Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 89 references

Towards a new paradigm of scientific discovery with socialized artificial intelligence

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that scientific intelligence emerges from sustained interaction among knowledge, hypotheses, experiments, and collective verification, and that BLAZE organizes that interaction as a governed research lifecycle.

desk verdict A genuinely thoughtful architecture paper for AI4R, but the empirical evaluation is far weaker than the design; judge it on its design merits, not its current evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02775 v1 pith:UO3ZQ4B6 submitted 2026-08-03 cs.AI

Xinjie Yao , Xingxin Xu , Xiyuan Gao , Zhoupeng Guo , Kunlong Yang , Dengyu Zhao , Siqi Zhao , Zhihe Fan
show 16 more authors
Yichen Dong Xin Li Jiekang Feng Jiahe Wu Sen Wang Beiming Yu Kejia Zhao Ruipu Zhao Jiaqi Zhou Heyang Li Jianjun Chen Anbo Dai Xin Liu Zhengtao Yu Qinghua Hu Pengfei Zhu
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AI
keywords socializedscientificintelligenceAIforresearchlifecyclemulti-agentreasoningevidence-constrainedwritinghuman-AIgovernancereproducibleexperimentationtraceability
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper proposes that the next stage of AI for research is not faster automation of isolated tasks, but an organizational infrastructure through which knowledge, hypotheses, experiments, evidence, criticism, and human judgment are connected into a continuous scientific process. It introduces BLAZE, a system that carries a project through guarded transitions across knowledge construction, deliberation, execution, and validation, while preserving provenance and human approval at every consequential step. A sympathetic reader would care because the paper reframes the benchmark for AI-driven discovery: instead of asking how many research steps a model can perform, it asks whether a research organization can remember, question, test, correct, and govern itself. The paper explicitly limits its empirical claims to three artifact-based case analyses and a preregistered human-AI review study, presenting the architecture itself as the central contribution.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the Research Object, a persistent record represented as $R=\langle q,H,P,G,E,C,V,A,S,\Pi\rangle$ that links the research question, hypotheses, plans, an experiment graph, evidence, claims, reviews, human approvals, state, and provenance. A project moves through four macro phases—Knowledge, Deliberation, Execution, and Validation—by guarded transitions that preserve provenance and satisfy quality or human-approval gates. At manuscript time, the writing substrate is the evidence packet $P=(p,s,t,\pi,\rho,c,e,\sigma,\kappa,f,v,d,h)$, which ties each candidate claim to a source artifact, provenance, reliability label, evidence strength, required citation, validator results, and human owner. These objects carry the argument because they make traceability, reproducibility, and human authority structural properties of the system rather than aspirations.

What would settle it

A concrete test would run two systems on the same research task with matched models, budgets, and stopping rules—one using BLAZE's guarded transitions and evidence-constrained writing, one without provenance gates—then blind-evaluate the retained evidence and final claims. If the ungoverned pipeline's claims were found equally well supported by its artifacts, or if BLAZE's validators failed to downgrade a deliberately planted overclaim, the central claim would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that scientific intelligence is not a property of computation alone; it emerges from sustained interaction among knowledge, hypotheses, experiments, and collective verification. BLAZE is the proposed organizational infrastructure for that interaction, treating the research process rather than any single model, agent, or task as the fundamental unit of scientific intelligence. In concrete terms, the paper claims that organizing humans and machines within a shared, evidence-linked, human-governed lifecycle makes discovery more traceable, reproducible, and cumulative. The manuscript is described not as the endpoint of inquiry, but as an interpretable projection of an evolving evidence landscape in which failed experiments and unresolved disputes remain part of the epistemic record.

