Towards End-to-End Automation of AI Research
arXiv:2606. 15497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI.
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.
arXiv:2606. 15497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI.
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.
The paper "The AI-Enabled Scientific Frontier" analyzes 2,507 head‑to‑head comparisons of AI versus other scientific methods across 27 disciplines from 2000 to early 2025. It finds that AI often outperforms traditional statistics but at higher computational cost, while in about a quarter of cases AI is both more expensive and less effective. Compared to scientific computing, AI usually underperforms but at lower cost, though since 2020 its performance has improved, now surpassing computing in over half of the comparisons.
arXiv:2607. 28631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist systems capable of autonomous research have the potential to significantly accelerate scientific discovery.
arXiv:2605. 10574v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As artificial intelligence advances, models are not improving uniformly.
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...
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.
The paper introduces SCILAWS-BENCH, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on scientific law discovery. It contains 118 problems from 381 scientific papers, covering 291 candidate laws and about 8 million real data points across six disciplines. The benchmark offers two settings: SCILAWS-REAL, where models must propose laws from fixed real observations, and SCILAWS-PARALLEL, where models actively query synthetic worlds to recover hidden laws.
arXiv:2608. 13558v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in foundation models have enabled AI scientists to automate increasingly complete research workflows, from hypothesis generation and code execution to manuscript preparation.
arXiv:2606. 11337v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions.
arXiv:2609.17523v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce and release ScienceBuddy, an interactive scientific research workspace that brings continually improving scientific agents into researcher...
arXiv:2606. 15708v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Welcome to the ninth edition of the AI Index report.