Scientific Discovery

We introduce an extremal invariant associated with Chowla-type order conditions in finite groups. A nonempty subset $S$ of a finite group $G$ is called a Chowla set if every element of $S$ has order greater than $|S|$, and we write $C(G)$ for the maximum cardinality of such a set. We first show that $C(G)$ is determined by the distribution of element orders in $G$. For cyclic groups, we derive an exact divisor formula and characterize the integers $n$ for which $C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})=\varphi(n)$. We prove that $\liminf_{n\to\infty}C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})/\varphi(n)=1$, whereas $\limsup_{n\to\infty}C(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})/\varphi(n)=\infty$, and we determine the corresponding lower and upper limits under normalization by $n$. For finite abelian groups, we obtain an explicit formula in terms of the invariant-factor decomposition, together with a closed formula for finite abelian $p$-groups. We then develop a linear analogue for finite field extensions. A nonzero $K$-subspace $A$ of an extension $L/K$ is called a Chowla subspace if $[K(a):K]>\dim_K A$ for every nonzero $a\in A$. Since this condition depends on $\dim_K A$, it does not generally require every nonzero element of $A$ to generate $L$ over $K$. Nevertheless, when $L/K$ is finite and separable, we prove the exact formula $C(L/K)=[L:K]-d_{\max}(L/K)$, where $d_{\max}(L/K)$ is the largest degree over $K$ of a proper intermediate field. For finite fields, we give a direct proof in every degree using a normal-basis construction. This work was developed through an expert-guided human-AI collaboration. A reasoning-focused configuration of Co-Scientist was used to explore examples and potential proof strategies. The authors formulated the problem, independently verified and completed all arguments, and wrote the final proofs.

Comparing CT reconstruction methods fairly is labor-intensive and largely manual, and many benchmarks use idealized data. We ask whether a large language model (LLM) agent can do the labor of reconstruction research on its own, and whether a ranking measured on ideal data predicts behavior under realistic noise. We built an agentic loop: the agent edits a solver, runs a short cluster job, reads one frozen metric, and revises. The metric is a calibrated headroom score against the FBP baseline, inside the field of view; every method shares the same differentiable fan-beam projector. We benchmarked 26 methods on Mayo low-dose CT (noise-limited) and a 128-view sparse-view breast task from the noiseless DL-Sparse-View Challenge, with validation-selected iterations scored on a held-out test set. Every trained breast model was then re-scored on noisy inputs (I_0 = 10^5 photons) without retraining, and separately retrained on matched noise. The agent independently implemented, tuned, and benchmarked all 26 methods, and recombined them into a compact solver of 969 parameters that ties the top Mayo tier at the 1% level using 0.4% of the champion's parameters. Benchmarking gives a tier of statistically indistinguishable top methods, not one winner. Mild input noise nearly inverts the breast ranking: the noiseless champion (a supervised image denoiser, hr 0.89) collapses to 0.00, while a learned primal-dual method rises to champion (0.72 to 0.93). An ideal-data leaderboard therefore does not predict robustness. The inversion is a transfer effect, not a permanent deficit: retraining on matched noise restores much of the clean ranking (Spearman rho 0.04 to 0.61). Noise is only the easiest confounder in an open-ended set (beam hardening, scatter, anatomy, disease), so no single-factor challenge certifies generality. Benchmarks should model a broad spectrum of realistic factors at once.

Commercial large language models are increasingly used as knowledge references, yet their stance on contested scientific claims is neither stable nor transparent. We tested how four major LLM families (Claude, Grok, GPT, Gemini) evaluate ethnonationalist pseudo-science derived from Frank Salter's biosocial framework across four temporal snapshots (October 2025-February 2026), via both API and web interfaces. Grok's Fast versions (which power the default user experience on X) consistently assigned credibility scores of 70-75, two to five times higher than all other models (which scored 15-40). This pattern was absent from control prompts testing basic evolutionary consensus and refuted Lamarckian claims, where all models performed comparably. Three additional findings emerged: (1) a silent patch reversed Grok's behaviour from chaotic to stably high validation overnight, without any public documentation; (2) the same Grok model identifier produced radically divergent outputs via API (75) and an unstable, near-zero collapse via web (mean 5.5) three months later; (3) refusal to rate the pseudo-scientific claim, the most defensible response observed, appeared in two model families through different interfaces (Claude Opus 4.1 categorically via web, GPT-5.1 Chat intermittently via API) and eroded in the successor version of each. These results indicate that the epistemic stance of a commercial LLM is not a stable property of the model but a contingent effect of deployment configuration: system prompts, safety layers, interface routing, and silent updates. This remains opaque to users and researchers alike. We argue this constitutes a matter of public concern requiring new forms of epistemic accountability.

Automating theoretical research requires generating candidate results and evaluating them reliably. Models keep getting better at the first, while the second remains hard. A common approach asks one large language model (LLM) to review what another produced, yet such reviewers are empirically unreliable: they may accept fabricated papers and catch the fabrication at close to chance rates~\citep{badscientist2025}. We present \textsc{CausalSmith}, a framework for automated theoretical research in causal inference built on the Lean proof assistant, where a proof is checked by a program rather than read by a referee. \textsc{CausalSmith} rests on \textsc{Causalean}, a foundational Lean library for causal inference holding 8,179 machine-checked definitions and theorems, developed with language-model assistance under human design and review. Around it, we build a self-improving agentic pipeline that selects research topics, proposes results, formalizes statements, constructs proofs, and presents the resulting artifacts for human inspection. Moreover, the pipeline pairs Lean verification with a statement audit that compares each formal theorem against the informal claim behind it. We evaluate the system using artifacts produced by completed autonomous research runs. The source code, formal library, and run records are available at https://github.com/Jiyuan-Tan/CausalSmith.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have significantly automated the process of scientific discovery over the past few years. However, existing systems share one core limitation: they generate and optimize ideas independently for either Quality or Diversity. This often leads to the generation of ideas in close proximity to one another or to a large set of trivial, unsound, or unclear concepts. In this work, we instead argue that research ideation should be treated as a conjunction of both objectives and framed as a Quality-Diversity (QD) search. In line with this perspective, we introduce IDEAgent, a multi-agent framework that manages the evolution of ideas through lineages. We jointly drive Quality using multi-objective feedback for dedicated repair and refinement, while Diversity is achieved through lightweight sequential memory and explicit comparison against completed ideas, their historical ancestors, and rejected proposals. To systematically evaluate this QD conjunction, we develop Yield, a joint metric that computes the largest set of mutually diverse ideas that satisfy a predetermined quality threshold. Finally, through evaluations across 32 topics spanning 8 domains of Computer Science, we show that IDEAgent outperforms the best baseline by 3.89x on Yield, while achieving non-zero Yield on 8x more topics. We further corroborate these findings through an analysis of quality improvements, showing that repair and refinement are crucial for building logical rigor and clarity while preserving non-obviousness. To encourage future research on QD-search-based ideation, we open-source IDEAgent at https://github.com/declare-lab/IDEAgent.

AI weather models are in the process of revolutionising weather forecasting. While these models have been shown to achieve superior performance to physics-based NWP in forecasting tropical cyclone (TC) tracks, they tend to dramatically underestimate intensity. Here we present AIFS-TC, a simple correction to the AIFS-Single model that is competitive with the operational state-of-the-art for forecasting maximum wind speed and minimum central pressure at lead times of 12 h to seven days. This performance also holds for rapid intensification events. Notably, the entire system was autonomously designed and built by a large language model (Claude Fable 5) in a few hours, directed through a small number of natural-language prompts by a single domain scientist. That the operational frontier can be reached with an open-source AI forecast model (AIFS-Single) and relatively simple, cheap post-processing is significant for TC science, and points to agentic coding as a route to rapid exploration and progress in life-saving early-warning systems in other domains.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become part of scientific inquiry. Scientists use AI to observe and measure phenomena, to identify patterns in data, and to build models. As AI moves into scientific inquiry, it gains relevance for science education: students should learn how AI is changing scientific practices, ideally by engaging in AI-integrated scientific inquiry themselves. How to design such instruction, grounded in authentic scientific practice rather than taught as a standalone topic, remains an open question. In our vision, which we describe in this article, AI is treated as a set of scientific instruments that students use within the scientific practices described by the Next Generation Science Standards. Each instrument is a genuine scientific tool, pedagogically bounded: its controls are simplified while its core scientific function is preserved. The approach has two aims: engaging students in authentic scientific inquiry, and building an understanding of how AI is used in science and where it can mislead (discipline-based AI literacy, DAIL). In the article, we focus on the investigative core of inquiry, namely observing, analyzing, and modeling, and describe one exemplary AI instrument for each: computer vision for observing, clustering for analyzing, and generative modeling for modeling. We argue that every AI instrument in science education should carry a distinct reflection point that prompts critical evaluation of the AI instrument itself. Finally, we describe how agentic AI, operating across the whole inquiry rather than a single practice, could be represented, arguing that students should first build a foundational understanding of scientific inquiry and AI instruments before relying on agentic AI.

Bibliometric indicators - citation counts, h-indexes, co-authorship networks - have long anchored science, technology, and innovation (STI) analytics, yet suffer from temporal lag, semantic shallowness, and an inability to capture the non-linear dynamics of contemporary knowledge ecosystems. Dynamic knowledge graphs and large language models (LLMs) have each been proposed as remedies, but neither is sufficient alone: existing scholarly knowledge graphs remain largely static, while LLM-driven pipelines are prone to hallucination, opacity, and corpus bias without structured grounding. This paper proposes a hybrid, symbolic-first framework integrating all three traditions under explicit methodological constraint. Organized across five layers - an open scholarly data backbone, a dynamic versioned knowledge graph, a constrained LLM-assisted semantic augmentation layer, a multi-layer validation pipeline, and an analytics layer - the framework positions LLMs strictly as generators of provisional candidate enrichments. Candidates become analytically admissible only after passing structural, evidentiary, comparative, and selective expert validation, with full provenance recorded at every stage. The analytics layer supports both established bibliometric indicators and extended graph-based analyses, including trend emergence detection, science-to-technology pathway mapping, and policy-oriented gap analysis. The framework's central theoretical contribution is treating validation as the mediating principle between semantic flexibility and epistemic discipline, enabling STI analytics that is semantically richer and temporally more responsive than static bibliometrics while remaining aligned with the evidentiary standards of science-of-science research. Governance considerations addressing reproducibility, bias, and auditability are also discussed.

While automated research systems promise to accelerate empirical analysis, they are prone to silent failures: instances in which analysis code executes successfully yet relies on invalid causal assumptions. We present the Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based Epidemiology Research Assistant (ARA), a framework that makes these failures visible by explicitly encoding causal design principles, study-specific assumptions, and methodological constraints. ARA integrates protocol construction, synthetic data generation, and adversarial validation into a unified pipeline. The framework translates natural language research questions into structured causal protocols and executable analysis code by first constructing a protocol and then generating synthetic datasets using Structural Causal Models (SCMs) with known ground-truth effects. This synthetic-data step can also support pipeline development when access to confidential data, such as medical data, is restricted. The generated analysis is then evaluated under controlled violations of identification assumptions. We evaluate ARA on the Automated Causal Reasoning Benchmark, assessing recovery of identification strategies, causal quantities, treatment and outcome variables, and consistency between generated code and approved protocol. Protocol construction and adversarial validation did not consistently improve numerical agreement with benchmark estimates compared with standard LLM-based generation. However, they changed the failure mode: instead of silently returning causal estimates, ARA often surfaced protocol concerns, diagnostic failures, incomplete inference, or downgraded non-causal interpretations. These findings suggest that validity-first automated science systems should be evaluated not only by answer accuracy, but also by whether they indicate when causal claims are unwarranted.

Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources. However, existing benchmarks primarily emphasize general-domain retrieval or static scientific question answering, and therefore fail to assess key capabilities required in realistic scientific research workflows. We introduce SciExplore, a benchmark designed to evaluate scientific information-seeking and reasoning capabilities of LLMs and agents. SciExplore comprises four task types covering 103 expert-curated tasks across more than ten scientific disciplines: scientific database navigation, ambiguous literature retrieval, missing reference completion, and cross-source structured knowledge synthesis, which probe progressively higher-level abilities from entity-level reasoning and document-level identification to evidence-level grounding and domain-level synthesis. We evaluate over ten state-of-the-art LLMs and autonomous agents on SciExplore, revealing substantial performance gaps with performance degrading sharply as task complexity increases and extremely low accuracy on the most challenging structured synthesis tasks. These results highlight significant limitations of current models and agents in realistic scientific information-seeking scenarios.

Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building. We link PubMed Central full text with OpenAlex publication and collaboration histories for 775,323 scientists and analyze CRediT contribution statements from 137,120 multi-author papers. After 2022, scientists increasingly published across more intellectually distant fields and entered fields in which they had not previously worked. These increases in interdisciplinarity and exploration were especially pronounced among established scientists and scientists from non-English-speaking low- and middle-income countries. Authors with stronger AI-writing signals were already more interdisciplinary and exploratory before the widespread adoption of LLMs, and the gap widened further after 2022 compared with authors with weaker AI-writing signals. Scientists' collaboration networks also became more interdisciplinary after 2022. Yet, among authors with stronger AI-writing signals, research interdisciplinarity was less closely tied to the disciplinary diversity of their collaborators. The division of labor within research teams also became more differentiated. Contributors on papers published after 2022 reported narrower role sets on average, coauthors shared fewer roles in common, and their role profiles became less rigid and more fluid. Software and validation roles increased, while conceptual and management roles decreased. These patterns suggest that team members are taking on more distinct responsibilities and may rely less on one another to perform research tasks. Overall, this study indicates that the LLM era coincides with a broader reorganization of scientific exploration, collaboration, and the division of labor.

Generative AI lets large language models produce scholarly-looking text within seconds, yet fluency does not equal valid explanation. The deepest risk is not factual error alone but the appearance that an explanation is already established without clear sources, page numbers, editions, or evidence. We liken the page anchor to Ariadne's thread: within the labyrinth of generative fluency, it is the thread that leads the scholar back to the source. This paper proposes Traceable Scholarship as the minimum normative condition for AI-assisted humanistic research, situating it across the three revolutions of knowledge infrastructure: print, digital, and generative AI. We introduce page anchors, dual page numbers, citation-first generation, NO_EVIDENCE, human verification, four-level compliance, and Scope Contract, and present AIH-Infra as a three-layer reference implementation: Contexture (document structuring), Open WebUI AIH-Infra (traceable knowledge base), and AIH-Infra MCP Server (agent gateway). A case study on a 29-volume Kant Akademie-Ausgabe knowledge base illustrates how traceability supports retrieval correction, evidence grading, and judgment downgrading. Traceability is not a software feature; it is the condition under which humanistic research can remain public and refutable in the age of generative AI.

Deep learning frameworks like nnU-Net achieve state-of-theart brain lesion segmentation performance but remain difficult to deploy in clinical research environments due to, among other reasons, software dependencies and computational requirements. We introduce StrokeSeg2, a lightweight, modular, cross-platform C++/Qt framework designed to adapt resource-intensive 3D stroke segmentation pipelines into portable and reproducible applications. To improve compatibility with standard clinical workstations, we investigate the combined effect of architectural compression through knowledge distillation and inference optimisation using ONNX Runtime with Float16 quantisation. Across heterogeneous hardware configurations (CPU, integrated GPU, and dedicated GPU) architectural distillation emerged as the primary contributor to efficiency gains, contributing to over 90% reduction in energy consumption and an average 84% reduction in inference time. Specifically, we identify a 0.84M-parameter student model as the most favourable trade-off, reducing the original 102.3M-parameter teacher architecture to a 2.1 MB disk footprint while preserving robust lesion localisation and competitive segmentation performance. This small footprint supports the development of a self-contained installer for clinical workstation targets. Finally, StrokeSeg2 packages these optimisations into standalone installers for Windows, macOS, and Linux. By providing both graphical and commandline interfaces without Docker or external environment dependencies, StrokeSeg2 facilitates deployment of high-performance segmentation workflows for routine clinical research pipelines.

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

As pathogen genomic surveillance scales, the bottleneck is shifting from data generation to analysis. We present BioSecBench-Surveillance, a verifiable benchmark of 100 evaluations testing whether AI agents can infer the right analysis pipeline from raw sequencing data and surveillance context. Each evaluation gives an agent only the data and context a human analyst would have, then grades its structured answer deterministically. The tasks span seven categories, from taxonomic classification to genetic-engineering detection, across diverse sample types and sequencing technologies. Across 3,962 gradable attempts from sixteen model-harness pairs, the strongest configuration cleared only about half. Opus 4.8 with PI led at 50.2 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 40.1 to 60.3 percent across 83 evaluations, tied with GPT-5.5 with Codex at 50.2 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 40.8 to 59.6 percent, followed by Opus 4.7 with PI at 49.6 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 40.0 to 59.2 percent, and Sonnet 4.6 with PI at 48.6 percent, with a 95 percent confidence interval of 38.9 to 58.3 percent. Even when agents invoked the correct workflows, their mistakes came from the choices around them, such as which references, thresholds, filters, and normalization to apply. BioSecBench-Surveillance provides a standard for measuring whether agents can be trusted to perform genomic surveillance when the next outbreak arrives.

