common BP-OSD decoding protocol, the discovered codes also exhibit low logical failure rates. Together, these results provide hardware-relevant finite-length candidates for further experimental evaluation and show how structured agentic search can contribute to scientific discovery.

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

As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions. We construct a controlled corpus of 4,200 full-paper manuscripts derived from 120 anonymized ICLR 2026 submissions. Two LLM rewriters transform six rhetorical dimensions in opposing directions, and five LLM reviewers evaluate the resulting manuscripts under standard and strict protocols. We also test joint, recursive, and reviewer-guided rewriting. Our results show that rhetorical sensitivity is structured rather than uniform. Evidence framing and novelty stance produce the largest positive-negative contrasts in overall assessment, with scope framing forming a weaker second tier; the remaining dimensions have smaller or less stable effects. This hierarchy persists across human-assessed quality levels, but score movement depends strongly on the AI reviewer's original score: lower scores tend to rise, higher scores tend to fall, and directional contrasts are clearest in the middle ranges. More elaborate workflows do not reliably yield larger gains. Joint rewriting is strongly rewriter-dependent, reviewer guidance does not consistently outperform an unguided second pass, and repeated rewriting yields diminishing, configuration-dependent returns. Across conditions, the rewriter primarily determines the separation between opposing variants, whereas the reviewer determines the magnitude and sign of their score effects. Strict review lowers mean OA by 1.36 points without consistently changing rhetorical sensitivity. These findings identify when rhetorical presentation influences AI scientific review and motivate evaluation systems robust to content-preserving variation in scientific writing.

Tree Search-based test-time scaling of LLMs is a powerful tool for automated scientific coding. However, pure Tree Search sometimes struggles with systematic exploration, becoming trapped in local optima, or unproductive loops, especially in the vast search space of scientific methods. To address this limitation, we propose Idea Search, a framework that systematically integrates a dynamic "Idea Bank" into Tree Search. Idea Search involves three steps: (1) decomposing existing methods into atomic ideas, (2) sampling from this bank of ideas to guide branches of code mutations, and (3) dynamically updating the bank with new ideas discovered through execution. On single-cell RNA-sequencing (scRNA-seq) batch integration, Idea Search reliably breaks the plateau of a strong pure Tree Search baseline, improving the mean score from 0.678 to 0.697 and reaching a best score of 0.728. We then characterize which design choices drive these gains: bank augmentation helps bandit sampling but not random sampling, "Exploratory" prompting that prioritizes new ideas surfaces the rare best-performing solutions, while increasing sampling-level exploration is counterproductive.

Recent advances in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and large language models (LLMs) enable researchers to integrate AI into scientific workflows. However, using proprietary commercial AI systems raises concerns about transparency, reproducibility and privacy, which are essential for scientific practices. To this end, AquiLLM was developed as an open-source modular RAG-LLM framework using open-weight models, designed to support research groups in capturing tacit knowledge. In this work, we present a series of architectural improvements and feature enhancements to AquiLLM, including local embedding and reranking, multimodal capabilities, OpenAI-compatible inference interfaces, user interface improvements, semantic and episodic memory capabilities, and skills support. These enhancements were informed by discussions with domain experts, including astrophysicists and environmental researchers, and represent a step toward AI systems more closely aligned with scientific research practices.

Scientific named entity recognition (SciNER) plays a crucial role in information extraction and knowledge discovery from scientific texts. Recently, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the capacity to achieve competitive SciNER performance with minimal human effort. Existing research highlights the importance of incorporating candidate entity type information for accurate entity recognition and classification by LLMs. However, when too many candidate entity types are provided in the prompt, LLMs struggle to accurately recognize and label entities in scientific texts, where entity types are more complex than in general domains. To address this challenge, we propose TdSciNER, a type-driven approach that effectively leverages entity type information to enhance SciNER performance. In TdSciNER, we first design an entity type filter model to identify the most likely entity types present in a given sentence. Subsequently, we introduce an auxiliary multi-class entity typing task within a multi-task learning framework alongside SciNER to obtain richer contextual representations. Then, we develop a novel demonstration selection strategy based on sentence similarity and entity type diversity to activate the in-context learning capabilities of LLMs, thereby improving entity recognition accuracy across diverse scientific domains. Experiments on three datasets demonstrate that our method achieves performance comparable to fully supervised models. Further analysis validates that each entity type-driven component in TdSciNER contributes to the improvement of SciNER performance. This work provides valuable insights for future advancements in SciNER and broader information extraction tasks in scientific text mining.

