Scientific Discovery

Billions of scientific papers lead to the need to identify essential parts from the massive text. Scientific research is an activity from putting forward problems to using methods. To learn the main idea from scientific papers, we focus on extracting problem and method sentences. Annotating sentences within scientific papers is labor-intensive, resulting in small-scale datasets that limit the amount of information models can learn. This limited information leads models to rely heavily on specific forms, which in turn reduces their generalization capabilities. This paper addresses the problems caused by small-scale datasets from three perspectives: increasing dataset scale, reducing dependence on specific forms, and enriching the information within sentences. To implement the first two ideas, we introduce the concept of formulaic expression (FE) desensitization and propose FE desensitization-based data augmenters to generate synthetic data and reduce models' reliance on FEs. For the third idea, we propose a context-enhanced transformer that utilizes context to measure the importance of words in target sentences and to reduce noise in the context. Furthermore, this paper conducts experiments using large language model (LLM) based in-context learning (ICL) methods. Quantitative and qualitative experiments demonstrate that our proposed models achieve a higher macro F1 score compared to the baseline models on two scientific paper datasets, with improvements of 3.71% and 2.67%, respectively. The LLM based ICL methods are found to be not suitable for the task of problem and method extraction.

Ray Kurzweil described a thesis of accelerating returns, which is the most influential narratives in discussions of technological progress. Its central claim is that advances in multiple technological fields, especially compute, artificial intelligence, brain science, and biotechnology, interact in such a way that progress becomes self-amplifying and approximately exponential. This paper gives a simple mathematical interpretation of that claim and then argues that, even if such acceleration is real, it does not by itself resolve the central problem of scientific discovery. The reason is that accelerating returns apply most naturally to executional and infrastructural capability, whereas genuine discovery often depends on a different capacity: qualitative reasoning about when a current framework is structurally inadequate and what conceptual move is needed next. Recent ARC-AGI-3 results sharpen this distinction: humans solve the benchmark at ceiling, whereas frontier AI systems remain below 1%, indicating that the gap between current AI and human flexible reasoning is still very large. At the same time, Demis Hassabis has emphasized that humans must retain their sense of meaning and what they choose to focus their lives on, a reminder that the future of AI is not only a technical forecast but also a question of what forms of human understanding are worth preserving and transmitting. This paper positions the Qualitative Engine for Science (QES) [3] as a response to that missing capacity. In this view, the Kurzweil theory helps explain why quantitative capability may accelerate, while QES addresses the central problem in scientific discovery that acceleration alone does not solve. Its value does not depend on when AGI arrives, but on the fact that the processes of scientific discovery themselves constitute a form of human wisdom worth preserving, organizing, and making accessible.

We introduce Autodata, a general method that enables AI agents to act as data scientists who build high quality training and evaluation data. We show how to train (meta-optimize) such a data scientist agent, so that it learns to create even stronger data. We describe the overall formulation, and a specific practical implementation, Agentic Self-Instruct. We conduct experiments on computer science research tasks, legal reasoning tasks and reasoning with mathematical objects, where we obtain improved results compared to classical synthetic dataset creation methods. Further, meta-optimizing the data scientist agent itself delivers an even larger performance uplift. Agentic data creation provides a way to convert increased inference compute into higher quality model training. Overall, we believe this direction has the potential to change the way we build AI data.

Text-to-image and multimodal generative models are increasingly used to produce scientific figures such as mechanism diagrams, experimental-design schematics, conceptual frameworks, and graphical abstracts. Yet existing image-generation benchmarks (e.g., GenEval, T2I-CompBench, DPG-Bench) evaluate natural images and measure compositionality, object counting, or photorealism. None of them measure what makes a generated scientific figure usable: correct and legible text labels, faithful depiction of entities and their relations, coherent diagrammatic structure, and adherence to disciplinary drawing conventions. We introduce SciDraw-Bench, a benchmark of 32 structured scientific-figure generation tasks spanning eight figure types and ten disciplines, where each task pairs a natural-language prompt with a machine-checkable specification of required labels, relations, components, conventions, and negative constraints. We propose a four-dimensional evaluation protocol: Text Fidelity (OCR-based label recall and character error rate), Semantic Correctness (vision-language-model judging against the specification), Structural Quality, and Convention Adherence, together with a meta-evaluation protocol and a preliminary inter-judge reliability analysis (human-rating validation is ongoing). We evaluate a domain-specific system, SciDraw AI, against representative general-purpose text-to-image models, and outline a code-to-figure baseline as a planned extension. In a pilot over all eight figure types, the domain-specific system substantially outperforms the general-purpose baselines on every dimension and figure type, with the largest gaps on semantic correctness and convention adherence; text fidelity remains the hardest dimension for all systems.

Autonomous AI Research promises to accelerate the scientific progress of machine learning. To realise this goal, current Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents need to go beyond just writing code, to mastering the exploration of simultaneously performant, diverse and novel ideas. To this end, we introduce Heuresis, a framework that abstracts the research pipeline into a set of general and composable primitives, enabling open-ended scientific exploration in machine learning research. We implement six search strategies: a greedy baseline, two archive-based (MAP-Elites, Go-Explore), one evolutionary (Islands), and two divergent (Curiosity, Omni), and evaluate them across three axes (Quality, Diversity, and Novelty) on three domains (LLM Pretraining, On-Policy RL, and Model Unlearning), totalling 3,222 scored runs. We find that completely novel ideas are rare. No idea across our scored runs is rated as "Original", and only a few achieve only "Minor Similarity" to prior work. Moreover, novel ideas never approach the highest-performing known-recipe scores. Across all six strategies and three domains, only one such idea lands in the top-10 by quality. We also observed agents resorting to a variety of reward-hacking techniques during execution (40 confirmed fabrications across 1,628 scored runs), and detecting them was necessary to keep the search faithful to the task. Our results show that while current search and Quality-Diversity strategies enable us to steer where the generated ideas land on the quality, diversity, and novelty axes, they do not expand the quality-novelty frontier. Bridging this gap is the open challenge towards the ultimate goal of perpetual, autonomous scientific progress. Code is available at github.com/a-antoniades/Heuresis.

We introduce NatureBench, a cross-discipline benchmark of 90 tasks distilled from peer-reviewed Nature-family publications, designed to evaluate whether AI coding agents can move beyond reproduction toward discovery on real scientific problems. NatureBench is built on NatureGym, an automated pipeline that constructs a standardized, per-task containerized environment from a source paper, addressing the environment-fragmentation problem that has limited the credibility of prior agent-on-research benchmarks. Evaluating ten frontier agent configurations under a strict web-search-disabled protocol, we find that the strongest model surpasses SOTA on only 17.8% of tasks under the g>0.1 criterion. Analysis of method pathways reveals that agents succeed primarily through methodological translation, converting scientific tasks into familiar supervised prediction problems, rather than through genuine scientific invention. Failures are dominated by wrong method choice and insufficient compute budget, not by task misunderstanding. We release the benchmark, the NatureGym pipeline, and a public leaderboard with maintainer-side reproduction. Code: https://github.com/FrontisAI/NatureBench

We present S1-Omni-Image, an open-weight unified multimodal model for scientific image understanding, generation, and editing. Unlike general-purpose image generation models, scientific image tasks require not only high-fidelity synthesis, but also robust understanding of scientific semantics, structural relations, domain knowledge, and task intent. To this end, S1-Omni-Image builds on the scientific multimodal reasoning backbone S1-VL-32B and couples its understanding capability with an image generation module under a unified think-before-generate paradigm. Given a user instruction, the model first produces a task-oriented reasoning trace, a textual answer, and a task special token; their hidden states are then injected into the generation module to condition image generation or editing. S1-Omni-Image supports scientific image understanding, generation, and editing in a unified framework. For generation, it focuses on scientific illustrations and text rendering, including logical diagrams, relational comparisons, data charts, and realistic scientific visualizations. For editing, it casts segmentation and other domain-specific vision tasks as native image editing problems, enabling multi-turn illustration editing, medical and geographic image segmentation, medical image translation, and scientific image super-resolution. We construct SciGenEdit, a 314K-sample training dataset, and release the model weights, inference code, and SciGenEdit-10K. Experiments show that S1-Omni-Image substantially improves scientific image generation and editing while preserving the scientific image understanding capability inherited from S1-VL-32B. It outperforms open-source models on GenExam and TechImage-Bench, achieves state-of-the-art results on four editing benchmarks including MSD, cigRockSEM, SynthRAD2025, and IXI, and maintains stable performance on scientific image understanding evaluations.

