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.
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.
arXiv:2609.14738v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Automated reviewing systems are increasingly evaluated based on the quality of the reviews they produce. Yet a review is only useful if acting on it le...
arXiv:2606. 01013v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Research is advancing faster than ever with artificial intelligence (AI); and so are the corresponding research papers.
arXiv:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.
arXiv:2608. 05179v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used across the scientific research lifecycle: ideation, literature search, experiment design and execution, analysis, manuscript drafting, and review.
arXiv:2605. 18661v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI-assisted research is crossing a threshold: fully automated systems can now generate research papers for as little as $15, while long-horizon agents can execute experiments, draft manuscripts, and simulate critique with minimal human input.
arXiv:2608.28596v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly embedded in scientific workflows for literature analysis, drafting, and review. Existing systems adv...
arXiv:2606. 15497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI.
The paper introduces SPRA (Structured Paper Representation for Agents), a comprehensive representation of AI research papers that organizes key research elements—Problems, Contributions, Components, ExperimentSetups, Measures, and Findings—into typed relations for easier querying, traversal, and reuse. SPRA includes paper-level citation relations that capture dependencies, component usage, and comparisons, and it has been instantiated across more than one million AI papers, yielding millions of research units and internal relations. Empirical evaluations show that SPRA improves source-conditioned scientific QA and directed cross-paper reasoning over passage retrieval while significantly reducing input and output token counts, demonstrating its practicality for scientific workflows.
arXiv:2609.33357v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reliable automated research requires agents to vet data, verify analyses, and generate hypotheses grounded in trustworthy evidence, potentially red...
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.
The paper introduces AutoMat, a benchmark designed to test large language model (LLM) coding agents on their ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat presents three challenges: reconstructing underspecified procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and assessing whether the evidence supports a claim. Experiments show that current LLM agents achieve low success rates, with the best setting reaching only 53%, and failures stem mainly from incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility.