Scientific Discovery

We argue that the AI community is now ready to move beyond benchmarking and consolidate scattered efforts in model analysis into a systematic discipline, a direction we term Model Science. Complex AI models now serve billions of users, yet our understanding of how they work lags far behind our ability to deploy them. Decades of benchmark-driven research have delivered remarkable progress: extensive leaderboards, a wide range of performance metrics, tracking capability gains across diverse tasks; yet this success has also revealed the limits of benchmarks as they tell us whether models perform but not why they succeed or fail, they miss critical failure modes, such as hallucinations or shortcuts. Precedents from established sciences point the way forward: cognitive science shows that understanding complex systems requires complementary levels of analysis; neuroscience demonstrates that deep study of single cases reveals what population studies miss; medicine teaches that specialised training must develop alongside research practice; and agriculture models how shared infrastructure and principles enable cumulative progress. These lessons inform three foundations for Model Science. First, we propose to consolidate research around four functional perspectives: Verify, Explore, Steer, and Refine that address complementary questions about model behaviour. Second, we discuss the required infrastructure for cumulative knowledge: catalogues of datasets, models and findings. Third, we highlight the need for deep analysis of individual model instances, not just model families, because single cases can reveal what population studies miss.

While Reasoning Language Models (RLMs) are rapidly emerging as powerful tools for scientific research, their impact is primarily concentrated in "hard science" fields. The slow -- or lack of -- adoption of RLMs in other branches of science is causing a widening gap in research productivity. In this survey, we provide the first comprehensive analysis of RLM adoption across 28 scientific disciplines following the classification used by the European Research Council (ERC), spanning the Social Sciences and Humanities, Physical Sciences and Engineering, and Life Sciences. We examine how RLMs are developed, evaluated, and applied across disciplines. Furthermore, we introduce a maturity-oriented assessment framework based on available domain-specific development and evaluation resources, revealing substantial disparities in RLM maturity that become even more pronounced when only publicly available resources are considered. Finally, we highlight current implementation paradigms that are gaining popularity across disciplines, current challenges, and future directions in enabling RLM adoption across science.

Modern Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) models, especially large language models (LLMs), are increasingly used to generate scientific hypotheses and mechanistic explanations from observational data. This position paper argues that in the high-dimensional proxy regimes where modern ML excels, mechanistic learning is generically underdetermined: many incompatible mechanisms induce essentially the same observational relationships on the support of the data, so predictive success and coherent explanations are insufficient evidence of mechanism discovery. This underdetermination becomes uniquely hazardous with large language models (LLMs), which tend to collapse large equivalence classes of explanations into a single fluent narrative. This paper proposes concrete standards for ``mechanistic ML,'' and argues these norms are necessary if LLM-centered workflows are to support science rather than merely simulate it.

Large language models have rapidly evolved in multilingual competence and reasoning capacity, enabling their integration into Social Sciences and Humanities research workflows. Yet existing evaluation paradigms remain anchored in task-based NLP benchmarks and fail to address interpretive validity, cultural situatedness, and epistemic mediation. This paper reconceptualizes multilingual reasoning LLMs as hermeneutic instruments that actively structure meaning production across linguistic and cultural contexts. Drawing on hermeneutics, philosophy of technology, science and technology studies, multilingual NLP research, and computational social science methodology, we develop a theoretically grounded framework for evaluating multilingual reasoning in Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) research. We articulate a rigorous experimental protocol with operationalized metrics for cultural alignment, cross-lingual stability, and reasoning faithfulness, along with transparency requirements tailored to interpretive research tasks. We illustrate the framework through a concrete application scenario involving multilingual political discourse analysis. The paper contributes a conceptual and methodological foundation for responsible integration of multilingual reasoning LLMs into computational social science infrastructures.

Scientific research has traditionally been human-intensive, requiring researchers to coordinate literature, ideas, experiments, manuscripts, and review responses across long project cycles. The rise of LLM-based scientific agents creates an opportunity to automate this process. Such a system must support the full research lifecycle, maintain structured persistent memory across projects, and improve its own research procedures over time. However, existing systems either partially satisfy or fail to satisfy these requirements, leaving a gap for a unified automated scientific research system. As a result, we present AutoSci, a memory-centric agentic system for the full scientific research lifecycle. AutoSci is organized around four modules. SciMem provides schema-governed research memory, separating Long-Term Knowledge Memory for reusable scientific knowledge from Active Research Memory for project-level artifacts such as ideas, experiments, manuscripts, and reviews. SciFlow executes a five-stage lifecycle from literature understanding to rebuttal through a harness that controls state, context, verification, feedback, and orchestration. SciDAG augments difficult skills with DAG-shaped multi-agent operators and reusable stage-specific templates. SciEvolve converts feedback signals from users, experiments, reviews, and external environments into versioned updates to SciMem organization, SciFlow skills, and SciDAG templates. Together, these modules make AutoSci a persistent research environment that can execute, remember, and evolve across research projects. The code repository is available at https://github.com/skyllwt/AutoSci.

Science news is an important medium to communicate discoveries between the research communities and the public. Yet, most metrics for generated or summarized text evaluate semantic similarity and factual consistency, but do not measure how much knowledge readers learn from the news. We introduce KnowledgeGain, a metric that evaluates the quality of science news by measuring how much knowledge readers gained after reading it. To evaluate the metric, we first performed a controlled human study and showed that the metric successfully captures the differential knowledge gained by human readers reading different types of science media. The data allowed us to calibrate a prompt-only LLM reader simulator. We use it to rank and filter candidate articles before human evaluation. A second human study shows that articles selected with this simulator improve post-reading accuracy and normalized KnowledgeGain over a strong generation baseline. Our work is a step toward generating science news that better meets the knowledge and comprehension goals of Bloom's Taxonomy.

Knowledge graphs over corpora of inter-referencing documents - scholarly papers, legal opinions, policy briefs - encode the topology of reference but not its stance. The standard representation collapses a rich evaluative relation into an untyped edge, losing the very content that supports community-level queries about how one document is received by another. We propose the claim network: a representational pattern in which each cross-document reference is reified as a typed claim, carrying source, target, claim text, and a four-class stance label grounded in the citation-intent literature. We give a construction pipeline applicable to any corpus of scholarly inter-referencing documents and instantiate it on a corpus of 127 papers in 3D point cloud semantic segmentation, producing a network of 8,260 typed claims. Three downstream task families demonstrate what the network enables: retrieval signal augmentation, aggregated-stance summarisation, and topological analytics. Head-to-head evaluation against standard Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) baselines shows that the gain over flat retrieval is the gain from the right intermediate representation rather than the wrong one.

LLM-based research agents have advanced rapidly in science and engineering, where research is organized around executable experiments, code, and quantitative signals. Humanities scholarship, however, requires interpretive, evidence-grounded arguments over primary sources, whose value rests on faithful quotation, verifiable provenance, and deep interpretation. Existing research agents use general planning, tool use, and reflection, leaving these scholarly operations implicit. To address this gap, we introduce SPIRE (Scholarly-Primitives-Inspired Research Engine), a multi-agent framework that realizes Scholarly Primitives, a typology of basic humanities scholarship practices, as cooperating roles over a multi-scale close-reading substrate of passages, intra-context graph communities, and cross-context semantic clusters. On a benchmark of peer-reviewed papers in classical Chinese and Greco-Roman Latin scholarship, SPIRE recovers substantially more cited primary-source evidence and receives higher blind human and LLM ratings on four scholarly quality dimensions than LLM, RAG, and generic agentic baselines. Retrieval-tier and agent ablations, with retrieval-volume and answer-length controls, trace its advantage to targeted retrieval, structured evidence selection, and claim-evidence binding. Code and benchmark data are released at https://github.com/YatingPan/SPIRE.