Large language models are making research production scalable, shifting the bottleneck from producing artifacts to judging claims. We present \textsc{Agon}, a research orchestrator that validates what can be checked inside the workflow and leaves the remaining judgments to human scientists. \textsc{Agon} is built on six design principles: Prompt Economy, Future-Facing, Minimal Prompts, OmniDisciplinary, Massive Parallelism, and Zero-Code. We ran \textsc{Agon} across domains for 444 iterations of Prompt Economy loops, using only small starting topics and no human-written experimental code. These deployments demonstrate scalability while exposing new classes of failure. We organize these failures into a taxonomy along severity, fixability, visibility, and capability locus. The taxonomy separates failures the loops can see and fix from those that require human judgment. Together, these results show that \textsc{Agon} is pushing research toward a new paradigm: machine scales, human steers.

Scientists do not, by profession, wage war. Yet warfare's vocabulary consistently appears in their abstracts. To quantify the extent to which warfare's vocabulary pervades scientific abstracts, we analyze 21.4 million papers (2010-2025; OpenAlex, PubMed). We additionally run a within-subject war-framing experiment (N = 801; 32,040 trials) designed to provide causal insight into the effects of militaristic language on persuasion. Between 2010 and 2025, the presence of militaristic terms in scientific abstracts rose 48% in OpenAlex and 32% in PubMed, with the rise accelerating sharply after 2019 (cross-database r = 0.96, p < 10^-8). The prevalence of militaristic language is conflict-aligned at both country and annual scales (Uppsala Conflict Data Program; r = 0.77-0.84), with the abstracts from the Global South displaying the fastest rise in militaristic language. Among disciplines, social sciences leads in level of such language while engineering and computer science lead in growth. The COVID and post-2022 large-language-model eras also saw the rise and narrowed the language gap between native-English and non-English authors. In our follow-up experiment, we found that war framing reduced credibility (mean shift -0.18 Likert units, 95% CI [-0.21, -0.14]; d_z = -0.28, p < 10^-20), funding willingness (d_z = -0.12) and policy support (d_z = -0.08), with a trend-level increase in sense of urgency (d_z = +0.07). Collectively, findings reveal that while scientific abstracts drift toward warfare, the use of militaristic language may erode credibility, funding willingness, and policy support.

AI scientist systems are described as tools, coauthors, or founders, but we evaluate them as if only the final answer matters. This position paper argues that outcome-only evaluation is insufficient, and that task outcome, mechanism fidelity, and epistemic honesty must be measured separately. Our evidence comes from 28 episodes of a coding agent attempting to rediscover a known particle identification observable in a Geant4 simulation, including an 8-episode probe across two additional frontier models. In 4/20 primary-model and 3/8 cross-model episodes, agents reach right-looking results through incorrect reasoning that breaks when conditions change, which we call Correct Answer, Wrong Mechanism (CAWM). Honesty and mechanism fidelity dissociate within a single agent trajectory. When given a partially misleading prior, all five agents reject the false component on evidence, yet one defends its chosen observable with physics inconsistent with its own data. In the simulation-based discovery setting studied here, coding agents prove reliable tools but unreliable scientific co-authors for open-ended claim-making, where co-author trust requires mechanism-fidelity verification they do not reliably self-apply. The failure is detectable, and we propose a lightweight test. A one-step regime-shift check needs only the agent's claim and flags the over-generalized cases. A companion recomputation flags the remaining cases when the correct observable is known. Together, these checks flag every CAWM case in this study.

We introduce Human-AI Co-discovery system (HACO) for scientific algorithm discovery through cross-domain search and sparse human steering. Starting from the goal of generating crystal structures from chemical compositions, HACO searched across generative modeling methodologies from multiple fields and identified MaskGIT, a masked generative model from vision, as a promising framework for crystal structure prediction (CSP). HACO instantiated this masked formulation as a discrete token model of crystal structure; guided by sparse high-level human objectives, it then added crystallographic symmetry tokens, space group stratified sampling for polymorph coverage, and sub-bin coordinate refinement, yielding the Masked Generative Crystal Transformer (MaskGXT). On the MP-20 polymorph split, MaskGXT reaches 79.06% match-everyone-to-reference (METRe) accuracy, compared with 70.87% for the strongest evaluated baseline. MaskGXT also attains the best match rate on standard MP-20 and MPTS-52 CSP benchmarks. These results provide evidence that, in domains offering cheap, fast, and well-aligned validation, transfer-guided interactive AI co-scientists can contribute to scientific algorithm discovery by identifying transferable modeling principles and combining them with targeted human domain guidance.

Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are beginning to assist, accelerate, and partially automate scientific discovery, performing tasks that span literature synthesis, code generation, data analysis, hypothesis proposal, and model criticism. We argue that this transition is qualitative rather than incremental, and that suitably designed multi-agent systems may evolve from passive computational tools into ``AI scientists'' that can expand the hypothesis-generating and verification capacity of science. Such systems must be developed and deployed within a scientific ecosystem fit for purpose: institutions must be redesigned for verification, accountability, interpretability, and dual-use safety. We sketch how multi-agent architectures, illustrated by the prototype framework \textit{Denario}, accelerate the discovery cycle and traverse model spaces beyond human reach; examine what this implies for authorship, peer review, and the enduring role of human scientists; and close with recommendations for governing AI as an epistemic actor rather than a mere instrument.

Closed-loop Auto Research extends automated machine learning from fixed-dataset fitting to changing the research workflow, with language-model agents editing representations and model code and acquiring external evidence. Molecular property prediction spans many small endpoints. We ask whether this action space yields improvements generalizing beyond the validation signal selecting them. We isolate three Auto Research axes, features, models, and external evidence, under a file-level ablation lock attributing each gain to one axis over a strong baseline. Across 36 endpoints in three benchmark suites we score each selected configuration once on a held-out test whose labels the search never read. A routed pipeline taking each endpoint's best validation axis reaches positive held-out gains of 0.013, 0.011, and 0.042, the transferable axis differing by suite, data on TDC, model on Polaris, feature and model on MoleculeNet. The largest model-search gain falls from 0.041 on validation to 0.003 on test, while curated data reaches 0.022 but negative 0.019 on test, two non-transfer signatures. Curated external data raises held-out CYP2C9-substrate performance by 0.17 and half-life by 0.08, admitted through a contamination filter rejecting same-source files overlapping 64 to 89 percent of test structures, necessary but not sufficient for transfer. A matched-trial automated machine learning control did not reproduce the agent's code-level model intervention, reaching 0.006 against 0.042, and the pipeline stays competitive with an 84M-parameter pretrained 3D model on the shared training split. The experiments stay within molecular property prediction, but separating discovery from held-out certification is a domain-agnostic lesson for any closed-loop system optimising a proxy for a held-out quantity.

