搜索结果：scientist

AI scientists are now a reality, with the ability to generate complete research papers, maintain scholarly profiles, receive citations, and attract peer review invitations. Yet no standard mechanism exists to distinguish an AI scientist from a human one in bibliographic databases, citation indexes, or journal submission systems. This white paper defines the problem, analyzes its consequences for the integrity of scholarly communication, and proposes AICID (AI Contributor IDentifier): a persistent, unique identifier for AI scientists. Modeled on ORCID but designed specifically for non-human contributors, AICID links each AI author to its model identity, version, operator. Adoption by publishers, preprint servers, and bibliographic databases aims to make the provenance of AI-generated research transparent and machine-readable. We outline the design requirements for such a system, present a prototype, and argue that AICID is necessary infrastructure for a scholarly ecosystem in which AI scientists are already active participants. A prototype alpha version is available at https://aicid.net.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) is propelling automated scientific discovery to the next level, with LLM-based Artificial Intelligence (AI) Scientist systems now taking the lead in scientific research. Several influential works have already appeared in the field of AI Scientist systems, with AI-generated research papers having been accepted at the ICLR 2025 workshop, suggesting that a human-level AI Scientist capable of uncovering phenomena previously unknown to humans, may soon become a reality. In this survey, we focus on the central question: How far are AI scientists from changing the world and reshaping the scientific research paradigm? To answer this question, we provide a prospect-driven review that comprehensively analyzes the current achievements of AI Scientist systems, identifying key bottlenecks and the critical components required for the emergence of a scientific agent capable of producing ground-breaking discoveries that solve grand challenges. We hope this survey will contribute to a clearer understanding of limitations of current AI Scientist systems, showing where we are, what is missing, and what the ultimate goals for scientific AI should be.

Scientific discovery is driven by scientists generating novel hypotheses for complex problems that undergo rigorous experimental validation. To augment this process, we introduce Co-Scientist, a multi-agent AI system built on Gemini for structured scientific thinking and hypothesis generation. Co-Scientist aims to help scientists discover new original knowledge. Conditioned on their research objectives and prior scientific evidence, it formulates demonstrably novel research hypotheses for experimental verification. The system's design involves agents continuously generating, critiquing and refining hypotheses accelerated by scaling test-time compute. Key contributions include: (1) a multi-agent architecture with an asynchronous task execution framework for flexible compute scaling; (2) a tournament evolution process for self-improving hypotheses generation. Automated evaluations show continued benefits of test-time compute scaling, improving hypothesis quality over time. While general purpose, we focus the validation in three biomedical applications: drug repurposing, novel target discovery, and explaining mechanisms of anti-microbial resistance. Specifically, Co-Scientist helped i

We introduce Autodata, a general method that enables AI agents to act as data scientists who build high quality training and evaluation data. We show how to train (meta-optimize) such a data scientist agent, so that it learns to create even stronger data. We describe the overall formulation, and a specific practical implementation, Agentic Self-Instruct. We conduct experiments on computer science research tasks, legal reasoning tasks and reasoning with mathematical objects, where we obtain improved results compared to classical synthetic dataset creation methods. Further, meta-optimizing the data scientist agent itself delivers an even larger performance uplift. Agentic data creation provides a way to convert increased inference compute into higher quality model training. Overall, we believe this direction has the potential to change the way we build AI data.

Recent LLM-based agents have closed substantial portions of the scientific discovery loop in software-only machine-learning research, in chemistry, and in biology. Extending the same loop to high-fidelity physical simulators is harder, because solver completion does not imply physical validity and many failure modes appear only in field-level imagery rather than in solver logs. We present AI CFD Scientist, an open-source AI scientist for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) that, to our knowledge, is the first to span literature-grounded ideation, validated execution, vision-based physics verification, source-code modification, and figure-grounded writing within a single inspectable workflow. Three coupled pathways cover parameter sweeps within a fixed solver, case-local C++ library compilation for new physical models, and open-ended hypothesis search against a reference comparator, all running on OpenFOAM through Foam-Agent. At the center of the framework is a vision-language physics-verification gate that inspects rendered flow fields before any result is accepted, rerun, or written into a manuscript. On five tasks under a shared GPT-5.5 backbone, AI CFD Scientist autonomously disc

