arXiv AI
AppliedScientist: Automated Scientific Revision Through Iterative AI Reviewing
Read the original on arXiv AI →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv AI.
Related stories
arXiv Computation and Language
3d ago
PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress
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 AI
Jun 29
Towards Automating Scientific Review with Google's Paper Assistant Tool
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 AI
Jun 10
Gaming AI-Assisted Peer Reviews Poses New Risks to the Scientific Community
arXiv:2606. 10159v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI is increasingly used to support scientific peer review, from manuscript screening, reviewer assistance to editorial triage.
arXiv AI
Jul 1
One Reflection Is Not Enough: Self-Correcting Autonomous Research via Multi-Hypothesis Failure Attribution
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.
arXiv AI
Jun 16
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 11
How Can Rhetoric Reward-Hack AI Reviewers? Dissecting Rhetorical Sensitivity in AI-Based Peer Review
arXiv:2608. 08975v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: As large language models increasingly participate in scientific evaluation, we investigate a potential form of reward hacking: how rhetorical choices shape AI-review judgments when reported scientific content is preserved and how these effects vary across evaluation conditions.