Scientific Discovery

Accumulated scientific knowledge advances inquiry when prior findings help researchers choose new questions, design investigations, and interpret results. Realizing this value at scale requires access to the reasoning that connects research problems, scientific procedures, conclusions, and evidence. We introduce the Large Knowledge Model (LKM), a scientific knowledge infrastructure that transforms the literature into a shared, computationally accessible reasoning resource. LKM represents papers as source-grounded reasoning graphs, couples structural traversal with semantic retrieval over the same objects, and aligns related questions, claims, and reasoning chains across papers. This representation forms a Scientific Reasoning Landscape with three connected views: a Question Landscape that organizes research problems and open directions, a Workflow Landscape that exposes reusable scientific procedures, and an Evidence Landscape that connects conclusions to their support, disagreement, and conditions. The unified substrate supports reasoning-aware scientific search, evidence-grounded question answering, comparative evidence analysis, and research planning. Researchers and agents can retrieve relevant work through its scientific intent, synthesize answers with inspectable supporting arguments, and develop research plans informed by established workflows and unresolved evidence. We describe a corpus-scale system and evaluate scientific retrieval and knowledge-intensive question answering. With the answering model fixed, LKM retrieval improves accuracy by 9.30%, 4.20%, and 14.69% on ChemBench, PubMedQA, and SciBench, respectively. By connecting knowledge access to scientific reasoning and action, LKM provides a common foundation for discovering relevant research, reusing scientific knowledge, and coordinating cumulative inquiry across researchers, agents, and research cycles.

Scientific code repositories encode decades of human knowledge in executable models, methods, and tools. Yet fragmented toolchains, implicit domain conventions, and specialized correctness criteria make this knowledge difficult to convert into reliable learning experience-a challenge we call the scientific experience bottleneck. We introduce ScienceIDE, infrastructure for turning the world's scientific code into programmable environments for scientific agents. Guided by expert-defined scientific cases and acceptance criteria, agents transform repositories into executable environments that support task generation, execution, and scientific verification. These environments provide a shared foundation for supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and evaluation. Using verified interaction trajectories, we train PhAI-IDE-72B, PhAI-IDE-9B, and PhAI-IDE-4B. The model family shows gains in held-out scientific-code repair and across selected general-purpose benchmarks in code, reasoning, and knowledge, providing evidence of positive transfer from scientific experience to broader capabilities. ScienceIDE lays the foundation for an integrated workspace for agent learning and scientific practice, making humanity's scientific software a shared substrate for developing scientific intelligence. Code: https://github.com/aitofound/ScienceIDE

Multimodal coding agents are expected to turn visual inputs into usable artifacts, and they act through a harness, the layer of tools, context management, and execution environment around the model. Existing evaluations often isolate short tool calls, API traces, or screenshot resemblance, and a low score under these proxies cannot say whether the model saw poorly, planned poorly, or was failed by its harness. We study scientific overview figure reconstruction, an agent task in which a source image must become an editable PowerPoint slide that preserves text, topology, layout, and native document structure. We introduce ReFigBench, a benchmark and evaluation framework built on 1,000 real overview figures retrieved from arXiv papers with full provenance. Coding agents from four model families reconstruct every figure under two workflows, direct code generation and a specialized PPTX workflow, and the strongest model runs inside two commercial harnesses, yielding ten configurations. Evaluation combines deterministic artifact checks, repeated automated scoring by judges from two model families, and blinded human comparisons. Perception remains a bottleneck that iterative rendering only partly repays. Whether workflow effort converts into quality depends on the model together with its harness, since the same model gains from the specialized workflow inside one harness and loses inside the other, and the harness shifts scores even under an identical direct prompt. The specialized workflow erases native connectors in every configuration, human judges still prefer its renderings in most matchups, and even the strongest agent falls short of the rubric ceiling. These results expose the tension between fidelity and editability as the central challenge for practical multimodal document agents.