Large language models have become capable reasoners and tool users that write and run code and search the literature, which makes automating the research process itself a realistic goal. We present PAPERCLAW, a harnessed multi-agent system that carries a project autonomously, from a field of study to a finished paper. PAPERCLAW curates a domain from a field's live literature, datasets, and code; brainstorms it into an idea with a pre-registered main-result contract; and drives a stoppable hypothesis map through an iterative propose, test, reflect loop that grows only from measured verdicts and halts once the evidence supports the idea, at which point it writes a venue-compliant paper. A full-lifecycle memory keeps each stage in a single living record, so a long run can be paused, inspected, and resumed without losing context. At the centre is an in-cycle research assistant with research tools and skills: it can drive the whole pipeline on its own, while the same interface lets a person step in at any stage, turning a first autonomous draft into a stronger paper through human-in-the-loop refinement. Throughout, PAPERCLAW keeps its output grounded and checkable, citing only references validated against open scholarly indexes and reporting results that genuinely ran. An evaluation with an LLM judge finds that PAPERCLAW produces strong papers both fully autonomously and with human-in-the-loop refinement.

How does research evolve, and what substrate would let us forecast where it goes next? Scientific progress is not simply a uniform accumulation of facts: ideas extend prior methods, address known limitations, realize proposed future directions, and sometimes dispute earlier claims. Existing citation graphs usually collapse these roles into a single homogeneous edge type, limiting how we can analyze scientific progress. We address this gap by proposing the SciTraj corpus, the first claim-grounded typed citation graph in which each edge is linked to the specific claim sentence that motivates it. Claim-bearing sentences are extracted from paper sections; four claim-driven relations are verified by NLI entailment against in-paper context, while two similarity-only relations are gated by abstract cosine and year-gap rules. SciTraj contains 32,559 papers from NLP, ML, and Vision (2015--2024), connected by 573,126 directed edges across six relation types, with NLI-verified claim seeds. Using SciTraj, we identify disciplinary siloing in typed citation flow and topic emergence concentrated in Vision and LLM-related work. The corpus also contains 287M typed trajectories of length $\geq 3$, covering 72.8% of papers, and supports a temporally split typed link-prediction benchmark. A year-shuffle falsifiability test separates temporal structure from year-correlated content, and a 3-annotator pilot reports $κ= 0.74$ with 79.9% precision.

A working citation looks like proof -- but the fact that a link resolves does not mean the cited paper supports the claim. I find that current agentic models rarely fabricate citations (over $99\%$ resolve), yet roughly $15.9\%$ link to the wrong paper. Existing benchmarks miss this failure mode: when a question has a fixed answer key, a model can reproduce the expected source from that key rather than independently verifying that the source supports the claim. I introduce \textbf{\openbiorq{}}, a retrieval-grounded agentic benchmark of $12{,}553$ unsolved biomedical research questions across $12$ domains that treats open questions as a faithfulness-and-abstention probe. To my knowledge, this is the first biomedical benchmark to combine an agentic setting -- where the model must issue multiple tool calls -- with unsolved questions that have no answer key. Openness is verified against real follow-up evidence rather than a model's parametric knowledge. Difficulty is empirical: I anchor it on questions that three open-weight reference models fail to answer, rather than on subjective hardness labels. On this hardest subset, held-out models from the same lineage as the difficulty anchors solve only ~17%, while three independent frontier agents (Gemini-3-Pro, Opus-4.7, GPT-5.5) span a wide 29-60% range. The benchmark is thus hard, non-saturating (the best agent still leaves ~33-40% unsolved), and discriminating across capability tiers. Beyond difficulty, I observe agentic collapse on the hardest questions, where agents stop using their tools. For the most collapse-prone model, blocking tool access entirely barely changes its score -- so tools stop paying off exactly where they are needed most. A frozen per-question checklist raises inter-judge agreement from Spearman 0.35 to 0.82.

Scientific discovery can be formulated as an iterative search process over the space of hypotheses and experiments. Contemporary methods navigate this space using heuristics such as MCTS. These algorithms conflate the merit of a hypothesis with the quality of its experimental execution. A promising hypothesis with preliminary execution is therefore ranked below a modest hypothesis whose execution is refined. Moreover, prior methods prune the search logs as the search progresses because the accumulated history outgrows the context window. We propose Agentic Reasoning for Tree Search (ARTS), where we deploy a reasoning language model to navigate this space. The model inspects prior execution logs, diagnoses whether earlier failures arose from faulty implementations or bad hypotheses, and selects the hypothesis to build on next. To mitigate challenges with context length, ARTS uses test-time training to instill the knowledge of search tree in the model weights. Across 22 tasks from MLGym and MLEBench, we show that ARTS outperforms leading algorithms, with over 15.3% relative improvement in the normalized score. With test-time training we show that a Qwen3-4B agent can match performance with closed-source frontier models like Gemini-3 Pro and GPT o3-reasoning with upto 5x lower inference cost. We further observe that on partially observable RL tasks, the test-time trained Qwen3-4B scientist surpasses ARTS with the o3 scientist by rediscovering the human-best recurrent-memory solution that heuristic methods prune away.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to communicate and explain scientific concepts, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high stakes use-case. Prior hallucination evaluation work remains largely restricted to the biomedical domain, treats hallucination as a binary task, and has not examined the growing family of scientifically fine-tuned LLMs. We address these gaps with SciFactCheck, a benchmark of 2,500 prompts across five scientific domains, paired with a modular evaluation framework targeting three factuality hallucination types: unverifiability, overclaim, and attribution. Using a controlled minimal-pairing design, we evaluate 18 LLMs by comparing each scientifically fine-tuned model against its general-purpose base. Our results indicate that 1. Scientifically fine-tuned models exhibit degraded factual reliability across all hallucination types and scientific domains, and 2. Fine-tuned models are internally less confident yet linguistically more assertive. A human pilot study further reveals that current fact-checking tools show only modest agreement with expert judgments on scientific content, and that defining scientifically check-worthy claims remains contested even among human annotators. Our findings fundamentally challenge current methods of domain-specific fine-tuning for factuality and call for developing improved verification infrastructure for scientific content.

We introduce BASIL, a user-friendly desktop application for process optimization. BASIL employs a Bayesian approach, incorporating special acquisition functions that can be used to solve both single and multi-objective optimization problems. It provides a graphical interface that enables users to input their experimental parameters, optimization objectives, and legacy data. This is then used to build surrogate models, which are coupled with acquisition functions to guide and optimize a process towards a desired objective. To facilitate model building, BASIL provides a variety of predefined surrogate model templates. BASIL can be used to optimize any arbitrary experiment or process with known, user-defined input variables, optimization objectives, and defined output.

AI-assisted research systems generate many failed attempts, but those failures rarely become a durable, shared knowledge asset. We propose a negative knowledge memory layer: a curator agent converts each failed attempt into a bounded, typed record in a shared bank, and a downstream research agent explicitly adopts or rejects those records before proposing its next experiment. We evaluate this layer in two settings: same-task retry on ScienceAgentBench and cross-task scientific research on two nonlinear math-physics PDE problems. The negative knowledge layer outperforms vanilla AutoResearch baselines while using fewer tokens; agents with the negative knowledge bank solve new tasks that all baselines fail to solve in PDE systems research. We also show that the previous negative knowledge bank can transfer and enhance AutoResearch on different PDE problems. These results suggest that structured negative knowledge is a knowledge asset that should be explicitly maintained in broader AI-engaged scientific research beyond a memory-compression or debugging aid, alongside positive findings, as a collective infrastructure for scientific memory. Code is available at https://github.com/hch-wang/Negative_Knowledge.

