arXiv:2608. 14881v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI co-scientists that generate hypotheses, retrieve related work, design experiments, execute code, and draft full papers are beginning to change how research is carried out.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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:2606. 15497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI.
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.
arXiv:2607. 13220v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Most AI-for-science systems focus on scaling a single reasoning process through better models, larger context windows, long-horizon agentic execution, or digital co-scientists working with one principal user.
AutoResearch is a two‑stage autonomous research system that links Idea Generation with Idea Execution. In the generation phase it blends new research signals with existing domain knowledge, identifies transferable mechanistic insights, and produces grounded, testable research plans through multi‑model generation and cross‑review. The execution phase then decomposes these plans into experiments, iteratively implements and diagnoses them, and uses independent evidence‑based review to accept or revise conclusions, thereby turning ideas into measurable progress while minimizing hallucinations.
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.