Identifying technological trends is a core scientometric task, yet traditional frequency-based approaches struggle to capture substantial meaning shifts of domain-specific terms. We hypothesise that contextual embeddings can complement frequency dynamics to effectively track diachronic semantic change. We compare frequency and embedding-based approaches across Astrophysics and NLP corpora spanning from 2010 to 2024. Candidate terms are extracted using KeyBERT (utilizing SciBERT as its underlying language model) and filtered for significant frequency increases using Fisher's exact test. These terms are then evaluated for genuine semantic shift by domain experts to establish ground-truth labels. To quantify semantic drift, each term's contextual embedding ''clouds'' from the two discrete periods are compared using multiple metrics: cosine distance, average pairwise distance, Hotelling-type T 2 , and maximum mean discrepancy. Results indicate that frequency-based methods align slightly better with human judgments of ''trend-related terms'' than semantic metrics (Precision@50 of 0.62 vs 0.60 in Astrophysics). The two signals show a correlation of around 0.6. Several terms identified exclusively by embedding metrics (e.g., ''primordial black holes'') represent critical conceptual developments invisible to pure frequency analysis. These findings indicate that semantic metrics may capture complementary information, highlighting the value of integrating contextual embeddings into scientometric trend analysis.

Precise retrieval of scientific information is fundamentally constrained by long-tailed concepts and high fact-sensitivity of scientific corpora. These challenges often limit the effectiveness of dense retrievers and hallucination-prone LLM augmentation. To address this, we present REPAIR, a self-evolving data augmentation framework for scientific dense retrievers. REPAIR iteratively synthesizes training data to address knowledge gaps by cycling through diagnosis of long-tail concepts, API-guided evidence expansion, and differentiation via hard negative mining. This process effectively grounds retrieval in factual reality to resolve fine-grained distinctions. Extensive experiments demonstrate that REPAIR significantly outperforms 19 strong baselines on nine materials science and biomedical benchmarks. Our work highlights that diagnosing and factually augmenting data to long-tail deficits is essential for robust scientific retrieval.

Forecasting scientific relations can guide discovery by identifying promising connections before they emerge. Existing approaches often model concept semantics and graph structure separately or summarize semantics over coarse historical snapshots, leaving semantic representations potentially misaligned with rapidly evolving graph evidence. We propose a time-aligned evolving concept graph framework that jointly models semantic and structural evolution. Its core idea is to treat dated papers as shared update events, reconstructing semantic and structural states from the same publication history through each prediction time. Pair-level fusion combines these states to forecast first co-occurrence, relation formation, and conditional relation type. Holding architecture and training fixed, refreshing context alongside graph updates improves mean relation AUPRC by 16.6% over frozen context. On a graph built from 187,848 papers with 270,687 concepts and 7.45 million co-occurrence links, the complete framework improves mean relation AUROC from 0.9290 for the strongest evaluated baseline to 0.9722, with mean population-weighted AUPRC 0.005778.

We introduce and release ScienceBuddy, an interactive scientific research workspace that brings continually improving scientific agents into researchers' everyday workflows. ScienceBuddy supports researchers in carrying out scientific tasks while transforming their requests, feedback, and execution evidence into tasks and evaluation rubrics for continual learning. At its core is recursive-in-recursive self-improvement, a paradigm that couples harness evolution with model reinforcement learning: the inner recursion improves the harness with the model fixed, while the outer recursion trains the model under the improved harness. Harness evolution shapes training experience, and model learning creates new opportunities for harness adaptation. We present case studies of researcher interaction, harness refinement, and model learning, with the benchmark cases spanning four scientific task families. By releasing ScienceBuddy as a research product, we make this paradigm available to the scientific community and take a step toward discovery intelligence: scientific AI that advances through sustained collaboration with researchers and evolves alongside the research it supports. Website: http://science-buddy.io

Domain-specialized language models are widely used for scientific question answering, but stronger general-purpose systems raise a sharper question: when does domain-specific fine-tuning remain valuable for open-ended scientific reasoning? We study this in astronomy with a curated QA benchmark from publicly available 2017--2026 Olympiad-style materials. The free-response subset contains 300 questions, including 204 text-only and 96 image-linked examples. We compare open-weight and API-served general-purpose, multimodal, and astronomy-specialized models using judge-based correctness and complementary reference metrics. Strong general-purpose models establish the highest correctness baseline in this testbed, while analyses of metric agreement, judge sensitivity, benchmark composition, and modality reveal variation not captured by a single leaderboard. These results motivate treating domain specialization as a task- and deployment-dependent property and highlight the role of domain-specific evaluation in determining which models, capabilities, and evaluation criteria are appropriate for scientific workflows.