Scientific discovery workflows often depend on structured curation from the literature. This is difficult for current agents because the key evidence is scattered across long text, dense tables, and figures, and the final records often require reasoning across multiple evidence fragments rather than copying a single span. We study scientific curation from multimodal sources and introduce Beaver, an agent harness that extracts structured information from scientific papers while preserving provenance to the supporting evidence. Beaver combines a frontier agent with multimodal evidence tooling, task scaffolding, and artifact-grounded autoresearch. These components turn curation into a staged, auditable workflow and enable an iterative evaluate--diagnose--revise loop, where persistent run artifacts expose stage-localized failures and guide harness updates. Experiments show that Beaver reaches 81.0 on Gold-Referenced Attribute Score (GRAS), an attribute-level measure of agreement with gold curated records, outperforming frontier agents by over 23 absolute points. Ablations show that task scaffolding, multimodal evidence tooling, and provenance traces each contribute meaningfully to performance, while attribute-level analysis shows the largest gains on high-value attributes that require cross-modal reasoning and normalization. These results show that, for scientific curation from papers with multimodal evidence, harness design is a central determinant of agent performance.

Scientific discovery increasingly relies on automated systems that generate hypotheses, inspect multimodal evidence, and validate claims at scale. Yet scientific claim verification is not well served by asking a vision-language model for a direct binary judgment: claims often combine numerical results, comparisons, scope qualifiers, and explanatory context, while evidence is encoded in tables and figures with distinct grounding structures. We present SciLens, an evidence-conditioned atomic entailment framework for multimodal scientific claim verification. SciLens decomposes each claim into central empirical atoms and background atoms, grounds the central atoms to modality-specific evidence witnesses, and predicts the final label with an atom-level entailment rule. For tables, atoms are grounded to rows, columns, cells, arithmetic relations, and table scope; for figures, they are grounded through panels, axes, legends, visual encodings, categories, trends, ranks, and qualifier checks. This yields a unified validation procedure in which a claim is supported only if every central empirical atom is entailed by the current evidence. On the SciClaimEval development set, SciLens achieves 79.2% macro-F1 and 63.1% pair accuracy, showing that structured agentic validation improves both evidence sensitivity and interpretability.

Spacecraft guidance, navigation, and control functions are increasingly realized as learned policies distilled from expert solvers. Developing such a policy is itself a research process: an investigator selects an architecture and hyperparameters, runs experiments, and must determine whether an apparent improvement is genuine or merely seed noise. This paper presents AutoResearch, a framework in which a large language model autonomously drives that loop for aerospace control problems, coupled with a credibility layer, built into the loop, that certifies each reported result against the problem's own measured seed noise. The language model serves only as the offline research agent that develops the control policy; the trained policy it produces is then deployed onboard the spacecraft, while the model itself never operates the vehicle. At each iteration the agent reads a plain-language problem description and the run history, proposes a single edit to the training script, executes it, and logs the outcome. No reported result is credited until it passes the same three checks: measured per-problem seed noise, reseeded verification of the best configuration, and leave-one-out pruning of the agent's edits. The same loop is applied, unchanged, to two aerospace control problems: a Clohessy-Wiltshire relative rendezvous and a safety-constrained collision-avoidance docking past a keep-out zone, each calibrated against a known optimal control benchmark. In both, the audited policy clears the measured seed noise by many standard deviations; an undirected search over the same parameters does not. On the docking problem the gap becomes categorical: undirected search yields no feasible policy, while the learned policy stays outside the keep-out zone on every seed.

AI systems for peer review fail on three fronts: they train on Computer Science and Machine Learning venues alone, ignore the iterative dialogue that validates science, and evaluate on stylistic mimicry rather than real editorial judgment. We introduce FirstPass, a dataset and fine-tuned model that addresses all three. Curating 3,668 complete multi-round peer-review dialogues from Nature Communications across five scientific domains (biology, chemistry, neuroscience, physics, and earth science), we exploit mandatory transparent peer review (instituted November 2022) and verify 100% content integrity by automated audit. We fine-tune Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) on three tasks: review generation, reviewer updating, and revision-cycle prediction. Our key finding is that response-only loss masking is a prerequisite, not an optimization: without it, accuracy is 62.0%, below the majority baseline; with it, FirstPass achieves 80.5% accuracy and F1-macro 78.2% on predicting editorial outcomes (Standard vs. Extended revision cycles), outperforming Gemini-3.1-flash-lite-preview zero-shot by 10.4 percentage points and all baselines with statistical significance (McNemar p < 0.001). On generation, FirstPass produces reviews averaging 1,187 words, substantially closer to human references (2,155 words) than any baseline, achieving ROUGE-L 0.154 with significant gains over Qwen and DeepSeek zero-shot (p < 0.001). Deployed in the pre-submission loop as an anticipatory scientific co-author, FirstPass simulates expert critique and predicts revision cycle outcomes before submission, giving authors the judgment a trusted colleague would provide, with consistent cross-domain performance across five disciplines.

Data editing with generative methods typically requires differentiable objectives and gradient-based search. However, these assumptions break down in flow-based settings, where edits are performed through forward and backward integration and often involve non-differentiable or black-box objectives. We introduce residual-space evolutionary optimization, a model-agnostic framework that addresses this gap by combining flow-based generative editing with evolutionary algorithms. Building on the observation that conditional flow matching (CFM) can disentangle condition-controlled factors from instance-specific residuals, our framework directly operates in residual space and separates two complementary search regimes: self-pollination performs local exploitation through feature-preserving residual refinement, and cross-pollination promotes broader exploration by recombining residuals across heterogeneous samples. As a proof of concept, we validate on MorphoMNIST, a benchmark dataset for counterfactual generation, and on crystal data, demonstrating that this exploration--exploitation decomposition provides a useful mechanism for balancing target alignment, instance preservation, and diversity, and extends beyond images to real-world scientific domains.

We propose an AI economist agent for economic and financial scenario analysis. Scenario design often requires analysts to assess emerging risks with limited historical precedent, combine information from many sources, and translate qualitative mechanisms into internally consistent quantitative paths. Large language models (LLMs) can search and synthesize this information, but fluent narratives alone do not establish the model-based calculations needed for economic conclusions. Our framework uses LLM agents to plan the analysis, retrieve relevant evidence, and organize economic mechanisms, while registered quantitative models generate numerical outcomes and predefined tests determine whether intermediate results can be used in the final report. We apply the framework to European macro-financial stress scenarios and bank capital analysis. The empirical analysis evaluates retrieval of economic mechanisms, scenario construction, model execution, and report generation under a historical information cutoff. The results show how the AI economist agent can combine flexible evidence retrieval and scenario construction while keeping the resulting analysis linked to identifiable sources and explicit model calculations.

Industrial LLM teams often ship behavior updates by repeatedly DPO-training a base model on sequences of related preference-data campaigns. The dominant failure mode in this regime is not always classical catastrophic forgetting: a pipeline may preserve previously learned behaviors while still failing to accumulate reusable methodological knowledge about how to train the next campaign. We call this failure mode scientific amnesia. This paper turns that practitioner intuition into a measurable industrial problem. We contribute: (i) a diagnostic suite for amnesia, (ii) a Program-based pipeline that chains FSDP-sharded DPO checkpoints across Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct runs, (iii) a 30-campaign HumanEval subdomain benchmark, and (iv) a comparative diagnostic study of five strategy proposers: random memory, rule-based scheduling, retrieval-only memory, warm-start Bayesian optimization, and MSCL, a meta-scientific memory and reasoner candidate. Across a single-seed 5-condition * 3-step real-LM chain, 4 of 5 candidates degrade in step-level peak pass@1, including MSCL; only the deliberately conservative rule-based schedule improves. Follow-up pilots qualify rather than overturn this finding: in a heterogeneous chain, MSCL is the only completed candidate that improves, whereas in a small multi-seed homogeneous sweep, retrieval-only has the best mean Delta and no pairwise candidate gap is statistically distinguishable. The contribution is therefore diagnostic, not a claim that MSCL solves the problem: scientific amnesia is observable in a production-like continual-DPO pipeline, and conclusions about interventions depend sharply on chain regime, evaluator design, and seed coverage.