Equivariant graph neural networks provide a powerful modeling language for three-dimensional scientific data, but their reuse is often limited by implementations tied to specific tasks, outputs, and training regimes. We present GEqTrain, a configuration-driven framework that separates dataset semantics, model composition, and training objectives. Raw data are mapped to typed node-, edge-, and graph-level fields, while model stacks, losses, and training workflows are assembled declaratively through Hydra configurations. A shared equivariant backbone and training infrastructure can therefore be retargeted to a new task primarily through configuration. We demonstrate this flexibility on three different problems handled within one software stack: coarse-grained-to-atomistic backmapping of biomolecular systems, prediction of NMR chemical shifts in molecular solids, and equivariant generative modeling. Our aim is not to surpass individually optimized task-specific systems, but to show that a shared representation and training infrastructure can achieve competitive accuracy across qualitatively different tasks at the cost of a configuration change. We further introduce GEqDiff, a generative extension based on equivariant flow matching. GEqDiff treats user-defined equivariant fields as first-class generation targets, jointly transporting Cartesian positions and non-scalar node fields spanning representations up to l=3 within a single equivariant flow. We validate this capability on a controlled synthetic benchmark inspired by protein secondary-structure motifs, showing that fields with heterogeneous transformation properties can be reconstructed jointly and with high fidelity. By reducing the software overhead of moving between predictive and generative, scalar and tensorial settings, GEqTrain aims to make equivariant modeling more reproducible, extensible, and reusable.

Visual diagrams, figures, and tables are central to scientific papers, and convey information beyond what is captured in text. While blind or low-vision (BLV) scientists have traditionally relied on static alternative text to access figures in papers, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has made interactive question-answering (QA) a feasible paradigm for visual exploration; yet little is known about how scientists use visual QA in practice or how to improve its accessibility. In this work, we interview five BLV and five sighted scientists across different STEM fields to understand how they use two AI tools, ChatGPT and Gemini, to query multimodal scientific documents. Our findings characterize how scientists review multimodal content, including existing practices (along with accessibility workarounds) for engaging with visuals, and feedback on the suitability of AI-generated responses to multimodal queries. We further find that vague or incomplete image descriptions, as well as incorrect AI outputs more broadly, can cause both BLV and sighted scientists to abandon AI workflows. To support future research, we additionally contribute a dataset of 115 queries and responses from our participants' interactions with the AI tools for papers in their field. We close by discussing implications for AI-powered scientific QA systems, emphasizing considerations for access across abilities and domains.

Large language model (LLM) agents are starting to take on routine work in high-performance computing (HPC), including monitoring Slurm jobs, diagnosing failed builds, inspecting simulation output, and coordinating scientific workflows. To do this work, an agent commonly acts under its user's credentials and inherits the user's access to files and the scheduler. This arrangement creates a failure mode that ordinary account-level controls do not capture. Adversarial instructions in a log, tool description, shared file, or peer-agent message may redirect the agent beyond the task the user assigned, even though every resulting command is authenticated and permitted for that account. We refer to this as the hijacked authorized agent problem. Existing agent-security studies explain relevant mechanisms, such as indirect prompt injection and tool misuse, but generally evaluate them in web, enterprise, or personal-assistant settings. HPC security, by contrast, has mature controls for identity and isolation but does not ordinarily represent the intent of a particular task. This paper defines the threat model in the HPC setting, identifies attack surfaces created by schedulers, shared storage, multi-project accounts, and scientific workflows, and examines where current controls fall short. It concludes with a research agenda and a plan for an empirical benchmark, TaskBound.

Structural fidelity is essential to scientific methodology diagrams. To communicate research logic, these diagrams must faithfully render components, directional relations, and textual annotations. Since a single error, such as a reversed arrow or an unreadable equation, can invalidate the entire figure, structural fidelity is inherently conjunctive: correctness on one axis cannot compensate for failure on another. Current open-source models fail to satisfy this criterion. Supervised fine-tuning (SFT) learns plausible layouts but cannot reliably ensure structural correctness, while scalar reward-based post-training obscures which structural dimension has failed. To address this, we introduce SciForma, a framework for the structure faithful generation of scientific methodology diagrams. Specifically, SciForma decomposes diagram quality into three structural axes: Component, Arrow, and Text, guided by a structural inventory. Built on this foundation, we curate SciFormaData-700K for structured training and SciFormaBench-2K for logic-verified evaluation. To close the gap left by SFT, we develop Multi-Dimensional Conjunctive Preference Optimization (M-DPO), which enforces simultaneous correctness across all axes and adaptively routes gradients to the most deficient dimension in post-training. The same structural inventory also enables iterative editing at inference time to correct residual errors. This combination allows SciForma-9B to exceed all open-source baselines and GPT-Image-1.5 on both SciFormaBench-2K and AIBench, bringing open scientific diagram generation close to proprietary-level structural fidelity. Our code and data will be available at: https://github.com/microsoft/SciForma.

Coding agents can now be left alone to improve software against a score. In this pattern--recently popularized as "autoresearch"--the agent receives a dataset, an evaluation script, and one editable file, and iterates without supervision: modify the code, measure, keep the change if the score improves. But what does the agent actually optimize--the developer's intent, or the literal number? We ran this loop on a real production task: deciding which Quranic verses appear in a noisy speech-recognition transcript and splitting the transcript by verse. Two frontier coding agents, Claude Code and OpenAI Codex, started from the same blank file with the same instructions, budget, and reasoning effort, three runs each. Both independently invented the same algorithm (canonicalization, n-gram anchoring, dynamic-programming alignment)--and then diverged. Claude stopped early with compact, general code. Codex drove the score ~10x lower, largely by memorizing answers to individual evaluation rows (19-41 hardcoded verse ids per run): a clean natural instance of specification gaming by a production agent. In a preregistered second study, we added a held-out test set and told both agents it existed. The memorization vanished, and the score gap vanished with it--yet Codex's general core transferred better and more consistently (held-out detection+split 0.085+/-0.004 vs. 0.121+/-0.031), losing only on one missed rejection of non-recitation input. Two exploratory community arms (Cursor, Antigravity) are consistent with the pattern. Every agent's held-out solution matched or beat the hand-engineered pipeline it was built to replace--the best by an order of magnitude--and now runs in production. From the ways agents exploited our harness--reading sibling runs through shared git state, leaving notes to "future runs" in persistent memory--we distill five design rules for evaluating autonomous agents.

Auto Research uses language-model agents to propose, implement, and evaluate machine-learning changes in a closed loop, but is usually judged by its terminal pipeline. A terminal score cannot reveal which technical decision produced a gain or distinguish a reusable discovery from a change adapted to development feedback. We introduce intervention-centered Auto Research, which validates research decisions rather than only final artifacts and makes their reliability measurable. Feature, Model, Representation, and Data axes are searched independently with inner five-fold feedback. Each axis winner is frozen before an outer-holdout matrix compares all alternatives on evidence the loop never sees. Across 701 agent-executed attempts spanning ten Matbench endpoints, outer evidence confirms the selected intervention on nine of ten endpoints and preserves 89.3% of non-tied intervention orderings. It also rejects an aggregate Representation gain that inner feedback endorsed. The resulting matrix reveals an information-dependent hierarchy. Composition-only tasks support several routes to improvement, whereas structure-informed tasks favor local geometry features and complementary tree ensembles. A subsequent compatibility test combines already frozen Feature and Model code without further search or tuning and raises mean outer-holdout improvement from 19.0% to 26.3%. By validating decisions rather than only artifacts, this design turns adaptive search into reusable evidence wherever agents propose executable alternatives against a fixed evaluator.

Introduction. Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) programs must document their scholars' research impact, but assembling each scholar's record by hand takes staff an estimated 15 hours and does not scale to a full cohort. An artificial intelligence (AI) agent could serve as a tool to gather scholar data across platforms and disciplines. Methods. We built a human-in-the-loop AI agent that assembles a dossier of sourced evidence for each scholar and drafts one-sentence Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) impact summaries for staff review. We evaluated it in the impact-reporting workflow of one CTSA hub across 10 career-development (KL2/K12) scholars. Two evaluation staff independently coded all 507 findings as accept, edit, or reject; the primary measure was the unanimous usable rate, defined as the share both accepted or edited. Results. Both reviewers accepted or edited 81.7% of the agent's findings. Reviewers each spent a median of 14 minutes per scholar, replacing an estimated 15 hours of manual assembly. Inter-rater agreement was moderate (Cohen's kappa 0.43 on the usable-versus-reject decision). A profile discovery study found the agent's recall close to human search. The agent's impact evidence spanned all four TSBM domains, and about a third of the reviewed findings fell in non-scholarly categories that routine processes tend to miss. Reviewers rated synthesis accuracy 4.5 and usefulness 4.8 on a 5-point scale. Conclusions. A human-in-the-loop AI agent can serve as the first-pass author of a scholar's impact record, shifting staff from collecting and writing to reviewing, and making cohort-scale impact reporting feasible.