Constructing production-quality machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs) requires balancing accuracy, dynamical stability, and computational throughput under constraints that are not captured by a single training loss. We introduce MLIPilot, an auto-research framework in which tool-calling large language models propose hypotheses, edit MLIP training code, launch HPC jobs, and accept or revert changes using a fixed, physically constrained scorecard. We evaluate MLIPilot on MACE potential optimization using both commercial and open-weight LLM agents, including GPT-5.5, GPT-4.1, Mistral-24B, and Qwen3-32B. The benchmarks span molecular and periodic settings: a QM7-derived dataset for which we generated B3LYP/6-31G(d) energies and forces, and a Cu EMT dataset with periodic copper supercells labeled by ASE's Effective Medium Theory calculator. Across these benchmarks, the strongest agents move initially constraint-violating baselines to accepted models by discovering useful training strategies, including output normalization, loss-function changes, progressive training schedules, and model-capacity adjustments. These results suggest that LLM agents can serve as autonomous operators for scientific machine-learning workflows when their search is constrained by domain-specific validation criteria, shifting part of MLIP development from manual trial-and-error toward auditable, automated experimentation.

Scientific figures are among the most effective means of communicating complex research ideas, yet producing publication-quality illustrations remains one of the most labor-intensive parts of paper preparation. Existing automated systems each target a single figure type under text-only input, leaving the diversity of types and conditions researchers actually use unaddressed; their raster outputs further cannot be locally revised. Because scientific figures are structured compositions of discrete semantic components, the localized errors generators produce on such layouts demand not a stronger backbone but a harness. We instantiate this harness in two complementary systems: Crafter, a multi-agent harness for figure generation that generalizes across figure types and input conditions without architectural changes, and CraftEditor, which applies the same pattern to convert raster outputs into editable SVGs. Moreover, we introduce CraftBench, a benchmark spanning three figure types and four input conditions with human quality annotation. Experiments show that Crafter substantially outperforms both standalone generators and the agentic baseline on PaperBanana-Bench and CraftBench, with ablations confirming each component's independent contribution; CraftEditor faithfully converts outputs into editable SVGs that surpass all baselines. Our code and benchmark are available at https://github.com/HaozheZhao/Crafter.

Are AI agents tools, co-authors, or researchers? We present a quantified case study ($N=1$): a physicist supervising an AI coding agent (Claude Code, Sonnet and Opus models) over 12 work days and 57 sessions to build CLAX-PT, a differentiable one-loop perturbation theory module in JAX. We documented and classified 15 supervision events by intervention level. The agent resolved ten autonomously by iterating against oracle tests. Two more by the physicist's domain knowledge. The three it could not -- all evaded oracle detection -- share a common property: the agent treated symptom reduction as root-cause resolution. It spent 33 of the 57 sessions adjusting coefficients within a code architecture that could not represent the target physics, and could not re-evaluate its CLASS-PT branch choice even when prompted to reconsider; only an injected physics concept (anisotropic BAO damping) triggered the redesign. Separately, the agent committed a calibrated correction that passed all oracle tests but corresponded to no quantity in the theory, predicting wrong values at any other cosmology. The fudge factor was caught and replaced within the same session. Three supervision practices proved critical for catching what oracle tests missed: testing at diverse parameter points beyond the fiducial calibration; shared changelogs that surfaced stalled exploration across sessions; and an explicit rule against unphysical numerical patches. In this case, supervision design, not model capability, determined whether the agent's output was trustworthy. Closing the gap would require agents that propose architectural alternatives rather than optimize within a given structure, and distinguish predictive adequacy from explanatory correctness -- capabilities not exhibited here, not obviously addressed by scaling alone. [Abridged.]

A plausible future mathematical claim must satisfy two constraints: it should follow the direction of prior work and respect the formal dependencies that constrain what can validly follow. Existing approaches typically model only one of these sources, producing claims that are either weakly grounded or insufficiently motivated. We introduce grounded future mathematical generation, where the goal is to generate a plausible future theorem-like claim for an anchor paper using two complementary sources of context: its scientific citation graph and aligned formal theorem dependency graph. To address this setting, we propose COMPOSE, a dual-graph framework that conditions a language model on both scientific citation context and formal theorem structure. To support this setting, we construct a dataset of 108K paired scientific-formal graph examples from arXiv and Mathlib, together with a benchmark of 47K future papers from 2024--2025. Experiments show that COMPOSE outperforms strong baselines on retrieval to real future papers and achieves the best overall performance under LLM-judge evaluation, producing more grounded and mathematically richer outputs. These results show that future mathematical generation benefits from combining scientific context with formal structure. Project page is available at https://david-busbib.github.io/COMPOSE-page/.

Autonomous AI research agents aim to accelerate scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline, from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck: whether Large Language Models can judge the methodological viability of a research idea before expending time and computational resources. We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions, labeled with reviewer soundness sub-scores, and audited against source papers. SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes. Across 12 frontier LLMs, we find a pervasive optimism bias: under standard prompting, models frequently rate low-soundness proposals as sound, while aggressive prompting largely shifts errors from false positives to false negatives. Additional controls for public-corpus contamination, paper-identifying phrases, surface features, and human audit quality suggest that this behavior is not explained by a single confounder. Our results indicate that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone first-gate evaluators for scientific rigor.

Self-improvement at scale has been a longstanding goal for reasoning models, and there are two natural places to do it: at test time, through verification-refinement (V-R) loops; and at training time, through self-training methods. Both are gated by the same bottleneck: the verifier. V-R loops stall when verifier scores inflate while accuracy stagnates, and when feedback is too generic to act on; self-training fails similarly when bad self-generated data are added to training. Better verification would unlock both, but the capability we want to train, i.e., catching self-generated errors, lacks training signal. To address this challenge, we propose self-trained verification (STV). Our key observation is that, while a model cannot catch these errors alone, it can when shown the reference solution. We turn this asymmetry into a supervision target and train the verifier to imitate a more informed version of itself. At test time, STV substantially improves V-R loops on hard problems, while alternatives (e.g., SFT, RL on verifier scores, and even meta-verifiers) do not. STV roughly doubles accuracy on hard math and lifts it 14x on scientific reasoning tasks (1.5% to 21%). At training time, we additionally train the generator using RL with STV verifier's feedback inside the V-R loop - a procedure we call verifier-in-the-loop training (ViL). Starting from an RL-converged generator, ViL yields a further 33% gain in pass@1. More notably, the generator's standalone pass@1, with no verifier at test time, climbs 30% relative past where standard RL had converged. Hence, the next frontier in reasoning on hard problems may lie in how we train for and with verification. Website: https://ar-forum.github.io/stv-webpage

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify. We present ResearchClawBench, a benchmark for evaluating autonomous scientific research across 40 tasks from 10 scientific domains. Each task is grounded in a real published paper, provides related literature and raw data, and hides the target paper during evaluation. Expert-curated multimodal rubrics decompose the target scientific artifacts into weighted criteria, enabling evaluation of target-paper-level re-discovery while leaving room for new discovery. We evaluate seven autonomous research (auto-research) agents under a unified protocol and seventeen native LLMs through the lightweight ResearchHarness. Current systems remain far from reliable re-discovery: the strongest autonomous agent, Claude Code, averages 21.5, and the strongest ResearchHarness LLM, Claude-Opus-4.7, averages 20.7, with an LLM frontier mean of only 26.5. Error analysis shows that failures concentrate in experimental protocol mismatch, evidence mismatch, and missing scientific core. ResearchClawBench provides a reproducible evaluation frontier for measuring progress toward autonomous scientific research.