Identifying the lowest-energy surface-adsorbate configuration is critical for modeling heterogeneous catalysis, yet exhaustive exploration with ab initio calculations is computationally prohibitive. Machine-learning force fields (MLFFs) accelerate structural relaxation but leave the search over the vast configurational space a major bottleneck, and open-loop large language model (LLM) agents lack a physics-grounded feedback mechanism to correct erroneous initial guesses. We propose AdsMind (Adsorption configuration discovery with Machine intelligence and relaxation feedback), a closed-loop multi-agent framework that enables autonomous error correction through MLFF relaxation feedback. Across four LLM backends, AdsMind achieves consistently high search reliability, with success rates of 100% and 98.8% on the benchmarks AA20 and OCD-GMAE62. Relative to its single-pass (1-Shot) ablation it reduces cross-backend energy dispersion, and it uses only 4.11 and 4.67 MLFF relaxations per case, respectively -- an approximately 14-fold reduction over heuristic enumeration baselines. Density functional theory (DFT) validation using VASP/PBE on six representative AA20 systems shows that the reported open-loop Adsorb-Agent outputs exhibit qualitative adsorption-energy sign errors for molecular adsorbates, whereas AdsMind preserves the correct sign in all tested cases with closer quantitative agreement. AdsMind thus delivers reliability, self-reflection, and interpretability simultaneously, supporting more DFT-informed autonomous chemistry workflows.

AI systems can increasingly automate scientific workflows, but the reasoning that links prior evidence, generated ideas, experiments and final claims often remains implicit inside model inference. Here we introduce Xcientist, a research harness that externalizes research synthesis and experimental validation into inspectable, contract-governed processes. Xcientist organizes literature evidence, idea states, implementation plans, ablation records and repair traces as persistent research artifacts, so that generated mechanisms can be grounded, executed, tested and revised without losing their evidential basis. We identify claim drift as a failure mode of automated research, where runnable artifacts no longer support the mechanism originally claimed. Across training-free memory systems, graph-structured traffic forecasting and multi-scale physics-informed neural networks, Xcientist preserves traceable trajectories from problem formulation to mechanism design, validation and bounded revision. These results suggest that AI scientists should be evaluated not only by their final artifacts, but by whether their synthesis and validation processes remain attributable, inspectable and scientifically accountable.

Abstractive summarization plays a crucial role in enabling efficient understanding of scientific literature, yet it inherently demands both linguistic fluency and factual faithfulness. Existing approaches often fail to reconcile these two requirements. Extractive methods rely on rigid sentence splicing that disrupts macro-level logical coherence, while large language model (LLM)-based generative approaches, despite mastering linguistic fluency, exhibit limited factual consistency. In this work, we propose ScholarSum, a hierarchical reflective graph-based framework that emulates a student-teacher writing process for fluent and faithful scientific summarization. ScholarSum first organizes the document into a hierarchical knowledge graph by segmenting it into semantically coherent units, whose multi-layered community structure captures global logic and macro-level themes. Guided by this global structure, the student generates an initial draft, which is subsequently refined through fine-grained evidence retrieval. To ensure factual consistency, a teacher-like reviewer then iteratively examines the draft, identifies unsupported content, and prompts targeted re-retrieval and rewriting until the summary meets rigorous quality standards. Extensive experiments demonstrate that ScholarSum significantly outperforms previous baselines in terms of both completeness and faithfulness. Our code is available at https://github.com/Xiaoyu-Tao/ScholarSum.

Federated learning over medical images is a demanding workflow application. Each round fans out across parallel client jobs and converges on an aggregation step that feeds the next round. At scale this yields 101 sub-workflows and 2,679 jobs on GPUs at four sites, which takes an expert months to build, mostly on workflow mechanics rather than science. We ask how far AI assistance can automate such workflows. An LLM agent, grounded in a released plugin of Pegasus-specific skills, first produces a reviewable specification of checkable constraints and acceptance criteria, then generates the executable workflow. A validation loop repairs runtime failures, checks code against those constraints, and regenerates the implementation from the specification alone. We evaluate three LLM agents, report end-to-end runs on the FABRIC testbed, and show how conformance checking against the specification caught three silent errors that failure-driven debugging missed, including one that trained 1,700 jobs on random tensors.

Reproducing research results from papers and released code is central to scientific progress. Existing works have introduced benchmarks to evaluate whether LLM agents can assist with reproducibility, but they are difficult to scale due to their reliance on substantial manual effort for data curation and evaluation. We introduce ReproRepo, a scalable framework for reproducibility evaluation that leverages human-raised GitHub issues as naturally occurring supervision on realistic reproduction blockers. We instantiate ReproRepo on 1,149 recent machine learning papers from major conferences and evaluate four frontier model-agent configurations. Our results show that LLM agents, even without executing code, can identify many real-world reproducibility problems from paper-repository pairs: the best agent in our study, namely Codex with GPT-5.5, surfaces at least one semantically related human-reported blocker for $\sim$90% of papers in the study. Further analysis shows that agents are particularly effective for surfacing visible failures and identifying the right semantic region, but may still be insufficient in exact localization. ReproRepo can serve as a reusable, scalable framework for future evaluations of LLM agents on real-world reproducibility auditing. Our code is released at https://github.com/LithiumDA/ReproRepo.

As Large Language Model based agents enter autonomous scientific research, their ability to resist pseudoscience becomes increasingly important. Otherwise, such systems may rapidly generate plausible yet misleading studies that contaminate academic literature and erode trust in science. We present PseudoBench, an adversarial benchmark for evaluating whether agentic auto-research systems can identify and resist pseudoscientific narratives. PseudoBench contains 200 curated pseudoscientific claim-evidence pairs across five domains and evaluates agents through an end-to-end research pipeline from experiments to writing. Testing seven state-of-the-art agents, we find that current systems readily produce persuasive reports that align with pseudoscientific premises with near-zero refusal rates and the highest resistance of only 27.4%. Stronger agents risk packaging pseudoscience in more sophisticated scientific language, increasing its apparent credibility. These findings reveal an alarming capacity to fuel pseudoscience, calling for scientific alignment before widespread deployment.