Long-term memory is becoming a core component of LLM agents, but most memory benchmarks evaluate conversations or compact summaries, while research agents need to restore evidence from full scientific papers. We introduce two full-text scientific-memory benchmarks, Public AI Memory (PAIM; 81 papers, 66 questions) and Public Transformers (PTr; 252 papers, 98 questions). We evaluate eight memory/retrieval systems, including our own proposed Theoria, plus a no-retrieval baseline. Our results show that memory leaderboards are not interpretable without the full protocol: ingestion granularity, raw-text preservation, retrieval budget, retrieval modality, rubric audit, and judge choice all affect the outcome. For example, on PAIM Graphiti wins convincingly but uses 2.6M characters of retrieved context per query, and after controlling for retrieval budget the lead disappears. On PTr, for the systems where BM25 retrieval can be added cleanly, the sparse-dense hybrid is the single most significant intervention: hybrid variants of Simple RAG, Mem0, and Theoria tie for the lead within 0.03 points. Multi-judge and human side-by-side calibration show that LLM-as-a-judge rankings are consistent across frontier judges and agree with human evaluation, with an effective resolution of roughly one point on a ten-point scale. We argue that scientific memory should be evaluated as budgeted, modality-aware context restoration rather than as an unconstrained architecture leaderboard, and we release the datasets, harness, raw outputs, judgments, and scripts to reproduce our results and serve as tools for such evaluation. Our code is available at http://gitlab.com/quantellence/research/scientific-recall-bench , and the datasets are available at http://huggingface.co/datasets/quantellence/srb-data .

Scientists at European XFEL conduct experiments that generate very large and complex datasets. The subsequent data analysis is challenging as scientists must combine their domain expertise with facility- and software-specific knowledge scattered across documentation, tools, and support channels. To address this problem, we designed and evaluated an agentic AI system tailored to the scientists' needs and integrated with the high-performance computing environment of European XFEL. Using a design science research approach, we conducted a rapid literature review, a systematic evaluation of 16 AI tools, multiple interviews, a focus group, and a user study with experts at European XFEL to develop and evaluate two prototypes. Our study identifies key knowledge challenges in scientific data analysis, derives requirements for an AI agent that supports knowledge retrieval and source code generation, and proposes design recommendations for a specialized system adaptable to the evolving AI tool landscape. These findings provide guidance for developing maintainable AI support in highly specialized scientific environments.

Large language models frequently violate fundamental scientific principles when generating technical content, undermining their reliability in scientific applications. We introduce Scientific Feasibility Control SFC, a graph-structured conformal prediction framework that provides statistical guarantees for scientific reasoning validity through progressive absolute-coherent-factuality validation. Our approach decomposes scientific reasoning into atomic absolute-coherent-factuality units requiring both individual correctness against physical laws and logical substantiation from preceding context, addressing the cascade effect where early scientific errors contaminate subsequent reasoning steps. Unlike independence-based methods that treat claims in isolation, SFC models logical dependencies as approximate deducibility graphs and operates through real-time validation with dynamic branching when scientific violations are detected, the system branches to alternative generation paths using verified context as foundation. We demonstrate SFC across established scientific reasoning benchmarks including PhyX multimodal physics, MATH, ScienceQA, and ARC Challenge, achieving 50.1 percent accuracy on PhyX physics reasoning, substantially outperforming recent reasoning models including DeepSeek-R1 49.8 percent and GPT-4 45.8 percent while providing 91.7 percent scientific validity with formal conformal coverage guarantees at alpha equals 0.10 confidence level and reducing scientific law violations by 73 percent across multiple model architectures.

Multimodal Scientific Claim Verification (MSCV) requires models to verify scientific claims using visually grounded evidence from papers, including figures, tables, charts, and textual context. However, existing methods often fail because they struggle to locate decisive visual evidence, accurately read structured scientific visuals, and integrate multimodal observations into reliable reasoning. We introduce ToolSciVer, the first tool-augmented framework for MSCV to our knowledge. ToolSciVer equips a VLM with three type-aware visual tools, table row/column focus, chart-to-structure parsing, and high-resolution region zoom, which convert dense scientific visuals into explicit, claim-facing evidence, and trains the policy with Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) under a composite reward of answer correctness, format validity, length control, tool-use efficiency, and tool-validity penalties. Experiments on SciVer and MuSciClaims datasets on five VLMs from three model families (Qwen, InternVL, Gemma) demonstrate that our method achieves superior performance compared to four competitive baselines including prompting-based and RL-based tool-use methods, highlighting the effectiveness of learned, type-aware tool use for scientific claim verification.

Scientific work increasingly spans heterogeneous artifacts -- papers, code, datasets, scientific file formats, model outputs, figures, manuscripts, and team decisions -- yet general-purpose AI assistants rarely preserve these objects as a coherent, auditable research state. We present SciForge, a multimodal research-native AI workbench that reserves the graphical interface for human judgment while search, parsing, model routing, workflow execution, plotting, writing, and presentation generation run as modular agent-accessible services. SciForge is built around five pillars: (i) \emph{goal-scoped scientific decision governance} for \textbf{goal-oriented} research, with review gates and shared review surfaces; (ii) \emph{translate-then-reason} for \textbf{multimodal} input, routing scientific objects through domain translators before the agent reasons; (iii) \emph{evidence governance} for \textbf{auditable} traceability, linking claims to provenance chains and audit findings; (iv) \emph{collaborative team science} for \textbf{collaborative} research, enabling multi-role decision governance, with shared team workspaces planned for future releases; and (v) \emph{real-world application scenarios} for \textbf{practical} impact, demonstrated through eight end-to-end user cases, with flagship demonstrations including multi-day agentic research sprints for gene discovery, AI-guided de novo protein design, molecular optimization, and genome-to-BGC discovery. The system combines a thin interaction layer, contextual research capability patterns, an Agent Runtime and Workflow Engine, an Evidence-DAG audit sidecar and a Scientific Model Router. SciForge currently runs as a desktop application, with mobile supervision support; future releases will deepen team collaboration. The system is open-source and available at https://github.com/AGI4Sci/SciForge

Scientific discovery is increasingly shifting from isolated disciplines to multi-domain reasoning, and AI for science faces a similar transition. Existing systems are either specialised for individual domains or unify scientific data mainly through text tokenisation and prompt-based interfaces, limiting their ability to handle diverse scientific inputs, produce modality-native outputs, and support joint understanding, reasoning, and generation across scientific domains. We introduce MKB, a unified scientific multimodal model for both understanding and generation, built around a shared Transformer backbone and modality-tailored encoders, adapters, and decoders. MKB covers six scientific branches, including DNA, RNA, proteins, small molecules, earth science, and medical images, and supports native outputs such as biological sequences, molecular strings, meteorological fields, and segmentation masks. Training follows a two-stage modality-then-language curriculum: Stage 1 aligns modality-specific components with the frozen backbone, and Stage 2 consolidates them with the language backbone using mixed scientific and general corpora. Experiments show that MKB achieves competitive scientific understanding across biological and molecular benchmarks, produces high-fidelity native outputs for weather forecasting, biological generation, and medical-image segmentation, and largely retains the general capabilities of its Qwen3-VL backbone. These results demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed paradigm, suggesting that shared-backbone models with modality-tailored components can provide a promising foundation for future cross-domain scientific multimodal exploration. The model and code are publicly available at https://github.com/Shanghai-Academy-of-AI-For-Science/MKB and https://huggingface.co/sais-org/MKB.