We study two-level autoresearch for cooperation: an outer-loop AI agent autonomously redesigns the inner-loop pipeline of an LLM policy-synthesis system for multi-agent Sequential Social Dilemmas (SSDs). A researcher agent $\mathcal{R}$ (run as a coding agent) reads the inner-loop source code, edits system prompts, feedback functions, helper libraries, and iteration logic, runs evaluations, and decides what to keep, following the autoresearch paradigm. Across two games (Cleanup and Gathering), two policy-synthesizer LLMs, and two welfare objectives (utilitarian efficiency and Rawlsian maximin), the researcher reliably exceeds hand-designed baselines, sharply tightens run-to-run variance, and outperforms prompt-only optimization. The discovered pipelines are objective-dependent: only under maximin does the researcher inject an explicit fairness mechanism into synthesizer pipelines, a class of mechanism that is absent from its own objective-agnostic system prompt and from every efficiency-optimized pipeline. This supports an information-design reading in which the researcher chooses what to reveal to the boundedly rational synthesizer as a function of the welfare objective. Code at https://github.com/vicgalle/autoresearch-social-dilemmas.

Marine lead (Pb) and its isotopes are critical tracers for ocean circulation and anthropogenic pollution, yet in-situ observations remain costly and sparse. While vast historical records exist, they lie buried within the unstructured content of academic papers, creating "data silos" inaccessible to comprehensive analysis. Manual extraction is unscalable, while general-purpose Large Language Models (LLMs) lack the necessary domain-specific knowledge, leading to hallucinations and scientifically invalid outputs. To address this, we introduce an expert-guided adaptation approach that enables LLMs to perform rigorous scientific data extraction without fine-tuning. We operationalize this approach through Compass, an LLM agent framework enhanced by a Knowledge Tree co-designed with marine scientists, which decomposes complex tasks into verifiable steps, guiding the agent's reasoning to ensure scientific validity. Deploying Compass across a corpus of over 230,000 relevant open-access papers, we successfully extract 3,751 previously unincorporated Pb records. This effort establishes the largest integrated marine Pb database to date. Beyond standard metrics, Compass demonstrates superior reliability through multi-layered validation, achieving 92% accuracy as confirmed through expert manual verification. The newly integrated data expand coverage in previously under-sampled regions such as the East China Sea and the Southern Ocean, providing an enriched data foundation for future scientific discoveries. We release an interactive visualization platform to facilitate open scientific access. Our work demonstrates that expert-guided agents can effectively bridge the gap between general-purpose LLMs and high-stakes scientific domains, enabling scalable data discovery in geosciences.

As multimodal language models play an increasingly important role in scientific research, materials science offers a critical testbed due to its interdisciplinary, multimodal, and application-driven nature. However, existing materials benchmarks mainly focus on property prediction, knowledge QA, or characterization understanding, leaving the broader reasoning process from materials knowledge to application underexplored. To fill this gap, we present OmniMatBench, a human-calibrated multimodal reasoning benchmark for materials science. OmniMatBench contains 3,171 expert-curated QA and calculation problems across 19 materials-science subfields, spanning fundamental materials knowledge, structural and engineering materials, materials processing and manufacturing, and functional and applied materials. We evaluate 13 open-source and closed-source MLLMs and find that the best model achieves only a 0.372 overall score, revealing a substantial gap in current materials-science reasoning. Further analysis shows strong variation across subfields, fixed reasoning heuristics, uneven materials knowledge, and limited high-level knowledge application under formula-, retrieval-, and code-assisted settings. OmniMatBench provides crucial insights into the capabilities and limitations of current MLLMs and establishes a foundation for reliable AI assistants in materials-science research.

The dominance of colonial languages in African education and scientific communication limits how hundreds of millions of speakers of African languages access and produce scientific knowledge. A core obstacle is the lack of established scientific terminology in these languages. We introduce AfriScience-MT, a parallel corpus covering six African languages (Amharic, Hausa, Luganda, Northern Sotho, Yorùbá, and isiZulu) across 11 scientific domains. Professional translators, working with expert science communicators, translated plain-language summaries of scientific papers into each target language and created new terms where none existed. We benchmark machine translation systems and large language models in zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuned settings. Our results show that closed-source models outperform all open-source models at both the sentence and document levels: GPT-5.4 and Gemini-3.1-Flash-Lite lead with average sentence-level COMET scores of 68.3 and 68.0, respectively, and tie at an average document-level COMET of 48.3. Among open systems, fine-tuned NLLB-1.3B reaches 67.3 at the sentence level, and TranslateGemma-12B reaches 44.0 at the document level with 1-shot in-context learning. We release AfriScience-MT to support benchmarking and document-level scientific MT for African languages.

As scientific literature grows rapidly, automated survey generation has become a key capability for AI scientists and human researchers. However, existing systems suffer from limited analytical depth due to reliance on abstracts and isolated paper processing, and unreliable citations from imprecise retrieval and post-hoc grounding, producing superficial surveys and may mislead researchers. We present DeepSurvey, an agentic system that addresses both. To enhance depth, DeepSurvey extracts structured keynotes from full-text papers, models cross-paper relationships through clustering and comparative analysis, and integrates code-repository analysis to recover implementation-level details. To fortify reliability, it combines citation-graph expansion with hybrid filtering for topic-focussed retrieval, enforces evidence-constrained citation assignment, and deploys multi-granularity agentic refinement to validate citation-claim alignment. Experiments show that DeepSurvey achieves the highest content score (8.644/10) and citation quality (12.3% and 9.3% recall and precision gains over the strongest baseline), generalizes more robustly across domains (0.14 vs 0.22 to 0.69 CS-to-non-CS drop), and is preferred over human-written surveys by domain experts (83.3% overall quality, 100% content depth).

Large language models (LLMs) show remarkable potential in scientific hypothesis discovery. However, existing approaches face two critical limitations: they treat divergent exploratory search and convergent fine-grained refinement as isolated tasks, and they operate autonomously with little to no human guidance. We present MOOSE-Copilot, the first unified framework to bridge this abstraction gap through a formalized human-AI interaction (HAII) protocol. Our system empowers scientists to steer the generative process via three explicit signals: initial blueprints, inter-stage routing, and intra-stage feedback. Using an oracle-simulated evaluation in which an LLM provides idealized expert signals, we show that injecting these structured signals significantly outperforms purely autonomous baselines, characterizing the gains achievable under high-quality guidance. Furthermore, we build a web-based interface that turns the framework into a no-code workflow: researchers pose a question, watch the hypothesis search unfold as an interactive tree, and steer it by selecting hypotheses, routing between stages, and injecting feedback-no command-line agents required. This makes end-to-end hypothesis discovery directly accessible to interdisciplinary researchers.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to support scientific work, but it is unclear whether they uphold responsible conduct of research (RCR) norms or help undermine them. We introduce SciIntBench, an adversarial benchmark of 810 prompts across ten RCR categories and three scientific domains. Each scenario appears as an Overt Adversarial, Covert Adversarial, and Benign version, allowing us to jointly measure framing-sensitive refusal of misconduct and helpfulness on legitimate requests. We evaluate 16 commercial and open-weight LLMs from six providers (2024--2026), producing 12,960 responses. We find that scientific integrity alignment is strongly framing-sensitive: models refuse explicit misconduct far more reliably than covert violations, especially failing when misconduct is presented as a pressure-driven shortcut. Refusals vary by RCR category, with weaker boundaries around transparency, plagiarism, and fabrication.

When workers lose jobs to AI-driven restructuring, two very different conversations happen on X (formerly Twitter) at the same time. Tech executives and AI researchers talk about productivity, transformation, and opportunity. Laid-off workers and labour critics talk about job loss, uncertainty, and fear. This paper asks a simple question: which conversation gets more reach? We report three studies using two collection methods and 763 tweets from 20 named public accounts. Study 1 used keyword-based collection (n=392) and found no significant difference between corpora (p=0.891), revealing that keyword search is too noisy for this task. Study 2 used account-based collection (n=96) and found a 3.12x mean amplification advantage for capital discourse over labour discourse (p=0.000003, Cohen's d=0.555). Study 3 combined both methods (n=763) and confirmed the finding at 4.18x mean and 10.77x median amplification ratio (p<0.000001). Critically, after normalising for follower count, the asymmetry persists at 2.69x (p=0.000009, Cohen's d=0.491), demonstrating that the effect is not simply a consequence of capital accounts having larger audiences. The finding is robust across all tested amplification metric weightings. We introduce the Amplification Ratio and Amplification Normalisation Index as simple metrics for measuring platform-level discourse inequality. A cross-platform replication on Reddit (n=647 posts) did not replicate the finding, suggesting the asymmetry may be specific to X's account-based amplification architecture. We discuss the methodological implications for cross-platform discourse analysis.

