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.
By Mihai Codreanu, Alex Imas, Juan Mateos-Garcia, Joseph Emmens, Evalyne Muiruri, Arthur Turrell, Julian Jacobs, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, Ana Trisovic, Yiyuan Chen, Tanya Rodchenko, Catherine Pollard, Scott Strand, Daniel Rock, Zanna Iscenko, Fabien Curto Millet, Neil Thompson, James Manyika
arXiv:2606. 15708v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Welcome to the ninth edition of the AI Index report.
By Sha Sajadieh, Loredana Fattorini, Raymond Perrault, Yolanda Gil, Vanessa Parli, Lapo Santarlasci, Juan Pava, Nestor Maslej, Russ Altman, Erik Brynjolfsson, Carla Brodley, Jack Clark, Virginia Dignum, Vipin Kumar, James Landay, Terah Lyons, James Manyika, Juan Carlos Niebles, Yoav Shoham, Elham Tabassi, Russell Wald, Toby Walsh, Dan Weld
The paper "Science or Slop?: Benchmarking and Mitigating Scientific Slop in AI-Generated Papers" introduces SciSlopBench, a dataset of 390 AI‑generated papers paired with human‑written counterparts, and defines six measures across Structure, Argument, and Artifacts to detect scientific slop. The authors show that these measures can identify AI papers with 85.9% accuracy and that higher slop correlates with lower ICLR ratings and distinguishes rejected from accepted papers. They also propose SciSlopHarness, a framework that guides a fixed LLM to revise only evidence‑supported sections, reducing the AI‑human gap by 63% without human reference targets.
By Yerim Oh, Young-Jun Lee, Jaewoo Ahn, Gunhee Kim, Dongyeop Kang
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. 22681v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI systems are increasingly used to support forward-looking scientific judgment, but it remains unclear whether they can form reliable expectations about future scientific advances.
By Sean Wu, Pan Lu, Yupeng Chen, Jonathan Bragg, Yutaro Yamada, Peter Clark, David Clifton, Philip Torr, James Zou, Junchi Yu
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.
By Jaehyun Nam, Jinsung Yoon, Yanzhou Pan, Yubo Wang, Rui Meng, Parthasarathy Ranganathan, Tomas Pfister
OpenAI introduces FrontierScience, a benchmark testing AI reasoning in physics, chemistry, and biology to measure progress toward real scientific research.
ASI‑Bench is a new benchmark that evaluates AI systems on their ability to conduct innovative exploration and autonomous scientific research across 11 domains, using 60 project‑level tasks. It progressively removes human methodological guidance to test whether AI can independently select methods, execute research, and produce verifiable results. Results from 18 state‑of‑the‑art agent–model configurations show a sharp performance drop when guidance is reduced, indicating current systems still rely heavily on human input.
By Junwei Zhou, Zhen Sun, Binyu Li, Jiangyu Zhou, Yuexi Pan, Hengyu Wang, Honghe Ren, Xiaohan Jia, Xueyang Zhou, Xiaoyu Cao, Yongchao Chen, Yuanning Feng, Junhao Wu, Cheng Zhang, Sijia Chen, Haoyu Xue, Chengsong You, Huan Wang, Koutian Wu, Peigan Gao, Jiakun Wu, Wenzhe Li, Ergan Shang, Qingyuan Zheng, Jingjing Zhou, Ruixuan Jia, Yan Xu, Hongrui Zhang, Xiao-Han Ma, Zhengxiang Cheng, Yuexing Hao, Liting Mai, Xianglin Ji, Wenjun Zhang, Zhuofan Chen, Yixiao Huang, Chi Wang, Wenyue Hua, Yilun Hao, Yuantao Zhai, Ziyan Zhao, Jingyan Xie
arXiv:2606. 13829v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We can do more than defend science from a flood of AI-assisted papers.
By Gianfranco Bertone
arXiv:2610.00492v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: When Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravitation, he did so through an iterative process of analyzing observed data such as planetary patterns, fi...
By Jiayi Geng, Zhengxuan Wu, Kevin S. Chen, Seungone Kim, Joseph Janssen, Zora Zhiruo Wang, Bhupalee Kalita, Runtian Gao, Aaron Ho, Andrew Oakleigh Nelson, Olexandr Isayev, Francisco Villaescusa-Navarro, Ching-Yao Lai, Howard Chen, Graham Neubig
arXiv:2609.07611v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Scientific ideation is the capacity to formulate novel and testable hypotheses from scientific evidence, and autonomous AI scientists depend on it. Exi...
By Yunxiang Mo, Tianshi Zheng, Yisen Gao, Rui Wang, Newt Nguyen Kim Hue Nam, Kelvin Kiu Wai Tam, Jiaxin Bai, Yangqiu Song, Ginny Wong, Simon See
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