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.
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.
arXiv:2606. 12683v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Over the last decade, building human-level artificial general intelligence has moved from far-fetched speculation to being a concrete next-decade target for many of the largest AI organisations.
arXiv:2609.07713v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Generative and agentic AI are reshaping both the production and evaluation of scientific research. These developments are often studied separately, as...
arXiv:2606. 15708v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Welcome to the ninth edition of the AI Index report.
Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are beginning to assist, accelerate, and partially automate scientific discovery, performing tasks that span literature synthesis, code generation, data analysis, hypothesis proposal, and model criticism. We argue that this transition is qualitative rather than incremental, and that suitably designed multi-agent systems may evolve from passive computational tools into ``AI scientists'' that can expand the hypothesis-generating and verification capacity of science.
arXiv:2606. 15497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI.
The paper reviews secondary studies and research agendas on generative AI (GenAI) in information systems, synthesizing evidence from 28 selected papers. It identifies GenAI’s transformative benefits—productivity, innovation, personalization, and democratized expertise—while highlighting challenges such as technical unreliability, ethical risks, and governance gaps. The authors propose a research agenda that shifts IS scholarship toward shaping the co‑evolution of AI capabilities with organizational routines, societal values, and regulatory institutions, emphasizing hybrid human‑AI ensembles, situated validation, design principles for probabilistic systems, and adaptive governance.
The paper introduces ScientistTwo, a fully autonomous multi‑agent framework that takes a scientific problem, establishes baselines, generates hypotheses, and coordinates specialized agents to conduct an end‑to‑end discovery cycle without human intervention. It rigorously tests and refines its methods through automated experiments, ablation studies, and a closed‑loop peer‑review engine. Benchmarking against top conferences (ICLR, ICML, NeurIPS) shows that ScientistTwo produces expert‑level, publishable papers and codebases that outperform human state‑of‑the‑art models and receive higher review ratings under automated AI review.
arXiv:2608. 14407v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present a survey of the past and future of AI Scientists: machines capable of automating science.
arXiv:2608. 02775v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific discovery has advanced through successive transformations in the organization of knowledge.
The paper "AI in Science: Early Insights" analyzes AI’s impact on scientific work using data from 15 million Gemini interactions, 2,600 specialized AI models, and a survey of 600 scientists. It finds widespread AI adoption, complementary use of large language models and specialized tools, significant productivity gains of about seven hours per week, and a shift in research bottlenecks toward hypothesis backlog and verification needs. The study suggests AI can boost scientific productivity but its full effect depends on addressing new downstream challenges.
The paper introduces Atria Dawn Preview, a foundation agentic language model aimed at scientific research and engineering workflows. Trained through a Verifiable Experience Pipeline, it performs competitively across 16 real‑world benchmarks, achieving the highest scores on five. The authors also present a detailed case study of human–AI collaboration, showing that while AI proposes methods and revisions, humans retain final decision‑making and guide the research direction.