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer a promising avenue for scientific discovery, yet their application to symbolic regression is often constrained by inefficient search strategies and coarse feedback signals. Current methods typically guide LLMs using scalar metrics (e.g., global Mean Squared Error), which fail to identify which components of a proposed equation are driving performance or causing error. We introduce \textit{Influence-Guided Symbolic Regression} (IGSR), a method that frames equation discovery as an iterative two-step process combining diverse term generation with rigorous selection: an LLM generates candidate basis functions $ψ_j(\mathbf{x})$ for a linear model, which are then evaluated using granular influence scores $Δ_j$. These scores quantify each term's marginal contribution to generalization accuracy, enabling an influence-guided pruning process that systematically refines the model structure. Integrating this mechanism into a Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) enables navigating the combinatorial search space while balancing exploration of novel functional forms with exploitation of high-influence components. We demonstrate IGSR's effectiveness on a diverse suite of benchmarks, including LLM-SRBench, pharmacological PKPD models, an epidemiological simulation, and real-world genomic data. Notably, we validate the framework's capacity for genuine discovery in a case study using a high-dimensional biological dataset, in which IGSR identified a novel relationship between DNA methylation and RNA Polymerase II pausing; a hypothesis that was subsequently supported via wet-lab experimentation.

We report a comparison of two state-of-the-art agentic AI systems, Claude Code (Anthropic) and Codex (OpenAI), tasked with autonomously executing a simple end-to-end gravitational wave data analysis pipeline on a shared computing infrastructure without human intervention. The pipeline comprises power spectral density estimation from raw Einstein Telescope simulated noise, geometric template bank generation, matched filter recovery of 100 binary black hole signal injections, automated results generation, and large language model-assisted production of a manuscript formatted in the style of Physical Review D. Both agents received identical written specifications and identical compute resources. The experiment was run twice: a first run with unrealistically loud injections, and a second run with signals rescaled to a physically motivated SNR range. The scientific results converged in both runs. However, the agents exhibited substantially different behaviors and computational costs: Claude Code completed the pipeline in ~3.4 minutes with silent deviations from the specification, while Codex required ~16 minutes across explicit self-correcting restarts, including an unsolicited performance optimization of the matched filter inner loop. The autonomously generated manuscripts also diverged in length, details, and quality. In the second run, a subtle difference in the interpretation of the SNR range instruction led to a genuine scientific divergence: Claude Code silently reinterpreted the instructions, while Codex followed the specification literally. We discuss the implications of these behavioral differences, such as speed versus auditability, silent versus transparent error handling, instruction interpretation, and the criticality of intermediate data representations in multi-model pipelines, for the deployment of agentic AI in scientific computing workflows.

Scientific research proceeds through iterative cycles of hypothesis generation, experiment design, execution, and revision. AI agents can automate parts of this process, but existing approaches typically follow a single research trajectory or coordinate through a central planner with fixed objectives. As a result, they struggle to sustain parallel exploration, adapt as experimental evidence changes, or preserve knowledge of failed directions over long-running experiments. We introduce AutoScientists, a decentralized team of AI agents for long-running computational scientific experimentation. Agents interpret a shared experimental state, self-organize into teams around promising hypotheses, critique proposals before using experimental compute, and share successes and failures to reduce redundant exploration. Under matched experimental budgets, AutoScientists improves over prior AI agents across biomedical machine learning, language-model training optimization, and protein fitness prediction. On BioML-Bench, spanning biomedical imaging, protein engineering, single-cell omics, and drug discovery, AutoScientists achieves a mean leaderboard percentile of 74.4% across 24 tasks, improving over the strongest AI agent by +8.33%. On GPT training optimization, AutoScientists reaches a target validation bits-per-byte 1.9x faster than Autoresearch and continues discovering improvements from a starting champion where the single-agent approach finds none (7 vs. 0 accepted improvements). On ProteinGym fitness prediction, AutoScientists discovers a method for ACE2-Spike binding that improves over the current state-of-the-art model by +12.5% in Spearman correlation. Applied without modification across all 217 ProteinGym assays, the same method improves over the prior state of the art by +6.5% (Spearman correlation).

AI-assisted research compresses ideation, implementation, evaluation, and manuscript writing into a single interactive loop. This compression is useful, but it also creates a publication risk: paper claims can become easier to state than to audit. We present ResearchLoop, an evidence-gated control plane for AI-assisted computational research. ResearchLoop treats research questions, task contracts, evidence objects, claim ledgers, closeouts, and paper bindings as durable project state, realized here as a repository-backed runtime. This technical report provides the complete protocol specification, state model, transition rules, claim-admission algorithm, and insight-compounding mechanism. It also reports the full experimental record spanning nine versions (V0--V9), including a self-hosting case study, a controlled task-suite study with component ablations, a mathematical olympiad evaluation, and a supplementary SciCode boundary experiment evaluated with the official generated-code harness. All artifacts, manifests, and verification reports are preserved in the project repository.

AI research agents now support large-scale AI-assisted scientific discovery. We examine whether AI-generated ideas broaden scientific exploration or primarily reinforce existing work. Using five agent frameworks and five large language models, we generate 219,655 ideas for different scientific fields. Across experiments, four consistent patterns emerge. First, AI-generated ideas are more concentrated than human-authored papers within the same research area. Second, they remain much closer to starting literature than later human follow-on work does. Third, AI-generated ideas align less with future human research. Last, AI-generated ideas are located in lower-impact regions of the historical scientific landscape. Overall, current AI research agents appear better suited to local elaboration than to broadening scientific exploration.

AI models underpin data-centric applications from image and text processing to scientific discovery in biology, physics, and chemistry. Yet developing them remains heavily manual, requiring practitioners to design architectures, build training pipelines, and iteratively refine solutions, making it challenging for natural scientists without specialized AI engineering expertise to build the high-performing models their research demands. To reduce this burden and broaden access to AI for scientific discovery, agents that automatically build AI models have been proposed. However, the performance of these agents is largely limited by the parametric knowledge of their underlying large language models, which is static, often outdated, and sparse on practical AI model engineering know-how. To address this limitation, we introduce AIBuildAI-2, a knowledge-enhanced agent with an external, evolving knowledge system for automatically building AI models. The knowledge system of AIBuildAI-2 is hierarchical, organizing curated AI development knowledge into high-level knowledge instructions over topical categories and low-level knowledge documents under each category, from which the agent dynamically loads only the context relevant to its current state and the AI task being solved, grounding each design and implementation decision in concrete, externally verifiable expertise. The system is initialized by collecting and cleaning AI-development-related documents from the web and organizing them into the corresponding categories, and continually evolves from the agent's own experience by distilling each completed run on an AI task into structured takeaways that are written back into the knowledge system. AIBuildAI-2 achieves state-of-the-art results, ranking first on MLE-Bench with a 70.7% medal rate and placing in the top 6.6% among 4,370 human-expert teams in a heart disease prediction competition.