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

In this report, we present LOGOS (Language Of Generative Objects in Science), a scientific generative language model that unifies heterogeneous tasks across the natural sciences within a single autoregressive framework based on a shared scientific grammar. It encodes diverse scientific objects and their spatial interactions as token sequences over a common vocabulary. By representing spatial contact and constraint patterns as discrete tokens, the model captures complex structural interactions in a purely sequential manner, without relying on explicit coordinates or geometric neural networks. This unified representation enables a wide range of downstream tasks to be formulated consistently as next-token prediction in the same grammar space, creating strong alignment between continued multi-domain pre-training and downstream objectives. Across diverse tasks, LOGOS consistently matches or outperforms domain-specific baselines, providing preliminary evidence for the feasibility of "one model fits all" in the natural sciences. We train LOGOS models at different scales (1B, 3B, and 8B parameters) and find a consistent positive correlation between model size and performance. This suggests that the future of AI for Science (AI4S) may not lie in building an independent technical stack that is separated from large language models (LLMs). Instead, it may depend on deeply aligning scientific foundation models with LLMs through shared architectures, shared training paradigms, and shared inference infrastructure, so that LLMs can truly become a new entry point for AI4S. We release the model weights and associated resources to facilitate further research.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used to guide research methodology, yet their default methodological tendencies under minimal prompting remain unclear. Here, we prompt GPT-5.1, Gemini 3 Pro, and DeepSeek-V3.2 with an LLM-extracted research question from each of 1,000 recent arXiv computer-science papers and compare the resulting methodology suggestions against a paper-derived experimental inventory. Since we provide only the research question, the differences we measure reflect initial suggestions and not how optimal those suggestions are. We extract structured method features from both sources, map them into a shared taxonomy, and quantify divergence across multiple taxonomy dimensions including model provider, dataset task type, and evaluation metric type. The strongest imbalance appears in provider choice, with Jensen-Shannon divergence about 3-5x larger than any other taxonomy dimension. Other/Academic single-occurrence models are underrepresented by 23-24 percentage points, while reused academic/community models are slightly overrepresented (4-6pp). LLMs also suggest a much narrower range of methods overall: the effective number of model entities contracts from 1,232 to 59-96, and inter-LLM rank correlations (0.55-0.68) generally exceed LLM-to-paper correlations (0.33-0.56), so the distortions are largely shared across models. Popularity baselines, BM25 retrieval calibration, and paper-level similarity tests confirm that the outputs are query-specific responses, but filtered through a narrower set of options. Researchers who rely on LLM suggestions without cross-checking therefore risk narrowing their methodological search space toward a more concentrated default.

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

Neural networks are used as generative surrogate models for scientific discovery, which are trainable approximations of scientific simulations. These models enable users to replace time-consuming numerical simulations with learned alternatives, providing quick solutions. However, high-fidelity generative surrogate models require massive training datasets, which can create storage and I/O challenges. Lossy compression is a promising way to reduce this burden, but compression errors may affect the model quality in subtle ways, making it challenging to quantify their impact. In this work, we examine how lossy compression of training data impacts the quality of generative surrogate models. We begin by characterizing the uncertainty inherent in training neural networks, showing that identical training configurations can produce different models. By exploiting this variability, we propose a method to estimate how much compression-induced error a surrogate model can tolerate without affecting its accuracy. Evaluation of two application simulations demonstrates that our approach significantly reduces memory/storage requirements and speeds up training while producing high-quality surrogate models. These results show that lossy compression saves data storage up to 23.7x and 39x with negligible impact on the quality of the surrogate model. Meanwhile, reducing the size of the training data set also enhances the data loading speed and reduces the training time by up to 3x.

Frontier scientific reasoning remains a major challenge for large language models (LLMs), where even the strongest commercial systems fall short of expert-level performance. A closer look at model behavior reveals substantial complementarity that single-model evaluation hides: different frontier models excel on different question types, and no single model captures the full picture. We present SciOrch, a framework that trains a lightweight 8B model to orchestrate frontier LLMs for scientific reasoning. The orchestrator decomposes each question, delegates sub-problems to selected commercial models through API calls, and synthesizes a final answer. Training such an orchestrator is fundamentally harder than conventional agentic RL: each action triggers an API call that is expensive in both dollar cost and latency, making standard online rollouts infeasible. We address this with MCTS-based approach, producing diverse orchestration trajectories, extracting per-node single-turn samples, and optimizing the orchestrator with GRPO-style training. On a 240-question test set spanning SGI-Reasoning and Scientists' First Exam, SciOrch reaches 56.66% average accuracy, outperforming the strongest single commercial model by 3.74% and the strongest multi-agent baseline by 3.33%. It also attains the best accuracy on both SGI and SFE with less than half the API cost of typical multi-agent methods.

Qualitative coding is central to social science, but expert annotation is difficult to scale. LLMs offer a possible extension, yet require careful validation when the target construct is interpretive, theoretically loaded, and only indirectly expressed. We study this problem in a difficult case: detecting whether authors treat Bayesian models as descriptions of mental and neural mechanisms (realism) or as useful mathematical tools (instrumentalism). Our method combines a theory-driven codebook, expert-coded reference annotations, a diagnostic-gated prompt-optimization search yielding a shared zero-shot prompt for three frontier LLMs (GPT-5.1, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Pro Preview), and multi-rater reliability analysis. The final prompt achieved a held-out combined reliability score of 0.76 (harmonic mean of ICC = 0.79 and $α$ = 0.74), with all diagnostics satisfied. Deployed on 6,858 quotes from 210 articles, the three LLMs reached substantial quote-level agreement (ICC = 0.80; $α$ = 0.76; combined = 0.78) and near-perfect article-level rank stability ($r$ = 0.96-0.97 across rater pairs). The corpus was predominantly weakly realist, but article-level stances were rarely uniform: only 1.4% of articles used a single band, while 59.5% spanned four or more. Low-level perception/motor articles scored 8.8 Realism points higher than high-level cognition articles ($p < .001$, $d = 0.60$), quantifying a long-held qualitative intuition. We present this as an expert-led case study; the framework is intended to generalize to similar theoretically demanding tasks, not to all qualitative analysis.

Self-driving laboratories (SDLs), where artificial intelligence proposes subsequent experiments and robotic systems execute them, are rapidly becoming the vanguard of materials discovery. A critical bottleneck, however, lies in seamlessly bridging diverse AI algorithms tailored for specific exploration goals with the heterogeneous robotic hardware found across different laboratories. Here, we present NIMO, an open-source software platform designed to dissolve this barrier through three core paradigms: a modular AI-robot decoupling mediated via simple CSV file exchange, a discrete candidate-pool architecture that seamlessly absorbs domain knowledge, and a unified Python interface pre-loaded with twelve distinct AI algorithms. In this Perspective, we review the operational principles of each algorithm alongside six diverse SDL implementations driven by NIMO, covering electrolyte discovery, organic synthesis, thin-film exploration, fuel-cell process informatics, coffee-ring phase exploration, and legacy liquid-handling automation. One of these also demonstrates NIMO's seamless interoperability with the IvoryOS orchestration framework. To democratize autonomous science, we also introduce a no-code desktop application that enables intuitive, human-in-the-loop exploration for non-programmers. NIMO is freely available at https://github.com/NIMS-DA/nimo, offering a versatile, plug-and-play foundation to accelerate autonomous materials exploration across diverse experimental landscapes.

Scientific discovery relies on large-scale hypothesis testing. However, the capacity to identify true discoveries while controlling false discovery faces major challenges: obtaining relevant reference data (the null distribution) is resource-intensive, leaving finite-data uncertainty, and the procedure should account for the inherent structure in the hypothesis space, when such structure exists. Here, we present a framework for controlling the false discovery rate both when each hypothesis is evidenced only by a finite count of null draws, leaving its p-value uncertain, and when the hypothesis space carries arbitrary structure, requiring only that the structure be represented through a suitable reproducing kernel. We present two decision rules that are both robust to structural mis-specification, yet offer a distinct trade-off between exact FDR control and statistical power. The first rule guarantees exact FDR control; the second maximizes power by adapting mirror-statistic control into count space, utilizing an analytical framework to assess FDR control when exact mirror symmetry is relaxed. Furthermore, the tractability gained by the RKHS framework allows us to directly investigate finite-data uncertainties, which we leverage to suggest a policy for the efficient allocation of null distribution samples.

