arXiv:2602. 20459v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Can AI systems trained on the existing scientific record forecast the advances that will follow?
By Anirudh Ajith, Amanpreet Singh, Jay DeYoung, Nadav Kunievsky, Austin C. Kozlowski, Oyvind Tafjord, James Evans, Daniel S. Weld, Tom Hope, Doug Downey
arXiv:2610.07184v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: A key challenge in building AI systems for scientific research is enabling $\textit{scientific exploration}$: the systematic process of investigating u...
By Xuchen Gong, Shane Gu, Haokun Liu, Dixi Yao, Chenhao Tan, Tian Li
The paper "Learning to Ideate for Scientific Impact" explores using delayed signals of scientific uptake—specifically citation-normalized impact—as feedback to steer large language models toward generating high‑impact research ideas. The authors build a dataset of over 100,000 computer science papers, train a reward model to predict citation impact from goal‑idea pairs, and align an idea generator via supervised fine‑tuning and reinforcement learning. Evaluation with a reference‑grounded protocol shows that the RL‑tuned model consistently produces ideas with higher estimated impact than baseline models.
By Shubham Kale, Aniketh Garikaparthi, Manasi Patwardhan
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:2610.10138v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Predicting the future impact of a newly published paper is challenging because it must be inferred from heterogeneous evidence available at publication...
By Yong Cao, Markus Flicke, Haoyu He, Katrin Renz, Andreas Geiger
arXiv:2605. 16902v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scientific artifacts such as models and datasets are foundations for research.
By Haofei Yu, Jiaxuan You, Peter Clark, Bodhisattwa Prasad Majumder, Kyle Richardson