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

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

The increasing specialization of scientific research challenges existing classification systems, which provide effective representations of broad disciplines and research topics but often fail to capture the fine-grained conceptual structure of contemporary science. Author keywords offer greater specificity, but their fragmentation, redundancy, and terminological variability limit their use as stable units of knowledge organization. We introduce SCALE (Scientific Concept Aggregation via LLMs and Embeddings), a framework that extends the OpenAlex taxonomy with a new level of scientific Concepts below Topics. Rather than treating keywords as isolated descriptors, SCALE organizes semantically related terms into coherent and interpretable conceptual units and integrates them within the existing disciplinary hierarchy. The framework combines scientific text embeddings, large language models, and graph-based community detection to construct this additional layer at scale. The resulting taxonomy enables scientific literature to be read through an intermediate conceptual level between broad research topics and individual documents. This perspective provides a more detailed representation of how scientific knowledge is structured, specialized, and connected across disciplines. By transforming heterogeneous author terminology into reusable hierarchical units, SCALE offers a foundation for fine-grained scholarly classification, scientometric analysis, research monitoring, and future ontology development.

Scientific claim verification over a cited paper requires predicting the claim--paper relation and identifying the paragraphs that justify that prediction. This setting poses two linked challenges: within-paper distractors often resemble genuine evidence, while a classifier trained on gold evidence must operate on retrieved evidence at inference. We present HNR-DAC, a two-stage framework that trains each stage on the cases it will actually encounter. Hard-Negative Reranking (HNR) quantifies evidence confusability using a base reranker's scores on non-gold paragraphs and contrasts gold evidence against the most confusable candidates. Distribution-Aligned Classification (DAC) trains on the Top-1 paragraph produced by the same frozen HNR used to construct inference inputs, while HNR's Top-3 paragraph identifiers provide the evidence output. On the NLPCC 2026 Task 10 Track 2, the final configuration obtains 97.21% Hit@3, 95.79% Macro-F1, 94.47% Joint@3, and an average score of 95.13%. The corresponding submission ranks third on the official Track 2 leaderboard while achieving the highest overall Macro-F1 of 93.05%, alongside 70.16% Joint@3 and an average score of 81.61%.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in scientific discovery, yet it remains unclear whether they can support complex real laboratory science. Here we introduce Science Edge Evaluation (SEE), a multimodal benchmark of expert-curated questions grounded in peer-reviewed literature and experimental practice in chemistry, biology, and materials science. Evaluation of 19 multimodal large language models (MLLMs) shows that even the best-performing model reaches only 48.7% accuracy. Moreover, general-purpose models outperform science-specialized models on average. In the visual-agent evaluation, the use of tools increases the best accuracy to 52.7%. Tool use can expand the information available to models, but more information does not necessarily lead to reliable scientific reasoning. The key challenge is whether models can manage tool-derived information within the boundaries of the original experimental evidence. Together, these findings reveal that current MLLMs still cannot reliably make justified and evidence-bounded inferences from experimental results, which is an essential capability in real scientific discovery. Bridging this gap requires MLLMs to transition from explaining established scientific concepts to deriving novel and evidence-based insights from experimental data.

