IdeaTaste is a benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate research proposals that align with what human researchers actually publish. The study compares proposals generated by six contemporary LLMs against real papers from four research areas, finding that LLMs achieve only about 26% of the citation matching and 18% of the idea matching of human communities. Even larger LLM populations and richer field contexts do not close this gap, indicating that LLMs struggle more with translating research directions into concrete approaches than with selecting the right topics.
By Shanshan Zhong, Chen Xu, Jingjie Ning, Zhengzhong Liu, Aviral Kumar, Chenyan Xiong
arXiv:2610.17439v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: The success of autonomous research systems relies on the quality of the scientific hypotheses they generate. Recent studies report that human reviewers...
By Zhihua Liu, Kurt Butler, Damian Machlanski, Danilo Bueno, Sotirios A. Tsaftaris
arXiv:2606. 25198v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Autonomous AI Research promises to accelerate the scientific progress of machine learning.
By Antonis Antoniades, Deepak Nathani, Ritam Saha, Alfonso Amayuelas, Ivan Bercovich, Zhaotian Weng, Vignesh Baskaran, Kunal Bhatia, William Yang Wang
arXiv:2606. 08251v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Bold projections that artificial intelligence will accelerate scientific discovery have raced ahead of evidence from working scientists, and the field still lacks large-scale, scientist-in-the-loop tests of these claims.
By Honglin Bao, Siyang Wu, Xiao Liu, Sida Li, Shiyun Cao, James A. Evans
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
The paper proposes a framework for building autonomous AI research teams that can discover linear attention architectures. By assembling agents with diverse disciplinary expertise, private research histories, shared experimental evidence, and adaptive allocation of research opportunities, the team can balance exploration and exploitation under limited experimental budgets. Experiments show that this design outperforms GDN2 at 1.3B scale on language modeling, common‑sense reasoning, and retrieval tasks, and that removing any single component weakens discovery.
By Yujian Liu, Li An, Zelin He, Jacob Helwig, Jiabao Ji, Rohit Jain, Siyu Zhu, Shiyu Chang
arXiv:2607. 20923v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have rapidly and significantly entered scientific workflows, but it remains unclear how their diffusion is associated with changes in scientists' strategies in research directions and team building.
By Xiang Zheng, Xi Hong, Jialin Liu, Chaoqun Ni
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.
By Claudio Novelli, Luciano Floridi
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:2609.14425v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Generative artificial intelligence raises a central question for scientific training and organization. Is research shifting from deep specialization...
By Xiaoshn Nee, Haobo Zhong, Xiaomin Ni
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
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...
By Chenguang Wang, Ming Li, Adebayo Braimah, Chenrui Fan, Tuo Wang, Weijie Guan, Ruiyi Zhang, Tianyi Zhou, Dawei Zhou