Load-bearing premise

The claim rests on the artifact-based evaluation in Section 9.1.2—a single GPT-5 Codex rubric assessment of frozen local packages and unmatched comparisons with other systems—being sufficient to show that BLAZE's design improves research delivery; if that evaluation is not probative, the central proposal is supported only by internal case illustration.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • BLAZE makes failed experiments, negative results, and unresolved objections first-class records, so later research projects inherit not only findings but also warnings and open questions.
  • Evidence-constrained manuscript generation means a claim cannot enter a draft unless an evidence packet supports it at the required strength; unsupported claims become concrete revision or experimentation tasks.
  • When agents disagree and evidence cannot settle the dispute, the disagreement is converted into a discriminating experiment, so productive criticism produces testable consequences rather than forced consensus.
  • Human approval gates preserve authority over topic selection, idea approval, experimentation, submission, and ethics even as agent autonomy scales.
  • The preregistered 50-student randomized review study tests whether reliability-calibrated AI feedback improves detection of major issues without increasing erroneous concerns or harmful changes in judgment.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the Research Object were adopted broadly, it could become a common audit format: a published claim would point to a versioned evidence bundle that a third party could inspect, rerun, or contest without relying on the original system.
  • The artifact-based evaluation compares frozen local packages rather than matched runs, so a natural strengthening would be a head-to-head study in which all systems receive identical tasks, budgets, models, and stopping rules before producing their final evidence bundles.
  • The same guarded-transition machinery could extend beyond AI research to regulatory science, clinical study reporting, or other settings where traceability and explicit human authority over consequential decisions are critical.
  • A testable extension of the governance claim would measure whether the human approval gates change agent behavior in high-stakes tasks, not merely whether approval records exist.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes BLAZE, an AI-for-Research infrastructure organized around the concept of 'socialized scientific intelligence': persistent knowledge, role-differentiated agent deliberation, closed-loop experimentation, evidence-constrained manuscript generation, and explicit human governance. The technical core is a traceable Research Object that carries hypotheses, plans, experiment graphs, evidence, claims, reviews, and approvals through guarded lifecycle transitions. The paper reports three completed evaluations: an open-ended AutoPaper case, a fixed-leaderboard H-EDML case, and an artifact-based comparison of frozen delivery packages from BLAZE/AutoPaper, ARIS, EvoScientist, and FARS, plus a preregistered but not-yet-run randomized study of 50 students on AI-assisted review. The authors explicitly state in §1.3 that the evaluations do not establish general improvements in reliability, efficiency, or quality, and in §10.4 that current validation is limited to reported cases and protocols.

Significance. If the architecture functioned as described and were backed by appropriate evidence, BLAZE would be a valuable organizational framework for accountable, cumulative AI-assisted science. The paper's strengths are its detailed governance model, the explicit three-level evidence taxonomy (reported, artifact-observed, independently reproduced), the declaration of measurement contracts before comparison, and the unusually transparent handling of negative results and unmatched baseline conditions. These design elements are genuine contributions. However, the empirical support for the central claim that BLAZE 'makes discovery more traceable, reproducible, and cumulative' is currently much weaker than the abstract implies: the only quality assessment is a single LLM rubric, the quantitative highlights include a retrospective AUROC and a test-feedback-optimized leaderboard score, and all system comparisons are explicitly unmatched. The paper itself acknowledges most of these limits, which is commendable, but the abstract and Section 9 framing still present the system as validated when the evidence is artifact-descriptive rather than performance-establishing.

