PaperDoctor is an agent framework that provides evidence‑grounded, actionable feedback for scientific papers before submission. It evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through a three‑layer hierarchical system, linking each critique to specific evidence and revision suggestions. The system selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments to uncover reproducibility gaps, and an interactive interface lets authors explore findings tied to their manuscript.
By Kevin Qinghong Lin, Siyuan Hu, Pan Lu, Yu Chen, Yanzhe Chen, Owen Queen, Yupeng Chen, Jialin Yu, Junchi Yu, Zifeng Ding, Yuanfeng Ji, Sheng Liu, Jindong Gu, Linjie Li, Mike Zheng Shou, Philip Torr, James Zou
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: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:2606. 31478v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous research agents can now draft hypotheses, write code, run experiments, and produce papers, but they remain brittle when experiments fail.
By Jie Ma, Binfei Chu, Jie Gao, Jinlu Zhang, Yiwei Ma, Yi Tan, Jiayi Ji, Xiaoshuai Sun, Rongrong Ji
The paper reports on an autonomous research system that allows an AI agent to formulate its own research question, screen for failure modes, and obtain critiques from a separate model before writing a paper. Over 13 development runs, minor changes in the initial instruction document caused significant shifts in the topics explored, ultimately leading to a new technology applied to a societal problem. Five fully autonomous runs produced reproducible papers that were reviewed by external AI reviewers at workshop level, with all data and code released for replication.
By Ko Fujimura
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
arXiv:2608. 08975v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: 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.
By Ming Li, Chenguang Wang, Xirui Li, Xinyue Zeng, Dianqi Li, Peng Shi, Dawei Zhou, Tianyi Zhou
The paper introduces a verification‑centric framework and benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as assistants in peer review, focusing on error detection rather than imitation of human reviews. It presents a scalable benchmark that injects synthetic errors into conference papers to test LLMs’ ability to spot logical contradictions, and proposes a Multi‑Layered Review (MLR) framework that emphasizes deep manuscript comprehension before generating reviews. Experiments show the approach aligns well with human review scores, excels at error detection, and offers complementary reviewer insights, while also revealing vulnerabilities to adversarial manipulation.
By Rachel S. Y. Teo, Yutaro Yamada, Shashank Kotyan, Yuki Imajuku, Tarin Clanuwat
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
The paper introduces EquiReview‑R, an AI‑assisted review system that treats omission and over‑critique as distinct risks and refines a structured concern set using evidence‑linked reasoning. It demonstrates that more criticism does not guarantee a better review, showing that many high‑recall reviews lack definitive evidence for concerns and that revision before further search is essential. On a held‑out set of papers, EquiReview‑R meets non‑inferiority for major omission, cuts major over‑critique from 15.5 % to 8.1 %, and stops on 52.4 % of papers, with gains attributed to revision rather than extra inference.
By Zexing Zhang, Jichao Li, Tianyang Lei, Yude Fu, Yang Kewei
The paper introduces an author‑in‑the‑loop collaborative audit system for reproducibility checks during peer review, where authors explicitly declare reproduction instructions via a structured checklist. An AI agent uses these declarations to investigate and assess reproducibility, while human reviewers approve requests and decide on issue resolution. The system was deployed on 36 conference papers, identifying 20 issues that were subsequently resolved, and the study examined how different checklist conditions affected the agent’s assessment.
By Yukun Dong, Linjun Zhang, Tian Zheng
arXiv:2608.21374v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspec...
By Ruotong Zhao, Zhiyu Chen, Xurui Liu, Haidong Xue, Dong Liang, Jigao Fu, Wu YanBiao, Yuanyi Zhen, Fengli Xu, Yong Li