We present MolLingo, a multi-agent system that emulates the reasoning process of a chemist to automate molecular design. Existing LLM-based approaches either operate as standalone generative models without access to external tools or lack the multi-agent coordination and shared memory needed for iterative, evidence-driven reasoning across the molecular design pipeline. MolLingo addresses this by coordinating a Literature Agent, a Chemist Agent, and an Orchestrator through a shared memory module, with each agent equipped with domain-specific tools. To enable effective molecular reasoning, we introduce BRICS-based Fragment Enumeration (BFE), a synthesis-aware molecular fragmentation method that decomposes molecules into chemically meaningful building blocks represented as block-based SMILES paired with common chemical names. This representation bridges molecular structure and LLM semantic space, enabling block-level reasoning and editing that is difficult with raw SMILES alone. As a case study in early-stage therapeutic design, MolLingo further grounds the Chemist Agent's reasoning in binding site geometry and residue-level protein context derived from molecular docking to optimize molecules for stronger target binding. Across four benchmarks, MolLingo consistently outperforms frontier LLMs and specialized baselines, including a fourfold docking score improvement over GPT-5.4 despite using the same underlying model, consistent drug property optimization gains across multiple LLM backbones, and state-of-the-art results on TOMG-Bench, surpassing both frontier LLMs and the RL-based optimization method RePO. Our results suggest that LLMs are already capable molecular design assistants when guided through chemically meaningful representations and biologically grounded structural context. Code is available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/status/MolLingo-7450.

The 2024-2025 Nobel and Turing awards recognised AI and quantum science simultaneously. Yet no deployed system has brought these streams together for the public. This paper presents QSignAI, a production-deployed platform demonstrating a bidirectional AI-quantum relationship in a real-time event participation system. We address three questions: can quantum-randomness generation via a two-source extractor be embedded in an AI-driven social platform with acceptable latency; can an AI bot make quantum phenomena perceptually legible to general audiences; and does the combined system work in practice? A conversational bot routes each participant's first message through a quantum pipeline comprising a Toeplitz two-source extractor over independent single-qubit Hadamard measurements on SV1 and DM1 simulators, plus a 2-qubit Bell state, producing a unique quantum-randomness-seeded identity signature per participant. The first two questions are answered through system architecture and qualitative deployment evidence from live events; the third through successful production deployment. The current deployment uses cloud quantum simulators; physical QPU randomness is the near-term extension. Measurable benchmarks are identified as priority future work.

Misalignment between claims and their cited evidence is a common failure mode in reports generated by large language models, limiting their reliability in scientific and other high-stakes settings. We present DeepSciVerify, a two-stage pipeline for scientific claim-citation verification that combines abstract-level reasoning with selective escalation to passage-level evidence. The system first verifies claims using the abstract and defers uncertain cases, retrieving and analyzing full-text passages only when necessary. This design leverages complementary behaviors across LLMs, as some models are more conservative while others are more decisive under uncertainty. On the SCitance benchmark, DeepSciVerify achieves 86.7 Micro-F1, outperforming strong abstract-only baselines by +4.5 points while resolving 67% of instances without full-text retrieval. These results suggest that selective evidence escalation improves both accuracy and efficiency in claim-citation verification.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate scientific reports, but they can produce references that appear plausible while containing corrupted metadata or pointing to papers that do not exist. We introduce CiteCheck, a hybrid framework for citation hallucination detection that verifies whether a citation corresponds to a real scholarly work and whether its metadata is faithful to that work. CiteCheck retrieves candidate publications from external scholarly sources, compares the citation against the retrieved candidate using a structured LLM verifier, and maps verifier scores into three labels: Exact, Minor, and Major. We also construct a 982-citation physics benchmark with controlled corruptions that capture both subtle metadata drift and fully fabricated references. On the held-out test set, CiteCheck achieves 88.7 macro-F1 and 88.9% accuracy, outperforming GPT, Claude, and Gemini baselines, including web-search and few-shot variants. These results show that reliable citation verification benefits from combining scholarly retrieval, structured LLM-based comparison, and calibrated decision rules.

The rapid growth of scientific publishing has made it increasingly difficult to track how fast-moving areas evolve. Search engines and LLM-based assistants retrieve or summarize papers, but often hide how the corpus was selected, organized, or connected to temporal patterns. We present $\texttt{Eliot}$, a publicly deployed interactive system for traceable exploration of evolving scientific literature. Motivated by two studies on Large Language Models (LLMs) and Automated Planning and Scheduling (APS), $\texttt{Eliot}$ generalizes literature-evolution analysis beyond hand-built taxonomies and domain-specific scripts. Given explicit query terms and filters, it retrieves arXiv papers at query time, represents each paper by title and abstract, clusters the corpus into themes, assigns representative keywords, and visualizes each cluster's publication-year distribution. We evaluate $\texttt{Eliot}$ as both an applied system and an interactive research aid. An offline configuration study across eight arXiv domains compares document representations, dimensionality reduction methods, and clustering algorithms using intrinsic clustering and topic-coherence metrics; the results support MiniLM embeddings with 10-dimensional UMAP and Agglomerative Clustering as a practical default. A scenario-based survey and expert focus group assess interpretability and use contexts: participants rated cluster labels as meaningful in 85% of scenario responses, and feedback indicated that $\texttt{Eliot}$ is most valuable for auditable overviews of rapidly changing technical areas. These results suggest that query-time clustering and temporal inspection can complement search and generation tools by helping researchers inspect and refine the evidence behind literature trends.

We present CARTOGRAPH, a verification layer for AI scientists that couples unresolved-subspace experiment steering (select), explicit ambiguity closure (resolve), and residual-based library inadequacy detection (refuse). Under a local linear-Gaussian bridge, raw unresolved projection is the isotropic unresolved Fisher-information trace, while CARTOGRAPH-A is the exact unresolved A-optimal rule; closed-form EIG and Box-Hill arise as local comparators rather than global equivalents. Across five testbeds, CARTOGRAPH-A beats raw projection 129W/0T/15L at d = 8 (p < 10^-21) in a replicated structured cascade. More distinctively, the framework tentatively identifies three out-of-library pharmacokinetic mechanisms and then revokes those identifications as residuals expose structural misfit, while one perturbed in-library control stays identified throughout. In low-dimensional pharmacokinetic and filtered EPA settings, near-ties against disagreement are predicted by theory and observed. Finally, in a retrospective audit of 40 positive claims from the published A-Lab autonomous materials system, the refuse guard flags all 4 claims later marked inconclusive under manual reanalysis while passing 32/36 confirmed claims. Code is available at https://github.com/ai4science-boed/cartograph.git

Astrophysical observations from Earth are subject to weather, environmental, and scientific constraints that lead to sparse, irregular light curves. On the eve of the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time, its dataset offers unprecedented opportunities for transient science. Yet a key challenge remains its cadence, sparse and irregular across six bands, limiting inference. Interpolation helps mitigate this, with Gaussian Processes the standard, but they struggle with cross-band correlations, require a priori kernel specification, and must be fit to each light curve individually, hence scaling poorly. Here, we introduce the neural process family for light curve reconstruction, combining the probabilistic framework of Gaussian Processes with the scalability of deep learning. By meta-learning on diverse simulated transients, Attentive Neural Processes shift the bulk of computation to training, enabling rapid, amortized inference with a class-agnostic model. Evaluated on realistic Rubin cadences across 15 transient classes, we show that even an unoptimized, out-of-the-box Attentive Neural Process consistently outperforms all benchmarks -- a suite of Gaussian Processes and neural networks -- on every tested metric, spanning regression quality, astrophysical feature recovery, and probabilistic calibration. Our model interpolates all bands simultaneously in microseconds, over four orders of magnitude faster than the next-best neural benchmark and five faster than Gaussian Processes, demonstrating the potential of neural processes for the nightly Rubin alert stream. Attentive Neural Processes avoid the overconfidence of standard neural networks and the underconfidence of Gaussian Processes, delivering sharp, well-calibrated uncertainties. This work establishes the neural process family as a scalable, probabilistic foundation for real-time transient science in the Rubin era.