We describe tus-nlp's Lit3R (Retrieve-Relate-Read) system for LitTraceQA, a shared task for literature-grounded question answering that requires systems to retrieve relevant papers, identify supporting evidence, and generate answers. Lit3R combines off-the-shelf retrieval, reranking, and large language model (LLM) components without task-specific training. The retriever iteratively combines BM25-based sparse and dense retrieval, cross-encoder reranking, and LLM-based verification, and complements retrieval based on the question with paper-to-paper expansion. The reader first identifies supporting evidence within individual papers and then synthesizes evidence across papers to produce the final answer and evidence trace. On the official test set, our system ranked 4th on the leaderboard. Our code is available at https://github.com/tus-ist-nlp/littraceqa.

Scientific research increasingly relies on large, heterogeneous data sources, motivating interest in retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems that provide natural language access to scientific knowledge and research workflows. Researchers are exploring the viability of these systems as natural language interfaces for document search and for generating analysis code and pipeline components. At the same time, concerns about data privacy and control over research infrastructure have motivated interest in open-weight models and open-source deployments hosted within research institutions. In astronomy, this development follows a long history of computational infrastructure development, from archival databases and Structured Query Language (SQL)-based systems to large language model (LLM)-assisted research tools. This paper presents a domain-expert evaluation of faithfulness for AquiLLM, an open-weight, offline RAG-LLM platform designed to support scientific research groups in the use and preservation of tacit and formal knowledge. We define faithfulness as the extent to which generated responses remain grounded in retrieved scientific context without unsupported claims or omissions. We report results from an astronomy case study evaluating AquiLLM across retrieval and scientific analysis tasks. AquiLLM performs most reliably on explicit retrieval-oriented questions grounded in the RAG collection, while faithfulness degrades for queries requiring synthesis or ambiguity resolution. These results highlight both the promise and limitations of open-weight RAG-LLM systems for scientific research and demonstrate the importance of domain-expert evaluation beyond standard benchmark leaderboards.

Research data repositories are essential infrastructure for scientific inquiry and for ensuring that datasets follow FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles. However, repository reuse depends on the quality and completeness of geospatial and thematic metadata, which researchers generally provide voluntarily. Given limited curation resources, it is unsurprising that even Harvard Dataverse, the world's largest general-purpose research repository, contains many incomplete metadata records. Missing fields represent lost information and reduce interoperability. We find that datasets with more missing metadata receive fewer downstream citations and have fewer resolvable connections to other datasets. The implications are particularly important for geospatial datasets: only 0.3% of research datasets include a bounding box, and most represent archival points rather than complete geographic shapes. Our analysis shows that geospatial metadata helps connect concepts across disciplines. After embedding Harvard Dataverse datasets in a metadata knowledge graph, we find that datasets are twice as likely to connect across scientific disciplines through shared geospatial metadata as through keywords. This suggests that geographic metadata is a more reliable basis for cross-disciplinary interoperability than keyword vocabularies, which often remain discipline-specific. We train and fine-tune a small language model using datasets from Harvard Dataverse. Through geospatial metadata enrichment, we increase the share of datasets from different disciplines connected through metadata elements from 58.5% to 63.2%.

As artificial intelligence's capabilities improve, it is increasingly viewed as a general scientific method. But how true are these claims? Does AI outperform all techniques, or only some, and how is this changing? To assess the claims, we assemble a corpus of 2,507 head-to-head comparisons between AI and other scientific analysis techniques across 27 scientific disciplines from papers published between 2000 and early 2025. We find a profound dichotomy. Relative to traditional statistics, AI often outperforms, but at a significantly higher computational cost. But there are also nearly a quarter of cases where AI is both more expensive and performs worse than traditional statistical techniques and this fraction has been stable for a decade. Relative to scientific computing, AI often underperforms, but at lower computational cost. This has begun to change: since 2020, AI's performance against scientific computing has notably strengthened and it now outperforms on more than half of comparisons. These patterns suggest that AI is therefore not a universal replacement for existing methods, but rather a valuable -- and improving -- part of a new AI-enabled scientific frontier.

Automatic Related Work Generation (RWG) significantly reduces the human time and effort required to author the Related Work Section (RWS) of a research paper. However, prior methods leveraging multi-agent Large Language Models (LLMs) typically rely on a predefined workflow, where each agent is responsible for a specific step in the entire process. This rigid, static inter-agent coordination limits the adaptive collaboration required to synthesize complex scientific literature. To address this limitation, we propose CREW (Collaborative Reinforcement Learning for Related Work Generation), a novel framework where LLM agents bypass heuristic pipelines to dynamically coordinate by autonomously selecting actions, such as Retrieve, Disseminate, Compose, and Critique, driven by a policy optimized via Independent Proximal Policy Optimization (IPPO). Extensive experiments on a standard RWG benchmark demonstrate that our approach yields substantial quality improvements over strong existing baselines, while significantly reducing token costs. Code is available at https://github.com/YenPBao/CREW-Collaborative-MARL.git