The autoresearch pattern enables autonomous experimentation by having a large language model (LLM) iteratively modify code to optimize a target metric. Its stateless design, however, reconstructs experimental context from scratch at every iteration, incurring $O(n)$ token cost per iteration and $O(n^{2})$ total. This work reformulates the pattern as a stateful ReAct agent using LangGraph, where typed persistent state carries experimental history across iterations via a tool-calling interface. Two benchmarks are evaluated: hyperparameter tuning (15 iterations, small per-iteration observations) and code performance optimization (40 iterations, large per-iteration observations containing full source code and benchmark results). On hyperparameter tuning, the stateful agent consumes 90% fewer tokens (2{,}492 vs.\ 24{,}465). On code optimization, the stateful agent consumes 52% fewer tokens (627K vs.\ 1{,}275K) while achieving comparable optimization quality on both tasks. The token reduction is structural: the stateless agent re-reads the full history at $O(n)$ cost per iteration, while the stateful agent operates within a fixed-size conversation window at $O(1)$ cost. This paper describes the architecture in sufficient detail for practitioners to implement a stateful autoresearch agent for their own workflows.

High-throughput experimentation can evaluate many reaction conditions, yet combinatorial condition spaces still exceed the available experiment budget. This makes experiment selection a sequential decision problem: each new condition must be chosen from limited observations before its outcome is known. LLMs can express task-specific selection logic. A direct recommendation, however, is neither a persistent executable object that can be validated and revised nor an independently auditable decision rule. We introduce CARE, a reference-conditioned controller that separates program synthesis from experiment selection. An LLM writes an executable scoring program that ranks the remaining conditions, while a non-LLM reference policy supplies a numerical candidate and support summary. CARE forms an optional alternative from the program, applies a reference-conditioned intervention gate to compare it with the reference, and records the decision before the selected outcome is revealed. Each new outcome updates controller state and can trigger retention, revision, or regeneration of the active program. This outcome-guided program evolution changes the scoring logic without updating the LLM parameters. In matched offline replay with 30 seeds on eight reaction-optimization tasks, CARE attains the lowest normalized regret, the highest normalized best-so-far AUC, and the highest Top-1% Success@15 among the evaluated methods. These results support using a scoring program written by an LLM as one component of a reference-conditioned optimizer rather than as a standalone experiment selector.

Error-bounded lossy compression is a fundamental technique for managing the rapidly growing volumes of scientific data produced by modern simulations and observational instruments. Most state-of-the-art-compressors follow a prediction-residual paradigm, where compression effectiveness depends on the quality of the predictor: more accurate predictions generate smaller residuals that are easier to compress. This observation raises a question: can modern machine learning models serve as superior predictors for scientific data compression? Answering this question directly is challenging because developing compression-specific ML predictors requires substantial resources. Instead, we leverage the climate domain where highly accurate pretrained weather forecasting foundation models already exist, making them an ideal testbed. We present a framework that integrates spatial and temporal deep learning models into a conventional error-bounded compression pipeline. The framework supports auto-regressive forecasting models and avoids error accumulation. Using ERA5 climate data as a representative large-scale scientific dataset, we evaluate three distinct ML predictors: a VAEformer-based codec (CRA5), a graph neural network forecaster (GraphCast), and a vision-transformer forecaster (Aurora), against the state-of-the-art compressor SZ3.1 under identical quantization and entropy-coding backends. Our evaluation over approximately 1.7 TB of data reveals a surprising result: although ML predictors generate more accurate predictions and can improve reconstruction quality by up to 91% while achieving up to 9.6x higher compression ratios for highly predictable variables, they do not improve overall dataset-level compression ratio. We show that prediction accuracy alone is insufficient: the spatial structure of the resulting residuals plays a decisive role in entropy coding efficiency.

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

We can do more than defend science from a flood of AI-assisted papers. Used well, AI offers a historic opportunity to correct distortions in the publication system, help us publish fewer and better papers, and give scientists back the time to do their best work.

Current LLM-based research agents have advanced through agent orchestration, yet largely overlook scientific knowledge orchestration. Existing works often reduce papers to abstracts, surface mentions, and flat \texttt{cites} edges, omitting key entities, claims, evidence, mechanisms, and method lineages essential for scientific reasoning. To this end, we introduce \textbf{Agents-K1}, an end-to-end knowledge orchestration pipeline that converts raw documents into agent-native scientific knowledge graphs. Agents-K1 integrates three components under a unifying theoretical foundation: a multimodal parser whose five-module schema captures entities, multimodal evidence, citations, and typed inter-entity relations across the full paper rather than abstracts alone; a 4B information-extraction backbone trained with GRPO under a rule-based reward; and a graphanything CLI, a tri-source agent interface that unifies web search, multimodal graph retrieval, and cross-document traversal. On top of this, we process 2.46 million scientific papers across six subjects to produce \textbf{Scholar-KG}, of which we release a one-million-paper subset, and the full Scholar-KG is accessible via the SCP link below. The same pipeline can be extended to general-domain corpora and to schema-conformant data synthesis. Extensive experiments demonstrate that Agents-K1 achieves superior performance in scientific information extraction, knowledge graph construction, and multi-hop scientific reasoning.

We introduce EpiBench, a verifiable benchmark for short-horizon epigenomics analysis. EpiBench evaluates whether agents can make well-defined analysis decisions from realistic workflow states and return deterministically gradable answers. The benchmark includes 106 evaluations across CUT&Tag/CUT&RUN, ATAC-seq, ChIP-seq, and DNA methylation workflows. Across 5,088 valid trajectories from 16 model-harness pairs, no system passed a majority of attempts: GPT-5.5 / Pi led at 45.0% (143/318 attempts; 95% confidence interval (CI), 36.3--53.7), followed by GPT-5.5 / OpenAI Codex at 39.9% (127/318 attempts; 95% CI, 31.6--48.3). Claude Opus 4.8 Max / Pi and GPT-5.4 / Pi each passed 39.0% (124/318 attempts; 95% CI, 30.2--47.8 and 31.0--47.0, respectively). Performance varies across assay types, and many failed runs still contain parts of the correct answer. Agents often found the right files and computed useful intermediate results, but failed when the task required deeper, assay-specific scientific judgment.

Scientific laboratories increasingly rely on AI systems to reason about experiments, but the physical act of doing science remains largely outside their reach. AI can help read literature, generate hypotheses, and plan protocols, yet the execution of those protocols at the bench still requires a human operator. Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models provide one possible interface between written protocols and robot execution, but existing policies are trained mostly on household and tabletop demonstrations and rarely encounter the instruments, transparent liquids, or fixed protocol workflows found in scientific laboratories. Closing this gap requires both laboratory-specific supervision and a unified learning framework that can accommodate the diverse robot embodiments used to execute experimental protocols. We therefore identify data and embodiment as central bottlenecks alongside model design. To address the data side, we build RoboGenesis, a simulation-based workflow and data engine that composes configured laboratory workflows from atomic skills, validates and filters rollouts, and exports structured demonstrations across supported robot profiles. On the policy side, we present LabVLA, trained with a two-stage recipe: FAST action token pretraining first makes the Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct backbone action aware before any continuous control is learned, and flow matching posttraining then attaches a DiT action expert under knowledge insulation. On the LabUtopia benchmark, LabVLA achieves the highest average success rate among all evaluated baselines under both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings.

Current discussions of AI in scientific discovery are often dominated by two visible capabilities: search over existing knowledge and execution through optimization, simulation, and automation. Both are important, but neither fully captures the central act of discovery: the formation and evolution of models. This paper proposes a three-layer view of AI in discovery. Layer 1 is search and retrieval by large language models. Layer 2, as the main innovation of this paper, is model formation through qualitative reasoning: the capacity to recognize when a current framework is structurally inadequate and to understand the problem within a broader representational space, not through trial and error, but through structural insight into what is missing and where it can be found. Layer 3 is execution, optimization, and refinement. The main claim is that Layer 2 is both the most important and the least developed. Search without model formation remains confined to inherited frameworks, while execution without conceptual revision only amplifies an existing formulation. We illustrate Layer 2 reasoning through three case studies: S. S. Chern's intrinsic proof of the Gauss-Bonnet theorem, the resolution of the Nesterov Accelerated Gradient convergence problem via Lyapunov functions, and the autonomous disproof of the Erdos unit distance conjecture by OpenAI in 2026. Each case exhibits the same structural signature: a framework that had become inadequate, a missing conceptual object, and a resolution found in an unexpected neighboring field.