We present S1-Omni, a unified multimodal reasoning model for scientific understanding, prediction, and generation. AI for Science (AI4S) has advanced significantly through domain-specific models, tool-augmented LLMs, and scientific language models. However, model capabilities remain highly fragmented, limiting the joint modeling of heterogeneous data, scientific laws, and expert knowledge. S1-Omni addresses this gap by consolidating these capabilities into a single, coherent scientific reasoning model. The architecture of S1-Omni is built upon three core components: unified representation of scientific data, natural-world knowledge alignment, and decoding for domain-specific tasks. First, S1-Omni maps natural-language instructions and scientific objects, including CIF, SMILES, protein sequences, spectra, and scientific images, into a shared representation space. Second, it incorporates scientific laws and expert knowledge into data construction and training, enabling the model to reason from scientific evidence. Third, it performs task-specific decoding to support a broad range of applications, including property prediction, spectrum-to-molecular generation, protein site and structure prediction, and scientific image generation and editing. S1-Omni is trained on S1-Omni-Corpus, which covers 200 scientific tasks and contains millions of reasoning samples, and is evaluated on over 60 scientific benchmarks. It outperforms GPT-5.5 and Gemini-3.1-Pro on most benchmarks and matches or surpasses domain-specific models on several benchmarks. Overall, S1-Omni provides a practical path toward unified scientific modeling.

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

LLM-based agents excel at writing articles, coding and information retrieval. However, they fail to form strong collaborations within the scientific community due to the bidirectional, dynamic nature of the problem and a high demand of decision interpretability. We proposed COWEAVER, a bidirectional, learnable and explainable algorithm to match scientists and form strong collaborations within a human-agent network. COWEAVER matches candidates and requesters through filling capability gaps and filters candidates through a two-stage ranking step. Finally, the model explores newcomers by maintaining uncertainty-aware capability estimates and updating them through requester's feedback. We show that the selection mechanism of combining both exploration (UCB) and greedy of COWEAVER exceeds the greedy-only mechanism - the analytical best solution - on 6 out of the 20 tasks and performed on par with the greedy-only mechanism in terms of selecting the best candidate. We compared COWEAVER baselines in terms of matching quality and efficiency. COWEAVER outperforms baselines on all metrics.

Artificial intelligence is transforming scientific research - not merely as a more powerful instrument, but as an autonomous participant in the research cycle itself. This transition constitutes, in the most precise sense of the term, the industrialization of research: a shift from a craft model, in which knowledge, method, and judgment are embedded in the researcher, to a pipeline model, in which these steps are decomposed, automated, and supervised. The US Department of Energy's Genesis Mission is the most ambitious current instantiation of this shift, but the fundamental questions it raises extend far beyond any single program. This essay examines seven such questions: the erosion of the intergenerational transmission of scientific competence; the growing opacity of AI-generated theories; the collapse of peer evaluation under a flood of machine-generated output; the unproven capacity of AI for paradigm-shifting discovery; the capture of the scientific agenda by political and industrial actors; the compounding of systematic errors in closed-loop pipelines; and the structural bifurcation of the global research community into incommensurable tiers. These concerns do not constitute an argument against AI-driven science - whose demonstrated potential is real and significant. They constitute the conditions under which that potential can be responsibly pursued.

Lattice quantum chromodynamics (LQCD) provides a first-principles framework for computing hadronic observables, but its practical use remains limited by the substantial expertise required to turn research motivation into reliable computing workflows. Here we present \textsc{LQCDMaster}, a tool-augmented, skill-guided and domain-specialized scientific computing agent that converts natural-language LQCD research tasks into executable PyQUDA computing workflows, including measurement scripts, job-submission artifacts, execution logs and numerical outputs. The system combines agentic planning, expert-annotated LQCD skills and a deterministic Wick-contraction tool to constrain the algebraically fragile components of code generation. We evaluate \textsc{LQCDMaster} on a benchmark at the forefront of scientific research, comprising 70 LQCD computing tasks, with observables covering local and nonlocal two-point functions, Wilson loops, meson and baryon three-point functions. The generated workflows exactly reproduce expert-written implementations in 63 of 70 tasks at machine precision, with three additional discrepancies attributable to convention mismatches. Across representative observables, the agent reduces implementation time from hours to minutes while preserving end-to-end numerical validation. Further, we present a typical case of \textsc{LQCDMaster}-driven exploration: a lattice computation of light-cone distribution amplitudes with diagonal Wilson-line, a quantity accessible with standard methods but never before computed, and computation of the spectrum of proton, deuteron, triton, hyperon, hyperdeuteron and hypertriton. This work pioneers the paradigm of agentic scientific computing by automating the end-to-end scientific computing workflows in lattice QCD research, lowering its barrier and facilitating the exploration and verification of non-standard scientific ideas.

World Action Models (WAMs) improve robot policy learning by jointly modeling actions and future visual observations, using future scene evolution as dense supervision for physically grounded action generation. However, a common design in existing WAMs is to explicitly generate future videos at inference time, incurring substantial computational overhead and hindering real-time closed-loop deployment. GigaWorld-Policy addresses this issue with an action-centered formulation, where future visual dynamics are used during training while action-only decoding is used at inference time. Building upon this framework, we present GigaWorld-Policy-0.5, an enhanced action-centered WAM designed for more efficient robot control. During pretraining, GigaWorld-Policy-0.5 adopts a mixed Action-Conditioned World Modeling (AC-WM) and WAM training strategy. This strengthens the coupling between visual dynamics and robot actions and improves the transferability of action representations for downstream policy learning. For efficient inference, GigaWorld-Policy-0.5 introduces a Mixture-of-Transformers architecture that separates visual dynamics modeling and action generation into specialized experts, reducing active computation during action-only inference and achieving 85 ms inference latency on a local RTX 4090 setup. In addition, we employ an agent-based AutoResearch pipeline to systematically search training configurations, enabling more efficient identification of optimal experimental setups while reducing the time and manual intervention required for hyperparameter tuning. Experiments and ablations show that GigaWorld-Policy-0.5 preserves the training benefits of future visual dynamics while improving inference efficiency for robot control.

Recent advances in Large Language Models have fueled autonomous AI agents capable of tackling complex scientific tasks, yet existing automated research systems remain predominantly focused on empirically driven domains with quantitative benchmarks, leaving theory-driven discovery, particularly in mathematically grounded disciplines requiring rigorous proofs and synthesis of domain knowledge, largely underexplored. Key challenges include the difficulty of verifying theoretical reasoning at scale, insufficient reasoning ability for autonomous frontier exploration, and a scarcity of procedural heuristics in the literature. We introduce ReasFlow, an end-to-end autonomous agent system for reasoning-centric scientific discovery that operationalizes a collaborative paradigm where the human expert acts as Principal Investigator while the agent executes rigorous derivations as a capable graduate student. ReasFlow incorporates (i) a robust internal verification loop that audits logical coherence and corrects fundamental errors prior to human inspection, and (ii) an automated knowledge retrieval and self-improvement mechanism that proactively surfaces both declarative facts and overlooked procedural heuristics, substantially reducing expert intervention. The system unifies literature synthesis, algorithm design, theorem proving, experimentation, and manuscript preparation in a single system. Deployed to autonomously generate five complete research papers with rigorous theoretical and empirical content from minimal prompts, ReasFlow consistently achieves the highest evaluation scores among state-of-the-art open-access baselines under a curated LLM-based review rubric. ReasFlow is publicly accessible via the ReasLab platform, providing a collaborative workspace for AI-assisted theoretical research. Github repo: https://github.com/ReasLab/ReasFlow.git.

Scientific discovery increasingly depends on interdisciplinary teams whose members contribute distinct expertise, conceptual frameworks, vocabularies, assumptions, and standards of evidence. Today's AI research assistants are largely designed to support individual researchers through literature review, writing assistance, coding, and data analysis. While these capabilities improve personal productivity, they provide little support for the collaborative reasoning required to integrate knowledge across disciplines. We argue that AI research assistants should evolve from tools that optimize individual workflows to systems designed for interdisciplinary teams. We introduce aïra, an AI research assistant built around this idea. Rather than focusing solely on summarization or question answering, aïra identifies disciplinary perspectives, translates terminology, highlights assumptions, and synthesizes collaborative research opportunities. We describe the design principles underlying aïra, present its system architecture, illustrate its outputs through interdisciplinary research meetings, and outline future research directions for AI systems that support collaborative scholarship.

Recent advances in foundation models have transformed AI for Science, enabling remarkably accurate predictive performance across domains ranging from protein folding to weather forecasting. Yet prediction alone does not constitute scientific discovery. Scientific understanding depends on uncovering the reusable explanatory mechanisms that generate observations, whereas contemporary machine learning remains fundamentally organised around predictive mappings rather than explanatory structure. In this paper, we argue that scientific discovery is fundamentally a problem of knowledge organisation. To this end, we introduce Mechanistic World Models, a new design paradigm that places reusable mechanisms at the centre of representation, computation and learning. Drawing on insights from the philosophy of science, we derive the computational capabilities required for discovery, identify the design principles and inductive pressures that encourage explanatory knowledge to emerge, and formalise the anatomy of a mechanism-centric world model. Finally, we show how diverse research directions including mechanistic interpretability, causal representation learning, equation discovery and modular architectures capture complementary ingredients of this paradigm while lacking a unified framework. We propose Mechanistic World Models as a conceptual foundation and computational blueprint for moving AI beyond predictive forecasting towards autonomous scientific discovery.