Competition law experts conducting legal research must review extensive volumes of cases, decisions, and judicial reports to identify precedents and assess key elements in competition and merger cases. Although general research assistants such as Claude and ChatGPT and legal assistants such as SaulLM-7B and LegalGPT are increasingly used to assist legal research, they remain inadequate for competition law analysis: they lack specialized domain expertise, provide insufficient official citations, or hallucinate competition law cases. We propose Maat, a ReAct agent that orchestrates tools corresponding to different tasks of the research process. Designed iteratively with competition law experts, Maat grounds cases and findings in official sources using RAG for reliability, provides rich in-line citations, falls back to web search when database coverage is insufficient, and prompts the user for clarification when queries are ambiguous. Maat significantly outperforms all baseline assistants on case-specific tasks and performs within range of the top baseline on theoretical question tasks. The dataset used is available on GitHub.

Knowledge graphs (KGs) can provide structured scientific context to language models, but it remains unclear which graph facts actually shape the generated hypotheses. We study KG-guided hypothesis generation for battery materials across Mistral-7B, Llama-3.1-70B, and Gemini 2.5 Flash. We perturb local KGs by varying density, ontology richness, topology, and control structure, and evaluate outputs with both provided-graph and fixed-reference metrics. Across models, KG utility is selective and model-dependent: graph context changes outputs, but no-KG outputs also recover substantial graph content from model priors. Compact top-k subgraphs often approximate full-KG behavior, including when claimed-outcome triples are held out. At the same time, compression is not unique to one semantic ranking rule, random and topology-based subsets can also recover much of the signal. These results support a redundancy-aware Compressive KG hypothesis: useful KG signal is often recoverable from compact, scientifically structured subgraphs rather than requiring the full local graph.

Background: Large language models are typically evaluated as models, benchmarks, or short conversational episodes. Less is known about what happens when an agent is embedded persistently in a real academic research environment with durable memory, local files, external tools, scheduled routines, delegated roles, and explicit safety protocols. Methods: A structured self-observed implementation case study was conducted from January 31 to May 25, 2026. The unit of analysis was the persistent human-agent environment: researcher, agent runtime, memory layer, tools, repositories, scheduled jobs, specialized agent roles, and governance rules. Outcomes were organized using PARE-M (Persistent Agentic Research Environment Measurement), a measurement framework covering architecture, utilization, artifact production, resource use, reproducibility, and governance. Results: Recoverable main-agent telemetry contained 75,671 de-duplicated records across 96 active days, with 8,059 user-role and 23,710 assistant-role messages. The workspace included 502 memory-related files, 17 configured agent directories, and 57 skill files. Active system time was 579.7 hours (30-minute capped-gap estimate). Memory-derived records identified 482 output-proxy events and 889 failure, verification, correction, or protocol-proxy events. A strict May 2026 trajectory subset captured 627 model-completed events and 73.95 million recorded tokens, of which 82.9% were cache reads. Conclusions: The workflow was cache-dominant, suggesting that persistent agentic environments may shift the economic unit from cost per token to cost per completed artifact. Future evaluations should use artifact-level denominators, reproducible parsing rules, correction taxonomies, and independent coding of governance events.

This paper examines how estimates of AI use in scientific writing can be biased when evaluation methods ignore contextual differences across countries and fields. Using large-scale data on journal publications from Dimensions, we construct AI-likeness benchmarks based on differences between human-written and LLM-rephrased abstracts. We show that a pooled benchmark may confound pre-existing stylistic variation with AI-generated text, producing substantial distortions across country-field groups even in pre-LLM publications. In contrast, country-field-specific benchmarks attenuate such distortions and provide a more credible baseline for comparison. Applying these methods to publications in 2025 reveals that the pooled benchmark systematically overestimates AI use in certain countries and fields while underestimating it in others. These findings highlight the importance of context-aware measurement for accurate and equitable evaluation of AI use in science.

Scientific knowledge is increasingly dispersed across vast and heterogeneous scientific literature, where important claims are often implicit, evolving, and internally debated. While large language models (LLMs) have shown impressive performance in information extraction and summarization, their ability to recover latent scientific consensus remains unclear. Here, we investigate this problem in the context of high-temperature superconductivity (HTS), a long-standing and highly debated topic in condensed matter physics, as a challenging testbed. Using near 18,000 highly-cited publications over the past seven decades, we construct a structured knowledge graph linking competing superconducting mechanisms, material families, evidential modalities, and citation relations. We find that LLM-extracted representations recover coherent and physically interpretable structures, including family-dependent mechanism profiles, evidence-specific correlations, and citation-mediated temporal evolution of scientific beliefs. Ablation studies on LLM further show that the global structure remains robust across prompting, decoding, and model variations. Our results suggest that LLMs can indeed serve as scalable tools for deciphering scientific knowledge in domains characterized by competing interpretations and evolving knowledge.

Scientific data annotation, such as tracking animals in video or proofreading neural reconstructions, remains bottlenecked by the "last mile" problem: even with strong automation, verification and correction consume substantial human effort. Standard approaches train models to directly predict annotations, discarding the rich supervision in how experts navigate, click, verify, and correct. We introduce a framework for studying behavioral cloning on scientific annotation: 9 synthetic tasks paired with synthetic annotations that simulate realistic human strategies including exploration, mistake correction, and strategic decision-making. Our experiments reveal several findings. First, skills emerge hierarchically: models learn GUI mechanics before task-critical decisions, and commit fewer mistakes than the training data while retaining the ability to correct errors when they occur. Second, scaling models on multi-task behavioral cloning shows that larger models are more data efficient within our scale range. Third, multi-task pretraining enables efficient fine-tuning to new tasks, while training from scratch fails entirely. Fourth, linear probes reveal that models internally represent latent variables of the annotation process such as task phase and data position; interestingly, we find a shared mistake representation that generalizes across different annotation tasks. Overall, our framework establishes systematic benchmarks and identifies key bottlenecks, providing a foundation for scaling behavioral cloning to real-world scientific data annotation.

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

The application of generalist multimodal models (GMMs) to specialized scientific domains remains limited due to the scarcity of comprehensive domain-specific datasets that integrate multiple data modalities beyond text and images. In seismology, understanding earthquake phenomena requires the synthesis of timeseries waveform data, geographical imagery, and contextual metadata, a multimodal integration absent in existing seismic datasets. We present MultiSeismo, a large scale structured multimodal seismic dataset, comprising over 16K seismic events spanning 13 years (2010 to 2023) across diverse geographical regions. Each event data integrates waveform recordings from global station networks, intensity maps, population exposure visualizations, and a comprehensive textual description within a standardized JSON format. We additionally develop MISCE, a multimodal instruction set on top of raw data to enable supervised training and evaluation of GMMs on seismic reasoning tasks ranging from basic information retrieval to complex cross modal analysis. We leverage MISCE to finetune an existing multimodal model (Unified IO 2) enhanced with a specialized timeseries encoder, which yields SeisModal, the first domain specific multimodal model for comprehensive seismic analysis. Evaluation of state of the art multimodal models on MultiSeismo reveals significant challenges, particularly with time-series data processing for general purpose models, while demonstrating SeisModal's superior performance on seismic multimodal reasoning tasks. These results prove that MultiSeismo provides a rigorous benchmark for future multimodal research in seismology and validate the success of our domain specific architectural adaptations.

This paper details two novel frameworks for developing autonomous, agentic AI in scientific workflows. Both systems leverage a hybrid Local Body, Remote Brain architecture via Google Colab, utilizing Python-based local orchestrators to invoke large language model (LLM) cloud backends. The first agent, DeepTS/DeepCollector, automates the large-scale curation, extraction, and deduplication of time-series datasets. The second, DeepScribe, is an autonomous presentation analyzer that converts visually dense, mathematically complex physics lectures into structured scientific reports. Through practical systems engineering-such as granular attribute extraction (Cellular RAG), remote data inspection, and distributed concurrency controls-we demonstrate how agentic AI can overcome the context and reasoning limitations of current state-of-the-art systems to rigorously support scientific workflows. Finally, we outline a generalization of DeepTS to support deep knowledge graphs and discuss the application of this conceptual approach to high-energy physics (DeepQCD).