Multi-teacher on-policy distillation (OPD) is becoming the standard way to integrate specialist capabilities into one model: train experts with RL, then distill them into the student on its own rollouts. Existing recipes assign supervision at the sequence level - each prompt goes to one domain teacher and every token receives the same weight - which implicitly assumes that a teacher is uniformly useful across a response. We find instead that useful teacher signal is sparse and heterogeneous along a reasoning trajectory, which raises a finer question: who should teach which token? Verifier-Gated Multi-Expert On-Policy Distillation (VG-OPD) answers it by verification: the counterfactual gain of an expert on a specific answer criterion licenses that expert to teach, its disagreement with the student localizes the supervision, and criterion importance sets its weight; the gated KL enters GRPO as an additive token-level advantage. Instantiated for scientific reasoning with RL-trained capability experts, VG-OPD attains the best overall performance on seven benchmarks for 4B and 8B students, ranking first on five at both scales, with the largest gains on knowledge-intensive scientific reasoning tasks. Further analysis shows that the gains come from localizing verified supervision rather than from adding teachers or distillation loss: misplacing the same supervision budget is the single most damaging change, and indiscriminate distillation drags RL below its own floor where gated distillation lifts it.

AI co-scientists could accelerate computational research, but over a long-running study the workflow also has to stay inspectable, resumable and reproducible, which requires persistent computational state and provenance. Here we present OpenAI4S, an open-source scientific research agent built around the principle of \emph{Code as Action, Science as Sessions}. OpenAI4S combines a persistent computing runtime with research-session management: orchestration is handled through structured tool calls, while scientific actions are represented as complete code cells executed in persistent Python and R kernels. An append-only Action Ledger, per-cell execution records, versioned artifacts, environment records, and workspace checkpoints preserve how results were produced and support session recovery, branching, and extension. Configurable sandboxing, permission controls, and code and trajectory screening provide complementary safeguards. We evaluate OpenAI4S on 36 research scenarios spanning retrosynthesis, molecular dynamics, protein binder design, protein mutation, catalyst screening, and mineral spectroscopy, measuring scientific task accuracy, workflow completeness, and reproducibility of the resulting repositories. OpenAI4S achieves an overall score of 7.83, compared with 5.7--6.4 for a general-purpose coding harness evaluated with three frontier models, with the largest gains on long-horizon and computation-intensive workflows. These results suggest that integrating persistent execution with session-level provenance can improve the reliability of AI-assisted scientific workflows. Environment specification and full rerunnability remain weak for every evaluated system, ours included, so reproducibility is still an open problem for scientific agents. The system is available under the MIT license at \href{https://github.com/PKU-YuanGroup/OpenAI4S}{github.com/PKU-YuanGroup/OpenAI4S}.

Real-world Earth observation (EO) agents must translate high-level scientific questions into executable workflows to acquire observations, prepare data, perform domain computations, and derive conclusions from runtime evidence. Existing EO agents typically start from supplied observations, while benchmarks typically provide prepared inputs or candidate answers, leaving full-chain open-world EO execution largely untested. We present Earth-Agent-Pro, an execution-adaptive Plan-and-Execute framework using expert-authored skills to constrain planning and runtime tool use. Workflow-centered structured memory records planned steps, accepted evidence, and their dependencies, enabling repair of only the affected workflow suffix when runtime evidence invalidates a step. Separate large language model adapters use sequence-level supervised fine-tuning for planner workflow composition and node-level group relative policy optimization with locally verifiable rewards for executor tool-argument grounding. Earth-Bench-Pro instantiates 248 expert-curated task cores as 744 questions under three matched regimes. Its 248 Open-World Execution questions span RGB imagery, spectral observations, and remote sensing products, pairing high-level requests with runtime data requirements, executable trajectories, and open-ended answers grounded in execution evidence. With a shared GPT-5 backbone, Earth-Agent-Pro achieves 66.13% LLM-as-Judge accuracy, exceeding ReAct by 20.95 points in this metric and 24.44 points in Tools-In-Order. Joint adapter tuning raises Qwen3.5-9B LLM-as-Judge accuracy from 38.31% to 50.00%, an 11.69-point gain over the untuned configuration. Planning-only evaluation and execution with the reference workflow show that the adapters improve workflow composition and argument grounding, respectively. Code and datasets will be released soon.

Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks, including those featured in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026), suggest that frontier language models still struggle with advanced physics, a demanding test of their scientific reasoning and quantitative problem-solving abilities. Yet this impression does not always align with domain experts' experiences using these models in their work. We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts, focusing on text-only problems with verifiable final answers. For each subfield of physics, faculty and graduate researchers with relevant expertise carefully review problem statements, reference solutions, and model responses to distinguish genuine model errors from grader errors, incorrect reference solutions, and ambiguous or underspecified questions. Most audited cases initially evaluated as incorrect reflect these benchmarking issues rather than errors in the models' physics reasoning. We then ask experts to address these benchmarking issues by correcting erroneous reference solutions and repairing or excluding flawed questions. We find that GPT-5.6-Sol's measured mean@4 rises from 47.3% to 78.7% on HLE-Physics and from 61.0% to 87.2% on CMT-Benchmark, while its corrected pass@4 reaches 94.4% on the 54 retained CritPt challenges. Corrected scores are computed on the retained evaluation subsets following expert review. Scores on the audited subsets of UGPhysics, PRISM-Physics, and PHYBench also rise substantially after correction. These findings suggest that current benchmarks substantially understate frontier models' ability to solve well-posed physics problems. Near-saturation on these closed-ended tasks highlights the need for more demanding, expert-validated evaluations.

We introduce document embedding geometry as a quantitative observable of conceptual reorganization and develop a counterfactual ablation framework for measuring how individual concepts influence the organization of scientific knowledge, providing a quantitative framework for detecting scientific revolutions. The observable is defined by the geometric perturbation induced when removing documents associated with a candidate concept from the embedding space before and after its historical emergence. Statistical validation is performed using five historical case studies spanning physics, mathematics, and machine learning: special relativity, Gödel's incompleteness theorems, the Higgs mechanism, deep learning, and the attention mechanism underlying transformer architectures. Across the historical case studies, the framework identifies measurable geometric signatures associated with conceptual reorganization, while the validation studies expose important limitations arising from document assignment and sparse historical data. These results establish embedding geometry as a medium for quantifying conceptual reorganization, providing a new approach for studying how scientific fields restructure over time.

Generalisations are common in scientific communication, even though they are semantically ambiguous. An automated method is needed to identify and categorise claims according to their level of generalisation, in order help detect an over-reliance on generalisations and possible misrepresentations of scientific findings. We introduce a comprehensive taxonomy of generalisations in the scientific domain, NLPGenX, which labels claims according to their level of generality and framing within the text. We operationalise this taxonomy with an LLM-powered framework, NLPGenA, that automatically classifies sentences from scientific articles into 5 different generalisation classes. We validate our framework with human annotators and use the framework to construct a large-scale dataset of NLP papers annotated according to generality, with auxiliary labels for hedging and vague descriptors (NLPGens). We use NLPGens to analyse the use of generalisations in NLP papers across multiple venues and subdomains, and to examine associations with citation counts, hedging, and vague descriptors.

Autonomous research agents are increasingly expected to search the literature, analyze experimental evidence, and generate scientific hypotheses. These capabilities require multi-step evidence grounded reasoning that progressively acquires, integrates, and verifies evidence before reaching a conclusion. Existing multimodal benchmarks, however, largely evaluate final-answer accuracy, leaving open whether predictions are actually supported by traceable scientific evidence. We introduce Sci-MMR, a benchmark for multi-step evidence-grounded scientific reasoning built on structured argument graphs linking scientific claims, citation-grounded knowledge, visual evidence, and supporting regions. Sci-MMR comprises 235 multi-hop reasoning tasks spanning four scientific disciplines, with an average of nine figure panels per task. Evaluating eight frontier multimodal models, we find that answer accuracy consistently exceeds complete-evidence recovery rate by more than 20%, revealing a substantial gap that answer-only evaluation is structurally unable to capture. Through controlled interventions, we identify two fundamental bottlenecks. First, evidence acquisition: models struggle to extract complete structured evidence from scientific figures, accounting for 57.2% of failures. While cropping tools yield modest gains (+4.5 points), providing gold evidence improves accuracy by up to 37.0 points, indicating difficulty in assembling complete multi-region evidence. Second, evidence integration: models struggle to translate available evidence into correct conclusions, accounting for 31.8% of failures, while even with gold evidence the strongest model achieves only 69.1% accuracy on the hardest tasks. These findings indicate that current answer-centric benchmarks substantially overestimate the evidence-grounded reasoning capabilities of multimodal research agents