Wikipedia plays a key role in shaping public understanding of science, and its openly accessible revision history is a unique record of how scientific knowledge evolves over time. Yet scientifically meaningful revisions are obscured by the sheer volume of routine edits, leaving each article's scientific history hidden. We present WikiSTAR (Scientific Tracking of Article Revisions), an interactive system for exploring scientifically meaningful changes across an article's revision history. Using an LLM classifier with an expert-designed multi-label taxonomy, WikiSTAR first tags edit types such as the addition of technical terms, new research findings, and changes in scientific narrative. Then, through interactive views, an article's full revision history can be traced at any granularity - from aggregate trends that reveal when and in which sections scientific content was added or refined, down to individual edits - showing how scientific knowledge develops at a scale previously impossible. In a user study, experts from three domains found that WikiSTAR surfaced new patterns and research questions and enabled previously impractical analyses. We release our system, code and a human-annotated benchmark.

Autonomous research systems can generate plausible papers while losing the decisions, failed branches, and evidence needed to inspect or continue the work. We present XScientist, a local-first, git-like protocol that treats research state, rather than a manuscript, as the unit of continuation. Hypotheses, experiment attempts, observations, claims, reviews, and handoffs are represented as typed, content-addressed objects in an exploration graph. Immutable checkpoints, explicit negative outcomes, claim-evidence closure, replay boundaries, and authority-aware gates make each transition inspectable without treating a passing integrity check as scientific truth. The protocol exports a portable Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA) that another agent or human can inspect, fork, verify, and extend. A reference implementation integrates planning, execution, review, repair, and supervised long-running operation while preserving provenance across these stages. We evaluate the protocol with controlled artifact-integrity workloads and matched external task pilots, keeping native task performance separate from evidence and audit claims. The result is an interoperability and accountability layer for long-running autonomous science, with explicit boundaries where human judgment and independent evaluation remain necessary.

We present an agentic approach to autonomous neural operator discovery based on an AI scientific community, which consists of a swarm of virtual laboratories that interact under a citation-based economy of influence. Highly-cited labs found new labs that follow their research direction and replace non-performing labs. Each virtual lab contains three agents: an LLM planner that proposes an architecture, a numerical worker that trains and measures it, and an LLM reviewer that participates in cross-lab peer review. All labs share a common vocabulary consisting of DeepONet (branch-trunk), Fourier, Transformer (attention), wavelet, and residual convolutional neural operator building blocks. We evaluate the neural operator AI scientific community on five problems, namely piecewise regression, the linear advection and Burgers 1D PDEs, and the Navier-Stokes and Darcy flow 2D PDEs, while repeating the simulation three times for each problem. The results show that the neural operator AI scientific community is capable of discovering high-accuracy, low-parameter-count neural operator architectures. All 9,623 LLM calls are logged and audited, which reveals that the virtual lab LLM planners choose to hybridize in 99.8% of their logged decisions, consistently returning multi-family hybrids. Moreover, we conducted an ablation study by replacing the LLM agents in each lab by rule-based alternatives, which caused the scientific community to collapse to non-hybridized single-family stacks in several cases, showing that LLM agency is needed to preserve diversity. The results suggest a no-free-lunch theorem for neural operators: there is no universal winner. The code, configurations, and the complete LLM transcripts are released at https://github.com/luislootx/AI-SC.

Production LLM agents such as Claude Code and Codex operate over untrusted content, files, commands, and workspace state, making safety failures directly actionable. Red-teaming must therefore keep pace with evolving models and tools. Existing approaches mainly optimize attack success and preserve artifacts such as benchmarks, payloads, or attack programs, which record where attacks succeed but not the enabling conditions behind unsafe agent behavior. We study automated red-teaming for production LLM agents using one agentic research environment to discover reusable vulnerability knowledge about another. We present AHA, a falsifiable discovery loop that proposes a vulnerability hypothesis, constructs a falsifier, instantiates a valid attack, executes it in a sandboxed harness, reflects on the trajectory, and promotes confirmed findings into a Vulnerability Concept Graph (VCG). Each concept links an attacker-facing surface to an unsafe trajectory through a claim, enabling condition, falsifier, transfer prediction, and supporting evidence. Across Claude Code and Codex on three scenarios covering direct and indirect attacks, the discovered concepts reveal a reusable vulnerability core across models and agents. A frozen VCG requires no further search and outperforms the strongest frozen discovery baseline by 14.2 percentage points under the same single-shot protocol, while transferring across scenarios and attack channels. The resulting VCG provides an auditable artifact for production safety teams to inspect vulnerabilities, validate patches, and accumulate reusable safety knowledge. Our code is available at https://github.com/henrymao2004/Auto-research-red-teaming-in-sleep.

This paper presents the mAIEnergy dataset, an open-access, multimodal corpus developed to support Large Language Model (LLM) applications in the energy sector. The dataset integrates approximately 50,000 textual documents, 20,000 images, 25 million numerical time series records, and 2 million geospatial and relational data entries. It includes policy and regulatory texts, scientific articles and news articles, satellite and contextual imagery, electricity system measurements, weather observations, statistical indicators, and geospatial representations of energy infrastructure and related entities. All data have been harmonized into structured, ready-to-use formats, accompanied by consistent metadata and reproducible data retrieval and preparation workflows. The dataset can serve as a foundational energy knowledge base, allowing energy stakeholders to integrate additional open-source or proprietary data. The mAIEnergy dataset adheres to Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) principles, enhancing its applicability for AI-driven energy research, modeling, and decision-making.

Agentic coding tools present new opportunities to transform research workflows. The performance of agent systems built depends on both large language models (LLMs) and the harness around LLMs, which is the orchestration code that determines an agent's behavior. We present ToFu, an agentic harness for researchers that reads your codebase, edits files, runs commands, and integrates with your development tools. ToFu plays a dual role in research. As a research assistant, it supports practical research workflows with superior token efficiency, lower cost, and multilingual capability compared with existing agentic harnesses. Its release under the MIT License further enables local deployment for privacy-sensitive users. As a research object, ToFu provides a white-box agentic harness that allows researchers to inspect, modify, and evaluate its orchestration logic, tool-use behavior, and harness design, while retaining strong benchmark performance and an application-level user experience.

Agentic research systems are emerging as a new paradigm for coordinating scientific workflows beyond isolated model inference, code generation, or statistical analysis. However, deployment in institutional biomedical environments requires governed mechanisms for research planning, data access, workflow orchestration, evidence tracking, reproducibility, and human oversight. We present NVAITC AI Scientist (NAIS), a governed end-to-end agentic research system designed to support domain-general scientific workflows while keeping protected data within institutional privacy boundaries. NAIS integrates proposal review, execution planning, governed computational routing, reproducible workflow orchestration, evidence generation, and scientist-in-the-loop oversight. We validate NAIS in a real-world hypertension genome-wide association study (GWAS) using hospital-linked genotype and electronic health record (EHR) data from 286,422 individuals under an aggregate-only data policy. The agent planned cohort extraction, orchestrated GWAS execution, generated quality-control summaries, and drafted publication-oriented outputs. Human-AI review identified phenotype discrepancies and enabled iterative refinement of the hypertension definition. After reconciliation, the agent-orchestrated GWAS reproduced established hypertension loci, including FGF5, ATP2B1, CNNM2, FTO, and GRB14, with the strongest signal at FGF5 reaching $-\log_{10}(p) \sim 70$. As a secondary demonstration, NAIS also supported a drug-induced liver injury prediction workflow, achieving a multimodal graph neural network AUC of 0.842. These results demonstrate that governed agentic research systems can support scalable AI-assisted biomedical discovery while producing outputs comparable to expert-led workflows.

Existing benchmarks for scientific data analysis evaluate LLMs primarily on code execution or workflow completion, overlooking that scientific analysis serves to support distinct types of scientific claims: hypothesis exploration, statistical inference, mechanistic explanation, each with different assumptions and validity criteria. We introduce SDABench, a benchmark that reorganizes evaluation around six capabilities (descriptive, exploratory, inferential, predictive, causal, and mechanistic) across five domains (Biology, Chemistry, Environment, Geography, Physics). SDABench comprises 527 real-data instances (SDA-Real) and 6000 synthetic instances (SDA-Synth), each in both multiple-choice and open-ended formats, constructed through an automated pipeline. Evaluating 15 representative LLMs, we find that models handle descriptive analysis well but degrade sharply on tasks requiring assumption selection, latent-process modeling, or mechanistic reasoning. SDABench further provides a five-stage error analysis framework that locates where LLMs fail: more advanced models more reliably identify the relevant scope and variables, but still struggle to select appropriate analytical procedures, model variable relationships, and draw valid conclusions.

