arXiv:2606. 10159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage.
By Lin Li, Qi Zhang, Xander Davies, Jianing Qiu, Yarin Gal
arXiv:2607. 27191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research.
By Peter Kirgis, Sayash Kapoor, Andrew Schwartz, Stephan Rabanser, David Africa, Konstantinos Voudouris, Viet Nguyen, Toby Pilditch, Magda Dubois, Harry Coppock, Cozmin Ududec, Nitya Nadgir, Matilda Orona, Tilman Bayer, Derrick Chan-Sew, Yue Ling, Abhishek Shetty, Helen Toner, Gillian Hadfield, Seth Lazar, Steve Newman, Shoshannah Tekofsky, Rishi Bommasani, Arvind Narayanan
arXiv:2607. 04049v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We argue that generative AI can degrade research by eroding the very practices through which scholarly judgement is formed and academic trust is built.
By Claudio Novelli, Luciano Floridi
The paper introduces SciUtopia, a closed‑loop large‑language‑model simulation framework that models the evolving academic research ecosystem, including research direction, collaboration, publication, peer review, funding, and researcher attrition. Running 61 simulation worlds, the system simulates over 40,000 researchers and 1.2 million LLM‑generated peer reviews, revealing that rejection‑driven resubmission increases reviewer burden, cautious exploration balances citation impact with career success, and resource inequality can arise without early‑funding advantage.
By Yiqiao Jin, Yiyang Wang, Lucheng Fu, Bing He, Siheng Xiong, Yijia Xiao, B. Aditya Prakash, Josiah Hester, Srijan Kumar, James Evans, Jindong Wang
arXiv:2607. 15164v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Artificial intelligence is transforming scientific research - not merely as a more powerful instrument, but as an autonomous participant in the research cycle itself.
By Emmanuel Jeannot
arXiv:2607. 26064v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI systems are becoming autonomous research agents that generate hypotheses, design experiments, and produce discoveries at scales beyond human oversight.
By Belinda Mo
arXiv:2606. 19899v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: This paper addresses a rapidly emerging policy challenge: how to generate and interpret credible evidence about the biological capabilities and risks of AI scientists, or agentic AI systems capable of autonomously or collaboratively performing multi-step scientific tasks.
By Patricia Paskov, Jeffrey Lee, Kyle Brady, Alyssa Worland
arXiv:2510. 18003v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The convergence of LLM-powered research assistants and AI-based peer review systems creates a critical vulnerability: fully automated publication loops where AI-generated research is evaluated by AI reviewers without human oversight.
By Fengqing Jiang, Yichen Feng, Yuetai Li, Luyao Niu, Basel Alomair, Radha Poovendran
arXiv:2606. 28277v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence is driving a revolution in scientific discovery, accelerating everything from hypothesis generation to mathematical theorem proving.
By Rajesh Jayaram, Drew Tyler, David Woodruff, Corinna Cortes, Yossi Matias, Vahab Mirrokni, Vincent Cohen-Addad
arXiv:2607. 28631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist systems capable of autonomous research have the potential to significantly accelerate scientific discovery.
By Vaibhava Lakshmi Ravideshik, Mayank Kejriwal
arXiv:2605.30947v4 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: LLM-based research agents have advanced rapidly in science and engineering, where research is organized around executable experiments, code, and qu...
By Yating Pan, Jiajun Zhang, Jun Wang, Qi Su
arXiv:2606. 15497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI.
By Yutaro Yamada, Robert Tjarko Lange, Cong Lu, Chris Lu, Shengran Hu, Jakob Foerster, David Ha, Jeff Clune