Scientific figures are the interface through which research claims are inspected and reused, but final published panels rarely expose the data or plotting code that produced them. Recovering this hidden provenance from pixels is therefore underdetermined. We introduce SciFigure2Code, an AI-reconstructed benchmark that instead evaluates presentation recovery: generating editable Python programs that preserve how a scientific panel is arranged and read. Role-specialized Codex agents generate, execute, visually refine, and audit silver-standard presentation programs that capture geometry, visual hierarchy, encodings, annotations, and typography without claiming to recover original measurements or author source code. This reconstruction-and-audit protocol turns final published panels into auditable reference packages; the resulting resource contains 6,740 reviewed panels and SciFigureBench, a balanced 337-panel test set across 31 chart subtypes, five domains, and three complexity levels. Across 14 zero-shot models in image-only and caption-assisted settings, execution, multi-component layouts, axes, legends, and scientific labels remain weak. Claude Opus 4.7 achieves the highest image-only Overall score, Claude Opus 4.6 leads caption-assisted reconstruction, and two-stage plan-then-code prompting improves Overall for all four tested models. SciFigure2Code provides an auditable testbed for agents that construct editable, visually faithful scientific figure presentations.

Self-driving laboratories (SDLs) combine automated experimentation with adaptive decision-making to accelerate scientific discovery. Their operation nevertheless often depends on human specialists who translate scientific objectives into executable closed-loop campaigns. Specialists adjust them as data and operating conditions change. Here, we present La Agente 'Optima, an agentic framework that constructs and supervises Bayesian optimization campaigns across computational and experimental systems while maintaining a persistent optimization state. By separating large language model (LLM) reasoning from executed campaigns, 'Optima runs repetitive optimization loops consistently, returns control to the agent only when progress requires interpretation or campaign revision, and keeps every decision auditable. We evaluate 'Optima across ablation studies, five digital discovery tasks, and two physical platforms. Throughout, 'Optima maintained executable campaigns as both the scientific problem and execution environment evolved. In a closed-loop contact angle optimization campaign, 'Optima identified and corrected a mid-run measurement failure, bringing the contact angle from 71.4 to 67.8 degrees, just above the 64-66 degree range. From this result, 'Optima correctly inferred that the target was likely unattainable with the available reagents and recommended changing the formulation. In a five-day multi-objective flow-chemistry campaign, 'Optima increased the yield from 30% to 59% over 23 experiments. Despite substantial inference costs, it cost less and used substantially less starting material than a human-directed campaign, while selecting a more mass-efficient operating point. These results show that LLM-based agents can make rigorous, long-running optimization campaigns accessible to domain scientists without specialist setup, expanding the scope of SDLs.

Recursive self-improvement (RSI) lets a system improve the model-building machinery from its own failures, so every later model inherits the gain. Yet RSI has been validated almost exclusively on coding and formal benchmarks such as science QA and mathematics. This format bound limits RSI to improvement within a machine-checkable slice, not general capability where questions are open and correctness is settled by argument, replication, or measurement. We argue RSI must next operate across real, diverse scientific, engineering, and meta-scientific domains, not where formal evaluation is merely tractable. To that end we present MetaRSI-v1, where improvement is the scheduled composition of three typed operators over one unified paradigm. Data-RSI amplifies existing competence and marks its boundary; Harness-RSI edits a five-slot scaffold without touching weights; Model-RSI internalizes capability into parameters through bounded training. Sharing one loop kernel and artifact vocabulary, they make data, scaffold, and model changes composable rather than exclusive. A two-axis optimizer jointly decides operator order and each operator's proposal policy, while a meta-level policy revises the schedule across terms. We validate MetaRSI-v1 under the field's standard evaluations, on code and closed-form science, with no external teacher: the target model plays every role in its own loop. MetaRSI-v1 reframes self-improvement from a single-surface edit to a composition across the full model-production pipeline, opening two paths: a model route internalizing capability through training, and a harness route leaving weights untouched and thus extending self-improvement to any model reachable through an interface, with Data-RSI redefined as the shared substrate feeding both. The framework further yields refutable laws on where loops exist, how operators compose, and what supervision buys.