Novelty is a crucial metric for assessing the quality of academic papers. Scholars strive to highlight the novel aspects of their work, particularly in the title, abstract, and introduction. Peer review, serving as the gatekeeper of scientific rigor, rigorously evaluates the novelty of papers, yet a cognitive gap may exist between author self-promotion and reviewer evaluation. To investigate this, we analyzed 15,328 academic papers published in Nature Communications from 2016 to 2021, along with their peer-review comments. We found that both reviewers and authors emphasize result-oriented innovation, with reviewers adopting a more comprehensive evaluation perspective. Furthermore, by examining promotional intensity against inherent paper novelty, we found that its effect depends on the paper's actual innovation level. Highly innovative papers benefit from stronger promotional language, receiving more positive evaluations. We also found that promotional language significantly correlates with reviewer disagreement on novelty specifically for papers of moderate innovativeness, whereas it has negligible impact for papers with either very high or very low novelty. This reveals how promotional language operates most prominently in the gray area of academic evaluation.

Learning functional relationships from noisy data is a central problem in scientific inference. Spectral methods approximate unknown functions by expanding them in a basis and estimating the corresponding coefficients from data, but the stability of these coefficients under noise remains poorly understood. Here we study supervised regression with additive label noise using sparse spectral representations across multiple bases and dimensions. We show that noise induces a predictable drift in the learned coefficient vector whose magnitude depends on the effective number of active spectral modes. After whitening the empirical feature geometry, we derive a closed-form expression for the overlap between noisy and noiseless coefficient vectors, revealing a universal degradation curve governed by a single intrinsic noise scale. Numerical experiments across Fourier, Legendre, Bessel, and Haar bases confirm the theoretical prediction. The results demonstrate that spectral learning exhibits a fundamental noise threshold beyond which coefficient estimates become unstable, placing intrinsic limits on recovering functional structure from noisy data.

Three paradigmatic forms of inference recur across scientific reasoning: deduction, induction, and causal abduction. Reliably evaluating LLMs on these in scientific settings is currently out of reach: scientific benchmarks built on human annotations are costly and lack mechanistic ground truth, while synthetic logical-reasoning benchmarks do not resemble real scientific documents. We introduce SciR, a benchmark that combines multi-paradigm reasoning with controllable scientific rendering, anchored on three paradigmatic scientific problems. Tasks are generated from formal objects (deduction tree, inductive rule hypothesis, causal graph) to guarantee verifiable answers, then rendered into multi-document scientific discourse via per-track domain-tuned genres. The construction lets us independently vary two difficulty axes: how hard it is to extract the key information needed for inference, and how hard the principled inference itself is. We test six models. Both axes hurt every model, and their effects compound. The rendering even hurts neurosymbolic pipelines, which hand inference to a verified solver. The two axes yield a per-model extraction-vs-inference profile: for instance, reasoning models like deepseek-r1 mostly surpass non-reasoning instruct models on the inference axis. To our knowledge, SciR is the first multi-paradigm scientific-reasoning benchmark with parametric control on both extraction and inference difficulty.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for tasks once reserved for trained researchers, including hypothesis generation, specification choice, and drafting conclusions. We argue that the reliability of AI-assisted research depends not only on model capability, but also on how cognitive labour is structured between humans and machines. We study this problem through Human-in-the-Loop Economic Research (HLER), a decision architecture based on pre-commitment, decision sequencing, accountability, and attention allocation. In a pre-specified 2*4 factorial experiment with 280 complete research runs across four datasets, an unconstrained multi-agent baseline produced critical failures in 72% of runs. Using the same underlying model, the same agent decomposition, and identical prompts for the shared reasoning agents, HLER reduced the failure rate to 16% by imposing three architectural commitments: LLMs reason but do not execute data work, data and estimation are handled deterministically, and three human decision gates bind the workflow. Fisher's exact test rejects equality of failure rates at p<0.001. Reliability gains were largest on the least publicly represented dataset, a Qing-dynasty population register, consistent with a task-based production model with Frechet-distributed output quality. An 80-run ablation suggests that deterministic computation and human gates contribute independently, with exploratory evidence of complementarity. We interpret HLER as a research harness rather than an autonomous AI scientist: it sharply reduces failures, makes residual weaknesses more visible, and prevents unreliable claims from being advanced as publication-ready outputs.

As scientific workflows shift from deterministic executables to LLM-based agents, the development practices on offer, such as fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and prompt-and-go, bury the scientist's judgment. We propose treating agent construction as a workflow stage and introduce AgentBuild, which builds a scientific agent from a contract the scientist authors. The contract is a version-controlled rubric, a difficulty-graded curriculum, and a curated external knowledge base. A rubric-driven judge gates a meta-optimizer coding agent that edits the agent within a declared boundary, so the build compiles the agent, not the scientist's judgment. We instantiate this for Rietveld refinement of X-ray diffraction data through GSAS-II behind MCP and A2A, where a blank-harness construction run progresses through a lithium lanthanum zirconium oxide (LLZO) signal-to-noise ladder, reaches the 4 hour scan as a frontier case, and exposes the workflow-scope limits that remain. The same rubric that rewards credible fits also scores trajectory scope, making the frontier a contract failure rather than a pattern-fitting failure. As base models evolve, re-running AgentBuild is a re-tune, not a rebuild, and the scientist's authored contract remains the durable asset.

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

AI agents are increasingly being developed to accelerate scientific discovery, yet their practical capabilities in real research settings remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks for AI agents rarely capture the complexity, heterogeneity, and extended reasoning required by scientific work, whereas benchmarks for scientific tasks often reduce research to static, direct problems and provide limited support for interactive evaluation. Here, we introduce SciAgentArena, a systematic benchmark for evaluating AI agents in real-world scientific research scenarios drawn from emerging needs across multiple domains. SciAgentArena comprises approximately 200 tasks with stepwise verification and an interactive, agent-agnostic environment for assessing diverse AI agents. Using this benchmark, we find that current agents can contribute effectively to well-specified data-analysis workflows, particularly when the task structure and evaluation criteria are clear. However, their performance remains uneven across scientific contexts: agents struggle to generate genuinely novel insights, sustain self-directed exploration, and formulate robust solutions for open-ended research questions. We further characterize common failure modes across agents and identify opportunities for improving their reliability, autonomy, and scientific reasoning. Together, SciAgentArena provides a practical framework for measuring progress in AI agents for science and for guiding the design of future agents capable of addressing complex scientific challenges. Full codes, tasks, and datasets can be accessed via this link: https://sciagentarena.github.io/.

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

Scientific figures compress complex pipelines into a single canvas, yet understanding them requires paper-grounded, step-by-step narration aligned with visual highlights a capability missing from current video generation systems and benchmarks. To address this, we introduce paper-grounded figure-to-video generation: generating narrated, region-grounded walkthrough videos from a figure and its paper. We propose MINARD (Multimodal Interpretation of Narrated Architecture via Region Decomposition), a pipeline that generates paper-grounded narrations and sequentially grounds them to figure regions. We also release FigTalk, a benchmark with new sequential and component-level grounding metrics derived. On FigTalk, MINARD generates humanlike, paper-faithful narrations and outperforms narration-conditioned figure spatial grounding compared to existing approaches in both automatic and human evaluation