arXiv:2510. 16152v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Scientific literature is increasingly fragmented by disciplinary boundaries, specialized terminology, and potentially sparse keyword systems, making it difficult to capture the evolving structure of modern science.
By Mason Smetana, Lev Khazanovich
arXiv:2607. 20926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources.
By Yinhao Tang, Youqing Fang, Yanan Sun, Wenran Liu, Weiming Zhang, Bin Liu, Kuikun Liu, Wenwei Zhang, Kai Chen
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
Scientific datasets are commonly organized as hierarchical repositories containing heterogeneous and interdependent files, making their inspection, integration, and analysis labor-intensive and reliant on domain expertise. Although large language model (LLM) agents have advanced substantially in planning, reasoning, and tool use, existing research has largely overlooked their ability to interact with real scientific data assets through executable environments.
arXiv:2608. 10740v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Effective research ideation requires moving beyond a static understanding of prior work to trace how research problems and solutions evolve across the literature.
By Xun Li, Yiying Yang, Pengtao Li, Xiao Yao, Suyu Liu, Xiaoyang Ye, Ziyu Lu, Yuan Yao, Yangning Li, Yinghui Li, Wenhao Jiang
ScholarCatalyst is a new benchmark that evaluates how well AI systems can retrieve research papers that inspire new work. The dataset was created by having 184 lead authors of 207 recent computer science papers annotate which earlier papers helped their projects, providing detailed rationales. The benchmark tests retrieval from the literature available at the start of a project, revealing that current agentic search and even advanced models like Claude Fable 5.1 perform only modestly better than simple embedding retrieval.
By Sohyeon Kim, Yoonho Lee, Bo Liu, Dayoon Ko, Rulin Shao, Seungone Kim, Graham Neubig, Pang Wei Koh, Aakanksha Chowdhery, Akari Asai, Omar Khattab, Yejin Choi, Gunhee Kim, Chelsea Finn
arXiv:2608. 25826v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leaves the structure of whole documents untouched.
By Qiankai Xu, Qiguang Chen, Zixin Su, Wenhao Huang, Yue Gao, Jiaheng Liu, Ge Zhang
A recent line of synthetic-data work reconstructs the thinking behind existing text rather than rewriting the text itself, but it operates on short web passages, recovers only local thoughts, and leav...
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
Recent automated research systems show that language-model agents can generate hypotheses, run experiments, and write complete manuscripts, but most evidence still comes from selected examples, human-framed topics, or a few pre-defined research tasks. We present FARS (Fully Automated Research System), a fully automated AI-for-AI research system designed to operate across research topics at scale.
RATIO (Retrieval Across Typed Ideation Operations) is a large-scale benchmark designed to evaluate how well retrieval systems can support scientific inspiration. It defines relevance through three ideation moves—Address, Broaden, and Specify—each targeting different levels of abstraction in literature retrieval. The benchmark is built from millions of full-text CS papers using a novel discourse-marker distant supervision method, and includes extensive LLM and human vetting to ensure quality.
By Maayan Sharon, Tom Hope
arXiv:2608. 08636v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific named entity recognition (SciNER) plays a crucial role in information extraction and knowledge discovery from scientific texts.
By Tong Bao, Yi Zhao, Heng Zhang, Chengzhi Zhang