Recent advances in large language models have enabled the emergence of AI scientists that aim to autonomously analyze biological data and assist scientific discovery. Despite rapid progress, it remains unclear to what extent these systems can extract meaningful biological insights from real experimental data. Existing benchmarks either evaluate reasoning in the absence of data or focus on predefined analytical outputs, failing to reflect realistic, data-driven biological research. Here, we introduce BAISBench (Biological AI Scientist Benchmark), a benchmark for evaluating AI scientists on real single-cell transcriptomic datasets. BAISBench comprises two tasks: cell type annotation across 15 expert-labeled datasets, and scientific discovery through 193 multiple-choice questions derived from biological conclusions reported in 41 published single-cell studies. We evaluated several representative AI scientists using BAISBench and, to provide a human performance baseline, invited six graduate-level bioinformaticians to collectively complete the same tasks. The results show that while current AI scientists fall short of fully autonomous biological discovery, they already demonstrate subs

How the general public perceives scientists has been of interest to science educators for decades. While there can be many factors of it, the impact of recent generative artificial intelligence (AI) models is noteworthy, as these are rapidly changing how people acquire information. This report presents the pilot study examining how modern generative AI represents images of scientist using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). As a data, 1,100 images of scientist were generated using Midjourney v 6.1. One hundred of these images were analyzed by a science education scholar using a DAST scoring rubric. Using the data, the researcher went through prompt engineering to instruct gpt-4.1-mini to automatically analyze the remaining 1,000 images. The results show that generative AI represents stereotypical images of scientists, such as lab coat (97%), eyeglasses (97%), male gender (81%), and Caucasian (85%) in the 100 images analyzed by the researcher. However, gpt-4.1-mini could also detect those stereotypes in the accuracy of 79% in the same 100 images. gpt-4.1-mini also analyzed the remaining 1,000 images and found stereotypical features in the images (lab coat: 97%, eyeglasses: 95%, male g

Understanding the current capabilities and risks of AI Scientist systems (autoresearch) is essential for ensuring trustworthy and sustainable AI-driven scientific progress while preserving the integrity of the academic ecosystem. To this end, we develop Jr. AI Scientist, a state-of-the-art autonomous AI scientist system that mimics the core research workflow of a novice student researcher: Given the baseline paper from the human mentor, it analyzes its limitations, formulates novel hypotheses for improvement, iteratively experiments until improvements are achieved, and writes a paper with the results. Unlike previous approaches that assume full automation or operate on small-scale code, Jr. AI Scientist follows a well-defined research workflow and leverages modern coding agents to handle complex, multi-file implementations, leading to scientifically valuable contributions. Through our experiments, the Jr. AI Scientist successfully generated new research papers that build upon real NeurIPS, IJCV, and ICLR works by proposing and implementing novel methods. For evaluation, we conducted automated assessments using AI Reviewers, author-led evaluations, and submissions to Agents4Science,

AI scientists are emerging computational systems that serve as collaborative partners in discovery. These systems remain difficult to build because they are bespoke, tied to rigid workflows, and lack shared environments that unify tools, data, and analyses into a common ecosystem. In genomics, unified ecosystems have transformed research by enabling interoperability, reuse, and community-driven development; AI scientists require comparable infrastructure. We present ToolUniverse, an ecosystem for building AI scientists from any language or reasoning model across open- and closed-weight models. ToolUniverse standardizes how AI scientists identify and call tools by providing more than 600 machine learning models, datasets, APIs, and scientific packages for data analysis, knowledge retrieval, and experimental design. It automatically refines tool interfaces for correct use by AI scientists, generates new tools from natural language descriptions, iteratively optimizes tool specifications, and composes tools into agentic workflows. In a case study of hypercholesterolemia, ToolUniverse was used to create an AI scientist to identify a potent analog of a drug with favorable predicted prope

AI scientist systems, capable of autonomously executing the full research workflow from hypothesis generation and experimentation to paper writing, hold significant potential for accelerating scientific discovery. However, the internal workflow of these systems have not been closely examined. This lack of scrutiny poses a risk of introducing flaws that could undermine the integrity, reliability, and trustworthiness of their research outputs. In this paper, we identify four potential failure modes in contemporary AI scientist systems: inappropriate benchmark selection, data leakage, metric misuse, and post-hoc selection bias. To examine these risks, we design controlled experiments that isolate each failure mode while addressing challenges unique to evaluating AI scientist systems. Our assessment of two prominent open-source AI scientist systems reveals the presence of several failures, across a spectrum of severity, which can be easily overlooked in practice. Finally, we demonstrate that access to trace logs and code from the full automated workflow enables far more effective detection of such failures than examining the final paper alone. We thus recommend journals and conferences

AI scientist systems are beginning to automate the production, evaluation, and iteration of scientific hypotheses. Their promise is speed; their risk is that speed also scales errors embedded in the scientific record. We argue that a near-term risk is corpus failure: AI scientist systems are trained on and grounded in a literature that over-represents positive results and under-represents null findings. We formalise this distortion as the null result gap, estimate it across three domains (drug discovery ~0.60, psychology ~0.56, cancer biology ~0.35), and introduce an amplification index for reasoning about how retrieval, generation, and automated evaluation can compound the raw gap. Using first-order estimates, we argue that a standard three-stage pipeline can amplify corpus distortion by a factor of 2.18x, with the conclusion unchanged under more conservative multipliers. We identify four governance failure modes: confident rediscovery, ghost evidence accumulation, replication laundering, and confidence miscalibration. We then propose three interventions: null-result databases as training infrastructure, retraction-aware evaluation metrics, and mandatory training corpus disclosure

We aim at designing language agents with greater autonomy for crystal materials discovery. While most of existing studies restrict the agents to perform specific tasks within predefined workflows, we aim to automate workflow planning given high-level goals and scientist intuition. To this end, we propose Materials Agent unifying Planning, Physics, and Scientists, known as MAPPS. MAPPS consists of a Workflow Planner, a Tool Code Generator, and a Scientific Mediator. The Workflow Planner uses large language models (LLMs) to generate structured and multi-step workflows. The Tool Code Generator synthesizes executable Python code for various tasks, including invoking a force field foundation model that encodes physics. The Scientific Mediator coordinates communications, facilitates scientist feedback, and ensures robustness through error reflection and recovery. By unifying planning, physics, and scientists, MAPPS enables flexible and reliable materials discovery with greater autonomy, achieving a five-fold improvement in stability, uniqueness, and novelty rates compared with prior generative models when evaluated on the MP-20 data. We provide extensive experiments across diverse tasks

Cyber offense is moving to machine speed; cyber research itself is not. Existing AI scientist systems make end-to-end research automation increasingly plausible, but they target relatively stable scientific domains. We argue that AI-native cybersecurity is a different kind of scientific object. Its recurring units of study are security events and interaction traces, not static assets; its model and tool substrate is non-stationary, not steady-state; and credible evaluation depends on digital twins, cyber ranges, and auditable evidence rather than on a single benchmark score. We call this object the Cybersecurity AI Scientist. A practical realization is a modular, role-specialized multi-agent research system that coordinates problem framing, threat modeling, tool generation, controlled experimentation, evaluation, governance, and scientific reporting, and that anchors its concrete objectives in a four-zeros frame spanning risk, trust, incident, and energy dimensions. As a representative agenda we focus on AI-native defense, where steady-state perimeters give way to resilient agent legions and the classical category of terminal security is itself being deconstructed into agent securi

A major step toward Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and Super Intelligence is AI's ability to autonomously conduct research - what we term Artificial Research Intelligence (ARI). If machines could generate hypotheses, conduct experiments, and write research papers without human intervention, it would transform science. Sakana recently introduced the 'AI Scientist', claiming to conduct research autonomously, i.e. they imply to have achieved what we term Artificial Research Intelligence (ARI). The AI Scientist gained much attention, but a thorough independent evaluation has yet to be conducted. Our evaluation of the AI Scientist reveals critical shortcomings. The system's literature reviews produced poor novelty assessments, often misclassifying established concepts (e.g., micro-batching for stochastic gradient descent) as novel. It also struggles with experiment execution: 42% of experiments failed due to coding errors, while others produced flawed or misleading results. Code modifications were minimal, averaging 8% more characters per iteration, suggesting limited adaptability. Generated manuscripts were poorly substantiated, with a median of five citations, most outdated (on

