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.
By Yiming Ren, Xiang Liu, Qumeng Sun, Xiao Zhang, Jiahao Li, Haoyang Zhang, Junjie Wang
arXiv:2604. 12243v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Identifying promising research directions in fast-moving subareas is one of the most cognitively expensive tasks in modern AI research.
By Jinkai Tao, Yubo Wang, Xiaoyu Liu, Menglin Yang
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.
By Lingdong Kong, Xian Sun, Wei Chow, Linfeng Li, Kevin Qinghong Lin, Xuan Billy Zhang, Song Wang, Rong Li, Qing Wu, Wei Gao, Yingshuo Wang, Shaoyuan Xie, Jiachen Liu, Leigang Qu, Shijie Li, Lai Xing Ng, Benoit R. Cottereau, Ziwei Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, Wei Tsang Ooi
arXiv:2607. 11918v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Dual submissions, in which identical or substantially similar papers are simultaneously submitted to one or more archival venues, without cross-citation or disclosure, are a growing problem for the AAAI Conference and other scientific publication venues.
By Kiri L. Wagstaff, Joydeep Biswas, Erich Merrill III, Bo An, Ida Camacho, David J. Crandall, Matthew E. Taylor
NovGauge is a new benchmark designed to diagnose large language models’ ability to assess scientific paper novelty. It contains 619 paper pairs and 50 multi-paper sets, each labeled along three dimensions—task, problem, and method—by experts from ICLR reviewer overlap claims and survey co-citations. The study evaluates 18 LLMs, revealing high hallucination rates and weak evidence grounding, with the best model achieving only 43‑72% verified F1 across dimensions.
By Guoqiang Zhang, Kexin Tan, Ming Zhang, Li Ju, Wenqing Jing, Zhonghan Yue, Jiayi Chen, Shiqiang Wu, Shaofan Liu, Yue Zhang, Yuankai Ying, Yang Shi, Tao Gui, Qi Zhang, Xuanjing Huang
arXiv:2607. 01233v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: LLMs are increasingly used to brainstorm research ideas, but existing evaluations mostly judge individual ideas by novelty, feasibility, or expert preference.
By Ziyu Chen, Yilun Zhao, Arman Cohan