Scientific fraud is the instrument of doubt that malicious entities can use to establish controversy in science. Historically, it required the resources of a company: deep pockets, ghostwritten articles, and corrupt academics. Today, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly automating scientific research, so we ask: Can a remote adversary weaponize the honest use of AI in science to compromise scientific integrity? We envision and empirically evaluate a new attack, indirect data poisoning, in which an adversary corrupts an open dataset and uploads the poisoned variant to a public repository. Autonomous research agents may independently retrieve and process this data, turning honest scientists into the unpaid and unwitting distributors of fraud at scale. Across five socially-salient topics, from hiring discrimination to the safety of autonomous vehicles, three widely used frontier AI systems (Claude Code with Claude Opus 4.7, Codex with GPT-5.5, Gemini CLI with Gemini 3.1 Pro), and 450 ethically contained experimental runs, we find that poisoning succeeds in 49.56% of runs, while the rate of poisoning detection is only 6.0%. The attack requires no topic-specific trigger-words, agent access, indirect prompt injection, or fabricated papers, only the open data ecosystem and misleading metadata. To mitigate the attacks, we propose and evaluate two measures: a scientist persona and a data provenance audit with five checks (referencing papers, social markers, statistical anomalies, related datasets, poisoning caution). We find that the persona still leaves 16.67% of runs with a poisoned conclusion, but provenance auditing reduces attack success rate to zero. Our results suggest that indirect data poisoning may enable scientific fraud at unprecedented scale, but these attacks can be mitigated with suitable auditing by agents during data retrieval.

LLM agents that conduct research (proposing ideas, writing and running code, analyzing results) can already carry a study from research question to figures, yet cannot be fully trusted. The same question asked twice in a row returns different answers; the agent announces a number that no execution produced, and tool use does not prevent this, because nothing binds what the agent reports to what its tools returned; a small upstream change leaves downstream results silently stale, with no way to list which ones; and the agent re-runs preprocessing and rewrites code it has already produced. We argue these failures share one root: every step of today's agent loop is a stochastic LLM call whose internal state nobody, including the agent, can check. Rather than trying to see inside the LLM, we take a lesson from databases, which earn trust without being watched, because deterministic operators over well-defined state make their guarantees hold by construction. We propose organizing a research project the same way. The project lives in a deterministic, versioned dataflow engine (in effect, a query plan over materialized views), and the LLM, together with the user, is a stochastic compiler that may only edit that plan. The executor never calls the LLM; LLM output enters only as versioned code and data that the executor then runs, and any asserted result enters the record only with an execution behind it. Five design rules at this boundary turn familiar database machinery, from versioning and provenance to incremental maintenance and cost-based scheduling, into guarantees that make research reliable, non-wasteful, transparent, and collaborative. This report presents the diagnosis, the requirements, and the design; the guarantee walkthrough, a prototype, and the research agenda appear in the full version, in preparation. The LLM, we argue, should be the query compiler, never the executor.

We present a clinically deployed end-to-end auto-contouring system for cervical cancer radiotherapy planning, anchored by the Boundary-Aware Transformer with Region-Aware Mamba (BAT-RM), a hybrid architecture that integrates Sobel-gated boundary attention, a linear-time, multi-directional Mamba module for long-range context, and a boundary-skeleton-guided fusion gate. This design achieves linear-time complexity for long-range context modeling, avoiding the quadratic cost of full spatial self-attention. The full pipeline spans multi-institutional data collection, rigorous inter-rater quality assurance, external validation in an independent cohort, and a web-based clinical interface natively compatible with Varian, RayStation, and Monaco. Against four baselines, BAT-RM achieves superior performance across seven anatomical classes, with statistically significant improvements in target volumes, including GTV and CTV, and in organs at risk such as the rectum and bladder. A prospective multi-center reader study involving 13 radiation oncologists demonstrated that AI assistance elevates junior oncologists' IoU from 0.899 to 0.965, approaching senior-level accuracy, while reducing contouring time by more than 80%. The system also reduced expert consultation rates and improved inter-reader consistency, reflecting gains in both efficiency and quality assurance. Following clinical deployment at a partner hospital, the system reduced patient wait times from days to hours without additional staffing, enabling same-day or next-day initiation of treatment for routine cases. BAT-RM demonstrates that a rigorous research pipeline, from data curation to clinical deployment, can translate directly into measurable patient benefit in resource-constrained settings where the demand for radiotherapy far exceeds specialist capacity.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming electron microscopy by enabling quantitative analysis of increasingly large and complex datasets for nanoparticle characterization. Recent advances in machine learning (ML) and deep learning (DL) have expanded microscopy from a descriptive imaging technique into a data-driven platform for structural interpretation, dynamic analysis, and scientific inference. This review examines AI methodologies for nanoparticle electron microscopy, focusing on transmission electron microscopy (TEM), high-resolution transmission electron microscopy (HRTEM), scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM), and in situ TEM. The discussion is organized around the principal challenges in nanoparticle characterization, including particle detection, segmentation, morphology quantification, atomic-resolution restoration, defect identification, two-dimensional-to-three-dimensional structural inference, and analysis of dynamic processes in situ. We review computational approaches from conventional ML and convolutional neural networks to transformer architectures, self-supervised learning, foundation models, multimodal AI, and physics-informed learning. We further discuss integrating microscopy data with simulations, metadata, and autonomous experimentation to relate nanoparticle structure, dynamics, synthesis conditions, and functional properties. The advantages, limitations, benchmarking, and data requirements of current methodologies are critically assessed. Finally, emerging opportunities for foundation models, AI-guided microscopy, closed-loop experimentation, and autonomous materials discovery are discussed. By integrating advances across computer vision, materials informatics, and electron microscopy, this review highlights the role of AI in next-generation nanoparticle characterization and accelerated materials discovery.

Agentic LLM coding tools compress long session histories into compaction summaries that subsequent sessions inherit as ground truth. This paper documents a failure mode in Claude Code where partial standard output from timed-out commands (exit code 143) is recorded in compaction summaries as confirmed results, propagating false positives across sessions and model versions without re-verification. The underlying mechanism is a conflation of observation and persistence, where information that appeared in the terminal is treated as equivalent to information written to durable storage. This finding extends the analysis of LLM self-evaluation failures reported in prior work on non-determinism in LLM-as-judge grading by showing that agentic tools exhibit analogous reliability deficits when reporting on their own operational outcomes. The failure has direct implications for any workflow that relies on agentic session continuity for data processing, scientific computation, or multi-step automation.

Scientific ideation unfolds over multiple stages, including literature search, paper reading, tool use, claim checking, cross-paper synthesis, brainstorming, rejection of weak directions, and iterative writing. Yet most existing resources capture isolated components or final artifacts rather than the process connecting them. We introduce IdeaTrail, a dataset of 1,170 multi-turn trajectories for scientific ideation and proposal generation. Each trajectory follows a research process from evidence gathering to either idea selection or proposal construction, jointly recording tool use, acquired evidence, intermediate artifacts, and reasoning. IdeaTrail is synthesized from human-selected research papers and proposal artifacts through a Generator--Advisor loop. The Generator produces the visible sequence of actions, observations, and artifact edits, while the Advisor uses the full generation context to check grounding, causal order, naturalness, and leakage from hidden targets. This reverse-to-forward design keeps trajectories aligned with real scientific artifacts while retaining the uncertainty, evidence use, and staged convergence characteristic of research practice. IdeaTrail provides both reusable process supervision and a general recipe for constructing scientific-research-agent data.

Evolutionary program search guided by Large Language Models (LLMs) has emerged as a powerful paradigm for automated scientific discovery. However, current approaches are fundamentally constrained by three bottlenecks: structurally blind parent selection, sparse whole-program evaluation rewards, and static mutation operators that fail to adapt during search. We present GAE (Graph-Augmented Evolution), a framework that resolves these limitations through a tightly coupled, three-pillar architecture. First, a relational graph neural network (GNN) parses programs into typed computation graphs, producing structure-aware embeddings. Second, an RL-optimized meta-controller leverages these embeddings to replace blind evolutionary sampling with a directed policy, dynamically selecting optimal parents and mutation directions based on reward history. Third, an online GRPO fine-tuning loop continuously updates the LLM mutation operator at test-time using group-normalized evaluation rewards, directly aligning the model's generation distribution with high-fitness structural edits. We evaluate GAE on a challenging scientific discovery task: symbolic regression for complex nonlinear oscillator systems. By transforming stochastic search into a directed, self-improving trajectory, GAE efficiently discovers closed-form physical equations, consistently matching or outperforming static LLM-driven baselines and achieving state-of-the-art out-of-distribution performance.