Scientific discovery is poised for rapid advancement through advanced robotics and artificial intelligence. Current scientific practices face substantial limitations as manual experimentation remains time-consuming and resource-intensive, while multidisciplinary research demands knowledge integration beyond individual researchers' expertise boundaries. Here, we envision an autonomous generalist scientist (AGS) concept combines agentic AI and embodied robotics to automate the entire research lifecycle. This system could dynamically interact with both physical and virtual environments while facilitating the integration of knowledge across diverse scientific disciplines. By deploying these technologies throughout every research stage -- spanning literature review, hypothesis generation, experimentation, and manuscript writing -- and incorporating internal reflection alongside external feedback, this system aims to significantly reduce the time and resources needed for scientific discovery. Building on the evolution from virtual AI scientists to versatile generalist AI-based robot scientists, AGS promises groundbreaking potential. As these autonomous systems become increasingly integra

Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have been applied to scientific equation discovery, leveraging their embedded scientific knowledge for hypothesis generation. However, current methods typically confine LLMs to the role of an equation proposer within search algorithms like genetic programming. In this paper, we present SR-Scientist, a framework that elevates the LLM from a simple equation proposer to an autonomous AI scientist that writes code to analyze data, implements the equation as code, submits it for evaluation, and optimizes the equation based on experimental feedback. Specifically, we wrap the code interpreter into a set of tools for data analysis and equation evaluation. The agent is instructed to optimize the equation by utilizing these tools over a long horizon with minimal human-defined pipelines. Empirical results show that SR-Scientist outperforms baseline methods by an absolute margin of 6% to 35% on datasets covering four science disciplines. Additionally, we demonstrate our method's robustness to noise, the generalization of the discovered equations to out-of-domain data, and their symbolic accuracy. Furthermore, we develop an end-to-end reinforcement learnin

Autonomous systems that generate scientific hypotheses, conduct experiments, and draft manuscripts have recently emerged as a promising paradigm for accelerating discovery. However, existing AI Scientists remain largely domain-agnostic, limiting their applicability to clinical medicine, where research is required to be grounded in medical evidence with specialized data modalities. In this work, we introduce Medical AI Scientist, the first autonomous research framework tailored to clinical autonomous research. It enables clinically grounded ideation by transforming extensively surveyed literature into actionable evidence through clinician-engineer co-reasoning mechanism, which improves the traceability of generated research ideas. It further facilitates evidence-grounded manuscript drafting guided by structured medical compositional conventions and ethical policies. The framework operates under 3 research modes, namely paper-based reproduction, literature-inspired innovation, and task-driven exploration, each corresponding to a distinct level of automated scientific inquiry with progressively increasing autonomy. Comprehensive evaluations by both large language models and human expe

Agentic AI "scientists" now use language models to search the literature, run analyses, and generate hypotheses. We evaluate KOSMOS, an autonomous AI scientist, on three problems in radiation biology using simple random-gene null benchmarks. Hypothesis 1: baseline DNA damage response (DDR) capacity across cell lines predicts the p53 transcriptional response after irradiation (GSE30240). Hypothesis 2: baseline expression of OGT and CDO1 predicts the strength of repressed and induced radiation-response modules in breast cancer cells (GSE59732). Hypothesis 3: a 12-gene expression signature predicts biochemical recurrence-free survival after prostate radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy (GSE116918). The DDR-p53 hypothesis was not supported: DDR score and p53 response were weakly negatively correlated (Spearman rho = -0.40, p = 0.76), indistinguishable from random five-gene scores. OGT showed only a weak association (r = 0.23, p = 0.34), whereas CDO1 was a clear outlier (r = 0.70, empirical p = 0.0039). The 12-gene signature achieved a concordance index of 0.61 (p = 0.017) but a non-unique effect size. Overall, KOSMOS produced one well-supported discovery, one plausible but un

Imagine decision-makers uploading data and, within minutes, receiving clear, actionable insights delivered straight to their fingertips. That is the promise of the AI Data Scientist, an autonomous Agent powered by large language models (LLMs) that closes the gap between evidence and action. Rather than simply writing code or responding to prompts, it reasons through questions, tests ideas, and delivers end-to-end insights at a pace far beyond traditional workflows. Guided by the scientific tenet of the hypothesis, this Agent uncovers explanatory patterns in data, evaluates their statistical significance, and uses them to inform predictive modeling. It then translates these results into recommendations that are both rigorous and accessible. At the core of the AI Data Scientist is a team of specialized LLM Subagents, each responsible for a distinct task such as data cleaning, statistical testing, validation, and plain-language communication. These Subagents write their own code, reason about causality, and identify when additional data is needed to support sound conclusions. Together, they achieve in minutes what might otherwise take days or weeks, enabling a new kind of interaction