Frontier LLMs now perform strongly across a wide range of physics evaluations, but it is hard to disentangle genuine reasoning from recall of established science. We introduce DiscoverPhysics, an interactive benchmark that asks a LLM agent to discover the laws of motion of a simulated world whose physics deliberately deviates from our own. We construct 22 worlds governed by, among others, screened and fractional-power gravity, multi-species couplings, hidden dark-matter-like particles, non-coordinate-free physics, and time-varying interactions. Each world is generated on demand by an N-body simulator, for which the agent proposes several rounds of experiments, observes raw trajectory data, and ultimately submits both a natural-language explanation of the world's physics and a Python implementation of the inferred law. Because solving a world requires the agent to design informative experiments and revise its hypotheses, the benchmark probes long-horizon reasoning over an experimental history. We evaluate submissions along two complementary axes: trajectory MSE on held-out particles and an LLM-judged explanation score following an expert-written rubric assessing conceptual understanding of each world. Across eleven frontier models, we find that the strongest agents pass only half of the worlds and consistently fail on those where latent structure must be uncovered. Open-source models lag substantially behind commercial models, both in their ability to design informative experiments and in extracting conclusions from the data. We further find that good predictive accuracy does not guarantee high explanation quality and that conceptual understanding depends on hypothesis refinement through well-chosen experiments.

This paper argues that workflow closure is not scientific closure in auto-research systems. Current systems can increasingly complete research-like loops internally, moving from idea generation to experiment execution, writing, and self-evaluation. That achievement is real, but it does not by itself give the resulting outputs scientific standing. We argue that trustworthy auto-research should not aim for autonomous self-sufficiency, but should aim for autonomous execution under non-autonomous epistemic control. Based on a survey of more than 100 recent papers and repositories in this rapidly emerging area, together with a structured audit of 21 representative systems, we diagnose a recurring and structurally connected failure pattern: objective collapse, in which single-proxy targets replace multi-objective scientific aims; validation collapse, in which internal self-evaluation replaces independent validation; and acceptance collapse, in which benchmark scores or publication-shaped artifacts replace mechanisms for domain-level critique, reuse, and integration. These collapses are not inherent limits of autonomy but correctable design choices. Accordingly, we outline potential remedies across objective signal, validation, and output pathway to spark community discussion.

AI Scientists have shown promising progress across multiple stages of the research pipeline, among which automatic scientific paper writing remains a formidable challenge. The Introduction writing is especially challenging, which demands not only linguistic fluency, but logical soundness and verifiable faithfulness. Most AI-assisted methods treat the task as text generation instead of reasoning and structuring, leading to severe drawbacks, e.g., hallucinating citations. To address this, we first formulate the Content-Conditional Introduction Generation (CCIG) task, which requires grounding the Introduction in the paper's core evidence. We then propose LECTOR, a novel Logic-Expression Co-Reinforcement Learning framework that can strictly follow the scientist's logic, add high-quality citations and keep structured expressions. LECTOR first constructs a logic-reasoning graph from the paper's main body to serve as a verifiable logical blueprint. Subsequently, it employs a Logic-Expression Co-Rewarding mechanism to jointly optimize for both the graph's structural fidelity and the final narrative's quality. We conduct a dataset from Nature Communications papers to assess our method. Extensive experiments show consistent improvements in both logic fidelity and Introduction generation quality metrics, e.g., Graph Quality (+26.7%), Citation Quality (+8.6%), and Paper Consistency (+3.3%). Code and data are available at https://github.com/Xiao-Youth/LECTOR.

In most existing AI humor research, humor was treated as either "present" or "not present." We explore the concept of humor as a social interaction with context and explanations. During this project, we defined a humor reasoning data object and developed a way to prompt LLMs to generate an explanation of humor effective for general population. We iterated from an earlier prompt to an improved prompt, found that the later version reduced important errors, and then scaled generation to a large number of data objects which have the potential to enable data synthesis and data augmentation for AI humor research. Our main takeaway is that better prompting of an LLM improves humor explanation quality, especially by handling missing context, multi-modality, and transcript issues more carefully. These results establish a strong foundation for future work on AI understanding of humor as social behavior. All code and data are available at: https://github.com/anna-arnett/ai-humor/ .

A small number of methodological contributions, including word2vec, the Transformer, large-scale pre-training, and reinforcement learning from human feedback, have reshaped NLP and AI research over the past decade. OpenReview now makes numeric reviewer scores and accept/reject decisions public for every ICLR submission. Whether such review signals identify trajectory-changing papers at submission time, however, remains untested at corpus scale. We answer this question on $36{,}113$ papers from ICLR 2017--2025, identifying \emph{catalysts}: papers whose descendants measurably redirect future research. We compare four disruptiveness measures (the Consolidation/Destabilization (CD) index, node2vec, the direction-aware Embedding Disruptiveness Measure (EDM), and an LLM-based semantic rater) and define a five-type operational catalyst taxonomy (topic initiator, topic bridge, within-topic redirector, simultaneous, and recognition-misaligned). EDM leads at identifying highly cited ICLR papers (AUC $0.83$ vs.\ $0.60$ for CD, $0.49$ for node2vec, and $0.42$ for the LLM rater). Topic initiators precede a $7.55{\times}$ topic-share growth and topic bridges precede an $11.52{\times}$ growth in cross-topic citation flow versus year-matched controls. We found that the peer review scores are essentially orthogonal to future disruptiveness ($|ρ|{\leq}0.005$; accepted and rejected papers have indistinguishable mean EDM, $p{=}0.11$).

Domain scientists increasingly develop Python scripts to analyze satellite imagery but they lack scalability to large-scale data. This paper demonstrates GRAIL, an agentic translation system that converts Python geospatial workflows into executable Spark-based programs without requiring scientists to learn a new framework. Rather than fine-tuning a specialized LLM model, GRAIL adapts RDPro, a Scala library for satellite data analysis, to make it LLM-ready using structured documentation, API alias functions, and repair-oriented error logs. Translation is structured as a LangGraph pipeline that decomposes code generation into explicit sections with guided inputs and outputs, enabling targeted repair without regenerating the full program. We demonstrate GRAIL on real-world geospatial workflows and showcase the correctness and scalability of the translated code.

While Vision Foundation Models (VFMs) excel at predictive tasks on satellite imagery, their performance can arise from visual correlations rather than underlying structural invariants, making even perception-based out-of-distribution accuracy a poor proxy for scientific utility. As a result, models may look correct without reasoning correctly, a discrepancy we term the Perception-Physics Paradox. To address this gap, we introduce scientific alignment as an implicit objective for representation learning in scientific domains. We study a principled, testable aspect of scientific alignment through structural isomorphism, which requires latent representations to uniquely identify physical systems up to a linear reparameterization. This perspective induces a hierarchy of necessary conditions and yields a systematic probing protocol for physical and causal interpretability. To operationalize this framework, we release TC-Bench, a global, reproducible benchmark dataset with an automated construction pipeline for tropical cyclone research, and show that current VFMs rely on visual shortcuts that collapse in intense regimes, indicating that scientific alignment does not arise as a natural byproduct of scaling alone.