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

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

Scientific machine learning commonly validates models at the level of a subdomain, a benchmark split, or an explanation for one prediction. Yet such local checks cannot establish whether the resulting explanations can be assembled into one globally admissible explanation. We introduce Scientific Explanation-Admissibility Machines (SEAM), a generator-agnostic framework that makes this local-to-global consistency question computable across regions, sensors, regimes, and model components. The finite explanation-sheaf instantiation SEAM-$Ω$ represents each region by a structured explanation with state, closure, and observation channels together with optional contract metadata; compares neighboring explanations on their overlaps; and converts disagreement into a channel-resolved obstruction. This obstruction locates inconsistency and tests competing declared accounts by restricting each repair to the revisions that one account permits. Exact feasibility refutes or retains an account; when exact repair is unavailable, residual-aware regularized records provide a separately labeled empirical attribution. The framework also separates inconsistency from non-identifiability and monitors learned generators under distribution shift. We establish theorems for minimum-cost intervention and conservation-contract detectability, together with companion results for identifiability and closure recoverability. Across nineteen experiments involving synthetic partial differential equation systems and out-of-distribution Fourier neural operator (FNO) monitoring, SEAM detects incompatible explanations even when local predictions are accurate, and attributes failures to specific channels and overlaps. SEAM adds a global explanation-consistency audit to existing solvers and learning models, testing whether their local explanations form a coherent scientific account.

Training-free open-vocabulary segmentation remains limited by a missing inference abstraction. Frozen vision-language features are produced at patch level, yet dense prediction requires a unit that simultaneously governs feature interaction, spatial support, contextual recovery, and retrieval-based correction. We present SCI-CLIP, a segment-centric inference framework built around the principle that the same region abstraction should organize all stages of dense open-vocabulary prediction. SCI-CLIP first induces a region-consistent interaction graph over frozen visual tokens, then reconstructs dense features by propagating values over this graph, augmenting them with selective cross-window support only where local evidence is insufficient. The same segment abstraction is subsequently used to construct and query an offline reference memory, aligning exemplar retrieval with the units on which prediction is made. SCI-CLIP turns frozen CLIP-style features into spatially coherent, context-aware, and retrieval-compatible dense predictions without any training. SCI-CLIP consistently improves the structural quality of dense predictions, the robustness of contextual reasoning, and the alignment of exemplar-based correction, yielding stronger open-vocabulary segmentation across eight benchmarks. Project code is available at: https://github.com/mzamini92/SCICLIP.

Research and Education Networks (RENs) serve as critical infrastructure for scientific discovery, yet they face a unique security paradox: their normal traffic patterns which are characterized by massive, bursty "elephant flows" are statistically indistinguishable from volumetric attacks such as DDoS to conventional monitoring systems. This similarity leads to high false-positive rates in anomaly detection, blinding security operators to genuine threats. In this paper, we propose and evaluate a high-fidelity traffic forecasting framework designed to establish dynamic security baselines for RENs. Leveraging an exclusive 57-day Internet2 dataset spanning ten backbone routers (13.7 billion packets), we perform the first large-scale benchmark of anomaly-aware forecasting models in this domain. We systematically evaluate six model families, from SARIMA to state-of-the-art long-sequence architectures (TiDE, PatchTST), across 960 experimental configurations. Our results demonstrate that these advanced architectures, particularly TiDE, reduce baseline prediction error by 30-42% compared to traditional methods ($p < 0.001$), significantly improving the distinction between legitimate scientific bursts and potential anomalies. Furthermore, we introduce a novel anomaly-integration strategy that improves model robustness by 3.3% in the presence of noise. This work provides the first statistically validated framework for distinguishing scientific workflows from network attacks, enabling more autonomous and resilient network security operations.

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

Agentic science is transforming the landscape of computational work, and is applied to scientific pipelines and workload managers. Scientific workloads require specialized hardware within and between institutions. Automated resource discovery is an essential step for scheduling workloads with specific hardware and environmental requirements. In this paper, we present a hierarchical, dynamic architecture and accompanying software to discover resources across diverse cloud, edge, and HPC systems. The design enables concurrent, asynchronous negotiation, selection, and dispatch of requests for work using secretary agents. The agents probe and discover 51 real and simulated providers across 7 categories. We perform 19,973 negotiation and 6,952 selection simulations to assess reliability of decisions, demonstrating high (87.71%) negotiation accuracy and selection costs comparable to more traditional strategies. Designed for extensibility and currently supporting the US DOE Genesis Mission, this architecture exemplifies the importance of careful coordination between agents, discovery tools, and infrastructure for agentic science.