Machine learning (ML) has become integral to fundamental physics, accelerating statistical workflows from data acquisition through inference and hypothesis testing. As ML systems grow increasingly autonomous, ensuring their reliability for discovery claims becomes critical. This review synthesizes the VERaiPHY (Validation & Evaluation for Robust AI in PHYsics) initiative's frameworks for rigorous ML assessment across particle physics, astrophysics, and cosmology. We establish when verification is essential by contextualizing ML within the statistical discovery workflow. We emphasize fundamental limitations: inductive bias is unavoidable, sample complexity bounds learning, and experimental constraints limit discovery. We reflect on physicists' evolving role as both experimental designers and evaluators whose judgments encode scientific rigor into AI systems. Responsible integration requires understanding ML's transformative potential alongside its intrinsic boundaries.

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly expected to play a central role in AI-driven scientific discovery. Equipped with broad knowledge, flexible reasoning, and tool use, they have the potential to autonomously explore and solve scientific problems by repeatedly proposing hypotheses, testing them, and revising their beliefs in the light of the evidence. In current agents, however, these hypotheses, tests, and belief updates are buried in unstructured logs, and no mechanism lets the agent or the human researcher audit that process. Here we propose the Hypothesis Evolution Protocol (HEP), an agent harness that provides hypothesis generation, evaluation, and evolution as explicit, auditable operations. On materials-science research tasks, a HEP-equipped agent operates the hypothesis--test--evidence--belief cycle that planning-style agents lack, generalizes across research questions, and exploits the protocol more fully as the base LLM becomes more capable. These results mark a step toward auditable AI scientists, whose scientific reasoning can be inspected, verified, and built upon.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is shifting scientific discovery from task-specific workflows towards autonomous systems that organize exploration with experimental and human feedback in open-ended candidate spaces. Evolutionary computation (EC) provides a computational basis for feedback-driven discovery because population-based search can maintain diverse scientific candidates while steering exploration through accumulated evidence. However, EC predominantly focuses on candidate refinement for predefined problems, whereas cumulative discovery requires experience retention. To bridge this gap, this review introduces evolutionary intelligence (EI) for scientific discovery. EI characterizes scientific AI systems that sustain exploration by linking candidate refinement with experience retention across evolutionary cycles. We introduce a five-dimensional analytical framework that asks what evolves, how candidates change, why candidates are selected, where feedback originates, and when evolution occurs. This framework clarifies how EI transforms isolated search trajectories into cumulative scientific insight. We further demonstrate this paradigm across diverse discovery modes, from evolving concrete scientific entities to orchestrating automated research workflows. Finally, we identify critical bottlenecks regarding evaluation, process traceability, and shared infrastructure, providing a concrete roadmap for advancing the transition from EC to EI in scientific discovery.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming scientific discovery, but its effectiveness is fundamentally limited by the availability of structured scientific knowledge. Although existing databases have accelerated data-driven materials research, much of the knowledge needed for predictive modeling and inverse design remains embedded in unstructured scientific literature. We present an Autonomous Scientific Knowledge Generation Framework that transforms scientific publications into a Unified AI-Ready Scientific Knowledge Base. The framework integrates ontology-guided literature acquisition, hybrid scientific knowledge extraction, semantic harmonization, knowledge fusion, and validation within a unified workflow. Rather than treating literature retrieval, information extraction, and database construction as separate tasks, the framework progressively converts scientific publications into structured, semantically consistent, and provenance-preserving knowledge suitable for AI-driven reasoning. As a proof of concept, the framework was applied to electro-optic materials. Autonomous literature acquisition retrieved and validated about 1,000 publications from multiple scholarly repositories. A representative subset of eight publications was processed through the complete workflow, generating 29 structured scientific records that were harmonized into 7 canonical scientific records. The results demonstrate the complete transformation from scientific literature to an AI-ready scientific knowledge base while preserving quantitative measurements, operating conditions, provenance, and scientific context. The proposed framework provides a scalable, domain-independent foundation for predictive AI, generative AI, and closed-loop AI-driven scientific discovery.

The application of lightweight Large Language Models in rule-based scientific domains remains severely limited by their tendency to mimic linguistic patterns rather than reproduce axiomatic reasoning, causing frequent hallucinations. Here, we show that G-Frame, an adaptive multi-agent framework integrating Bayesian and team game principles, establishes an automated closed-loop for high-quality data synthesis and model training. By forcing the internalization of domain constraints through structured reasoning, we synthesized a specialized corpus of 363,045 chains-of-thought and 199,589 question-answer pairs. The resulting 7B model OmniChem achieves performance parity with GPT 4o mini on custom benchmarks and ChemBench while exhibiting a 79.46% reduction in hallucinations relative to its base architecture. We further demonstrate the advanced capabilities of OmniChem in molecular design and synthesis planning. This work establishes a scalable paradigm utilizing adaptive multi-agents to overcome inherent reasoning deficiencies, offering a feasible pathway for accelerating knowledge discovery in specialized scientific fields.

Financial markets are noisy, non-stationary, and high-dimensional, making it difficult to discover predictive and robust trading signals. Alpha discovery has evolved from manual factor design to machine learning, evolutionary search, and recent LLM-based frameworks, improving the efficiency of factor generation, search, and evaluation. However, existing methods still mostly automate isolated steps, rather than functioning as end-to-end quant researchers that can absorb external knowledge, close the hypothesis-to-code validation loop, and learn from accumulated discovery feedback. To fill this gap, we introduce XAlpha, a memory-driven AI Quant Researcher for continuous hypothesis-to-code alpha discovery. XAlpha maintains a multi-source research memory system that integrates report-grounded financial knowledge with discovery feedback from prior generations and research cycles. Guided by this memory system, a Macro Brain plans research themes and selects suitable Archetypes; a Micro Brain transforms the planned hypothesis pool into executable factor code and verifies ex-ante tri-alignment among the hypothesis idea, code logic, and financial plausibility; and a Cross Brain consolidates empirical outcomes into generation-level feedback, cycle-level summaries, and archetype-level research cues for future exploration. In this way, XAlpha turns alpha mining from isolated factor generation into a closed-loop research process that continuously reads, hypothesizes, implements, validates, reflects, and evolves. Experiments on CSI300 show that XAlpha achieves stronger overall alpha discovery performance than representative baselines.

Symbolic regression (SR) discovers analytical equations from data, yielding glass-box models with directly interpretable formulas, unlike black-box methods that rely on unstable post-hoc tools such as SHAP or LIME. This transparency is crucial in clinical medicine and social science, but SR faces three challenges: high-dimensional inputs, principled selection of Pareto-front formulae, and data irregularities such as multicollinearity and class imbalance. We introduce DeepPySR, which addresses these issues with a dynamic variable-pruning schedule to remove irrelevant features during search, an exponential Pareto selection criterion that eliminates trade-offs between accuracy and complexity, and a multi-layer architecture for hierarchical symbolic composition. On four Feynman physics benchmarks and seven biomedical and social-science datasets, DeepPySR outperforms PySR and baselines on body fat (R$^2$: 0.794 vs.\ 0.702), heart disease (F1: 0.898 vs.\ 0.787), student performance (R$^2$: 0.964 vs.\ 0.948), and Raine BMI (R$^2$: 0.525 vs.\ 0.370), producing interpretable formulas aligned with domain risk factors.

Research software collaborations span meetings, informal chats, pull requests, and GitHub issues. A decision surfaced in a Slack thread, refined in a meeting, and implemented in a pull request can lose its original rationale across these artifacts, leaving domain researchers and research software engineers with divergent mental models of project intent, ownership, and scientific assumptions. We argue that alignment in research software engineering is a continuous lifecycle problem, and that agentic AI can support stakeholder alignment and project-state tracking without replacing human decision-making. We present Aleena, an open-source lifecycle alignment agent that uses GitHub as a shared collaboration surface, transforming multi-modal stakeholder interactions into structured project records that surface risks, track open questions, and preserve decision continuity. Grounded in university-based research software engineering center experiences, this paper presents the motivating problem, system design, prototype, and illustrative lifecycle scenarios for Aleena.