Scientific knowledge graphs organize entities and relations extracted from scientific literature, but they remain inherently incomplete. Missing typed links in such graphs can therefore represent plausible scientific hypotheses, such as unexplored associations between materials and applications. However, scientific hypothesis discovery is challenging because true discoveries are extremely sparse among typed candidate pairs: graph neural networks (GNNs) are efficient but unreliable for ambiguous cases, while large language models (LLMs) are knowledgeable but too costly to apply exhaustively and are not naturally grounded in graph structures. We propose HyGRAIL, a cost-aware and evidence-grounded framework that combines heterogeneous GNN triage with LLM-based hypothesis review. HyGRAIL first uses a GNN to score candidate hypotheses and identify a validation-calibrated ambiguous region, routing only graph-uncertain cases to LLM review. For each routed hypothesis, HyGRAIL retrieves node-level associations and multi-hop relational paths from the knowledge graph (KG), then converts this structured evidence into natural language through template-based or LLM-based naturalization. An LLM review agent finally judges each hard hypothesis using the naturalized evidence and validation-selected decision criteria. On MatKG, HyGRAIL achieves the best F1 score of 0.429, improving over the strongest prior baseline by 0.242 F1 points and over the GNN-only baseline by 0.322. Meanwhile, GNN triage reduces the LLM call rate by 54.36% on average. Ablation studies further show that retrieved graph evidence is crucial for reliable hypothesis verification and that compact, two-sided evidence is more effective than simply increasing retrieval quantity.

Scientific equation discovery has long been central to scientific progress, proceeding through iterative cycles of hypothesis generation, observational testing, and refinement under scientific constraints. As LLM capabilities advance and their role in AI for Science expands, it remains an open problem whether they can genuinely discover scientific laws and how this ability should be evaluated. Existing evaluations, however, often either simplify discovery through synthetic settings or reuse published targets that may already be familiar to LLMs. We therefore introduce SCILAWS-BENCH, a benchmark for scientific law discovery built from published research and real scientific data. It comprises 118 problems drawn from 381 scientific papers, covering 291 candidate laws and roughly 8M real data points across six scientific disciplines. Each problem is instantiated in two complementary settings: (1) SCILAWS-REAL asks models to propose laws from fixed real observations and evaluates held-out predictive fit and scientific validity derived from the source literature, and (2) SCILAWS-PARALLEL asks models to actively query residual-calibrated worlds and recover synthesized hidden laws derived from published forms. This two-setting task design preserves each problem's scientific context while separately evaluating fixed-record law discovery and active recovery of a newly synthesized hidden law. We find that predictive fit can diverge from scientific validity, memorization shapes whether models reproduce or move beyond published formulas, and our best-of-N study reveals a selection bottleneck. Our work provides a paper-grounded benchmark and new empirical perspectives for evaluating AI for scientific discovery. Project page: https://yiyihum.github.io/SciLaws-Bench

Scientific agents must learn not only how to reason, but also what to believe. However, existing LLM agents typically express scientific hypotheses in free-form text, leaving their beliefs implicit and difficult to test or revise. We introduce EvoSCM, which equips scientific agents with explicit structural causal models that evolve as new experimental evidence is collected. EvoSCM maintains a population of competing SCM hypotheses, each encoding a candidate causal explanation of the environment, and evolves them through a closed discovery loop. In each round, the agent abduces latent mechanisms from accumulated evidence, designs discriminative interventions, and commits to falsifiable predictions that it tests through experimentation. Discrepancies between prediction and observation are inductively distilled into correction rules that revise the causal structures and mechanisms of each hypothesis, and the agent then deductively validates the revised population against accumulated evidence and structural consistency to guide the next round. We evaluate EvoSCM on DiscoverPhysics, a benchmark requiring agents to uncover the hidden dynamics of noncanonical physical worlds through experimentation. EvoSCM consistently improves scientific discovery over baselines, yielding more accurate explanations and predictions while making more effective use of experimental interactions.