AI for Science (AI4Science) workflows often treat the released dataset as a fixed interface to the underlying system. However, in domains relying on \emph{indirect observation}, the learner observes a derivative representation produced by multi-stage measurement, reconstruction, and preprocessing pipelines. \textbf{We argue that these measurement-to-dataset pipelines are inference components: treating their outputs as given data'' freezes an observation model and obscures uncertainty over feasible pipeline choices.} We identify three failure modes arising from this frozen lens'': \textbf{(C1) hidden hypothesis space}, where the released dataset does not specify the pipeline configuration or its validity conditions; \textbf{(C2) uncertified transportability}, where a pipeline may be documented but its regime of validity is untested, so failures under distribution shift cannot be adjudicated; \textbf{(C3) ungoverned multiplicity}, where many defensible pipelines exist and dispersion is real but not propagated into uncertainty-aware evidence. We stress-test these claims with a large-scale neuroscience empirical audit, finding a survival rate of $\approx 0.0004\%$ under a cross-dataset stability criterion. We call on the AI4Science community to make pipelines \emph{computable} inference objects via domain-specific Computable Observation Frameworks. This shift enables quantifying pipeline adequacy and stability, converting implicit implementation choices into auditable, reproducible, and cumulative scientific evidence.

Large language models (LLMs) can support scientific literature synthesis, but remain prone to hallucinated references, uneven coverage, and weakly grounded thematic organization. We evaluate whether bibliometric structure improves LLM-assisted synthesis by comparing six pipelines for generating cluster descriptions under different levels of evidence and structure. Using 100 published bibliometric analyses, we reconstruct Scopus corpora, extract human-written cluster descriptions, and assess outputs by human alignment, semantic coverage, clustering quality, graph quality, and reference grounding. Results show that LLMs produce descriptions semantically close to human-written ones, but are unreliable when asked to infer bibliometric structure from scratch. Performance improves when bibliometric algorithms define the clusters and the LLM interprets them. Overall, LLM-assisted bibliometric synthesis is most promising as a hybrid workflow in which algorithms provide auditable structure and LLMs generate readable descriptions.

Collaboration is the defining mode of modern science, yet its core mechanism -- feedback -- remains hard to observe, difficult to scale, and unequally distributed. Here we test whether large language models (LLMs) can contribute to this hidden but vital practice and reallocate scientific feedback, an essential yet scarce resource for knowledge production. In a global large-scale randomized field experiment, we delivered customized LLM-generated feedback for over 31,000 arXiv preprints across 150 fields and more than 45,000 researchers from 133 geographic regions. Relative to controls, authors who received feedback had a significantly higher likelihood of revising their manuscripts, corresponding to a 12.55% relative increase over the baseline revision rate. Exposure to AI feedback also increased authors' subsequent use of LLM tools in their future papers, suggesting longer-run shifts in scientific practice. These effects were strongest among authors from non-English-dominant research regions, manuscripts less embedded in the scholarly literature, and teams with lower h-indexes and earlier career stages, consistent with the idea that AI feedback may provide the greatest benefit where access to timely critique is otherwise limited. Together, these findings provide causal evidence that structured AI-based interventions can transform access to scientific feedback from a largely private advantage into a more widely distributed resource, with broader implications for productivity, equity, and capacity across the global research system.

This work examines an imbalance in artificial intelligence (AI) security research: the field tends to produce more work on attacking AI systems than on defending them. Drawing on related academic papers, we find biased attack-to-defense ratios across subfields, including federated learning, speech recognition, membership inference, large language models, etc. The imbalance possibly means far beyond a simple count: attack papers are routinely evaluated under favorable conditions that make threats look more severe than they are in practice, while defenses are held to a stricter standard that few can meet. The result is a literature rich in demonstrated vulnerabilities and thin on usable and deployed protections. We thus argue that AI security research should better incentivize defense research.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as economic agents in marketplaces, auctions, and bidding settings. Anticipating their behavior in any specific deployment is hard. Existing strategic-reasoning benchmarks evaluate models on fixed canonical games. These benchmarks may saturate as the frontier improves, and they do not allow evaluators to generalize with confidence from benchmark performance to the varied and messy strategic environments that actual deployments involve. We introduce GENSTRAT, which uses procedurally generated strategic environments to address these challenges. Concretely, we generate a distribution of two-player zero-sum imperfect-information card games. The generator can draw fresh games on demand, allowing for evergreen evaluation and resistance to contamination. We pair the game distribution with a capability-profile methodology that decomposes model competence across six axes (state space, temporal depth, information sensitivity, opponent modeling, risk, and brittleness). We also introduce a jaggedness measure of within-distribution smoothness that detects when a model's advantage jumps unpredictably between strategically similar games. We sample 50 benchmark games from a 2,000-game generated pool and evaluate nine frontier and open-weight LLMs in a head-to-head tournament with over 36,000 matches. Newer frontier-tier models score higher on average. Beyond that average, models with near-identical overall strength show qualitatively different capability profiles, and two of the top three leaderboard models (gpt-5 and claude) are noticeably more locally volatile than the third (gemini-3.1-pro), despite being close in overall strength. Together, the capability profile and the jaggedness measure give a deployment-relevant diagnostic that the overall ranking alone cannot provide.

Scientific research is being reshaped by AI systems that move beyond isolated assistance toward longer-horizon workflows spanning literature grounding, hypothesis generation, experimentation, validation, reporting, and revision. This shift marks a transition from task-level AI for science to workflow-level research automation. Yet current systems remain fragmented, differing in autonomy, domain scope, execution environment, validation mechanism, and human oversight, while still struggling with evidence preservation, reproducibility, weak-direction rejection, provenance tracking, cross-domain robustness, and accountable scientific closure. This survey examines these developments through AutoResearch, defined as the developmental spectrum of AI-powered scientific workflow automation. Within it, Vibe Research denotes the human-steered region of prompt-based assistance and human-verified execution, whereas emerging AI-led systems coordinate larger portions of the discovery loop without achieving robust autonomy. We analyze how research systems redistribute control, evidence, execution, validation, and accountability across workflows and organize the field around five workflow conditions: literature and research grounding; hypothesis formation and planning; experimentation and tool use; feedback, validation, and review; and reporting and knowledge communication. We further synthesize AI scientist systems, mixed-initiative co-research frameworks, benchmarks, domain deployments, and open-source infrastructures. Finally, we propose five evaluation dimensions--novelty, validity, impact, reliability, and provenance--and show that AutoResearch autonomy is domain-conditioned, being more credible in structured, executable, and rapidly verifiable settings but limited in embodied, delayed, heterogeneous, ethical, or institutionally accountable contexts.

Scientific discovery is a closed-loop process in which hypotheses guide data acquisition and observations refine the hypothesis space. Yet most approaches reduce discovery to supervised learning over fixed datasets, where limited observations can support multiple plausible mechanisms that fit locally but fail to generalize. Thus, the key challenge is selecting informative observations to resolve uncertainty, shifting the focus from static inference to adaptive data acquisition. To address this, we propose LLM-AutoSciLab, a closed-loop framework that couples hypothesis generation with hypothesis-conditioned experiment selection and mechanism refinement. Rather than fitting models to passively collected data, LLM-AutoSciLab iteratively proposes plausible hypotheses, selects informative experiments to distinguish or refine them, and updates its state using the resulting evidence. To evaluate dynamic, closed-loop scientific discovery with active data acquisition, we introduce ActiveSciBench, comprising two datasets: ActiveSciBench-Chem with 57 enzyme-kinetics tasks and ActiveSciBench-GRN with 45 gene-regulatory-network tasks. These datasets model discovery as a budget-constrained process requiring adaptive experiment design, variable selection, and recovery of true mechanisms. Across NewtonBench, ActiveSciBench-Chem, and ActiveSciBench-GRN, LLM-AutoSciLab outperforms prior methods, achieving 67.6% and 35.1% symbolic accuracy on NewtonBench and ActiveSciBench-Chem, respectively, and 31.1% exact graph recovery on ActiveSciBench-GRN. Moreover, hypothesis-guided experimentation is 2-5x more sample-efficient than the strongest competing baselines. Code and data are available at: https://github.com/scientific-discovery/LLM-AutoSciLab