Scientific citations carry rhetorical intent. Scholars may cite prior work positively (supporting), negatively (contrasting), or neutrally (mentioning). As large language models (LLMs) increasingly assist scientific writing, whether they reproduce citations with the same rhetorical intent as humans remains unclear. We introduce a masked-citation task to compare human and LLM-generated citation behavior. For each citation context, an LLM generates a replacement citation sentence, producing a counterfactual corpus directly comparable to human citation. We analyze what, whom, and how models cite, using an LLM-as-a-judge to classify citation intent and a 20-million-edge coauthorship network to measure social distance between cited authors. Across six popular LLMs and 1,746 top NLP conference papers (63k+ contexts, 132k+ citations), three patterns emerge: (1) Compared with human citation, LLMs cite significantly less critically; (2) LLMs over-cite popular and older papers, a tendency amplified for contrasting citations where human writing more often draws on recent, niche work; (3) Whereas humans often cite within their close social network, especially for supporting citations, LLMs tend to draw on more socially distant authors. Together, these differences are double-edged: LLM citation reaches beyond a scholar's close collaborators while being less critical and amplifying visibility bias, reshaping the rhetoric and reach of scientific citation.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong performance in generating scientific figures from text or images. However, publication-ready figures often require iterative refinement, making scientific figure editing an important yet largely unexplored step toward interactive figure creation. Existing approaches rely on costly proprietary agentic systems, focus primarily on evaluation, or construct training supervision from synthetically generated edits. Instead, we leverage naturally occurring scientific revision and development trajectories as a scalable source of supervision. To this end, we introduce DaEdiTikZ, the first large-scale dataset of revision-derived scientific figure edits, constructed by mining 391K plausible TikZ edit pairs from arXiv, GitHub, and TeX SE and inferring 781K directed edit instructions with a VLM conditioned on rendered figures and TikZ code. We further introduce DaEdiTikZ-Bench, a human-refined benchmark with 690 instances, and train two compact Qwen3.5-based EdiTikZ models (4B and 9B) by jointly learning image-to-TikZ reconstruction and instruction-conditioned editing, followed by reinforcement learning (RL) with complementary rewards for rendered fidelity and edit application. Automatic evaluation places our 9B model above all tested baselines, while human evaluation with 9 annotators and 4,320 ratings places it above GPT-5.6-Sol and on par with Gemini-3.1-Pro. Under severe out-of-distribution shifts, it remains competitive with GPT-5.6-Sol near its 2K training sequence-length regime.

Synthetic data has become a common component of machine learning research. While widely adopted, its use in privacy-sensitive contexts has quietly shifted from a claim of residual inference risk under stated assumptions to an appearance-based property inferred from data generation itself. In this position paper, we argue that this shift reflects an implicit change in community standards for what counts as sufficient privacy evidence, rather than a misunderstanding of well-established privacy principles. Drawing on an empirical analysis of recent publications across major ML venues, we show that synthetic data is frequently used in privacy-sensitive settings without explicit articulation of threat models, inference risks, or falsifiable privacy claims. As a result, privacy assurance often remains implicit, difficult to verify, and unevenly distributed, with heightened exposure for rare and minority records. We argue for treating privacy as an explicit, evidence-based scientific claim and recommend that ML venues adopt norms requiring privacy-relevant assertions to be clearly scoped, testable, and contestable.

Scientific knowledge about AI models is produced faster than the community can organize it. Every few months a new foundation model reshapes the field and hundreds of papers, blogs, and technical reports document how each behaves or fails. Yet, these findings remain scattered and effectively unretrievable. To address this gap we present Modelpedia, an automated, LLM-assisted framework that extracts findings about models from published papers, links it to the model, dataset, method, and concept it concerns, and aggregates the result into a searchable public catalog. Applying the prototype to accepted ICLR 2024 and 2025 papers, we extract over a thousand findings and, treating the catalog itself as an object of study, run a meta-analysis of how the community investigates models. Now, we invite the community to explore, contribute to, and build on the open catalog, and to help establish model findings as a shared foundation for the meta-science of AI.

Scientific methodology figures are essential for communicating complex methods clearly, yet creating them remains labor-intensive and typically requires multiple rounds of refinement. Recent image-generation models can synthesize visually appealing raster figures, but producing a human-satisfactory result in a single generation step remains difficult. Moreover, precise edits to raster figures are challenging for both humans and models. We formulate scientific figure generation as recursive SVG program construction and propose \textsc{FigTree}, a \textit{multi-agent} system that automatically transforms a scientific paper into a structured vector figure. \textsc{FigTree} grounds figure content in the source paper, decomposes a figure into a hierarchy of local regions, generates each region as a short SVG program, and assembles the resulting fragments. A render-critic refinement loop jointly inspects the rendered figure and its underlying program, enabling visual defects to be traced to specific statements and accurately repaired. We conduct extensive evaluations of \textsc{FigTree} on figure quality and editability, showing that \textsc{FigTree} produces high-quality figures, while also enabling more effective editing than existing raster-based methods.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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