major comments (5)
  1. [§9.1.2, Table 12; Abstract] The claim in the Abstract that BLAZE 'makes discovery more traceable, reproducible, and cumulative' is not supported by the evidence in Section 9. Table 12 is derived from a single GPT-5 Codex rubric assessment with no calibration, no inter-rater agreement, and no human validation, even though Section 2.6 itself documents reliability and bias concerns with LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. A single uncalibrated model reading self-produced frozen packages cannot establish improved reproducibility or traceability. The authors should either temper the Abstract and Conclusion to match the stated §1.3 limitation that 'general improvements in scientific reliability, efficiency or quality' are not established, or supply a multi-judge, calibrated, and preferably human-audited evaluation.
  2. [§9.1.1 and §9.2.3, Table 13] The 'Validation' and 'Iteration' rubric dimensions in Table 12 are inflated by evidence that the paper itself classifies as not validating generalization. The PCD AUROC of 1.000 is explicitly retrospective, measuring within-population cluster separability rather than held-out selection performance, and the H-EDML macro score of 87.454 is explicitly a per-dataset test-feedback optimization result rather than a held-out generalization result. Since the rubric awards 29/30 for 'quantitative results and validation', the scoring conflates exploratory or optimization evidence with validation evidence. The rubric or the interpretation must be changed so that retrospective separability and test-feedback optimization are not counted as validation success without a clear penalty or exclusion.
  3. [§9.2.6, Table 14; §6.5] The comparative case study between BLAZE and ARIS is presented as a system evaluation, but the conditions were not matched: §9.2.6 states that execution model, inputs, budgets, intervention policies, and stopping rules were not matched, and §6.5 states that outcomes obtained under unmatched execution conditions are not aggregated as system performance. The non-scoring evidence matrix in Table 14 is a useful artifact audit, but the section title 'System Evaluation and Comparative Case Studies' and the summary sentence describing 'complementary strengths' invite a system-level reading that the data cannot support. The paper should retitle or reframe this section as a frozen-artifact audit and avoid comparative language that implies different performance or capability.
  4. [§8.3, §8.5] The randomized 50-student human-in-the-loop review study is described in detail but has not been run: §8.3 states that institutional ethics approval or exemption has not yet been obtained and no recruitment has begun, and §8.5 states that the preregistration will lock before access to outcome data. The paper currently presents the weighted-review mechanism as part of the BLAZE architecture, but no results exist. This is acceptable as a preregistered protocol, provided the manuscript explicitly labels Section 8 as a study design rather than an evaluation; as written, Section 8's placement after the completed system description makes it easy to misread as a completed component. Recommend relabeling the section as 'Preregistered Study Protocol' and removing any implication that the mechanism has been validated.
  5. [§9.3, Tables 15-17] The comparison with Sciverse is presented as a quantitative reproducibility evaluation, but the data for Sciverse come exclusively from its public website and documentation, with many entries marked 'not publicly specified' or 'not measured'. Because the comparison does not actually exercise both systems under a common protocol, the table should be labeled as a documentation-based feature and transparency audit rather than an empirical comparison. The current text says the comparison 'reveals' differences in evidence completeness and resource cost; those differences may be real, but they are not established by the evidence in the manuscript.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2] The Research Object tuple R = ⟨q, H, P, G, E, C, V, A, S, Π⟩ is introduced before all fields are defined; a small table or one-sentence glossary would improve readability.
  2. [§7.1] The evidence-packet tuple P = (p, s, t, π, ρ, c, e, σ, κ, f, v, d, h) has thirteen fields that are defined only in running text; a compact table would help the reader map the formal notation to the fields already listed in Table 6.
  3. [§1.3] The name 'Zero-gap Experimentation' is never defined; the paper should state in one sentence what the 'zero gap' refers to (presumably the gap between hypothesis and evidence) at first use.
  4. [Figures 1 and 2] The text in Figures 1 and 2 is very small and will be hard to read in print; consider larger fonts or a simplified layout.
  5. [General] There are several missing-word and phrasing errors (for example, 'asocialized scientific intelligence' and the running header 'socialized artificial intelligence' in the title) that should be fixed in a copy-editing pass.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: BLAZE's empirical claims are explicitly limited and labeled, so no prediction reduces to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The paper does not claim to derive a quantitative prediction from first principles; it presents an architectural proposal and an artifact-based evaluation with explicitly stated limits. The two headline quantitative results are self-labeled as non-predictive: the H-EDML macro score of 87.454 is described as 'obtained through per-dataset test-feedback selection and is therefore reported as an optimization result rather than a held-out generalization result' (§9.1.1), and the PCD AUROC is described as measuring 'within-population cluster separability rather than held-out selection performance' (§9.2.3). The system comparison is explicitly unmatched: §9.2 states that execution model, inputs, budgets, intervention policies, and stopping rules were not matched, and §6.5 says outcomes under unmatched execution conditions are not aggregated as system performance. The evaluation evidence is classified into reported, artifact-observed, and independently reproduced levels, with system-generated reproduction reports counted only as artifact-observed (§9.1.2), so the paper does not overstate the epistemic status of its own artifacts. The central claim 'BLAZE makes discovery more traceable, reproducible, and cumulative' is a design thesis rather than a fitted prediction; the paper explicitly disclaims general improvements in reliability, efficiency, or quality (§1.3, §10.4). No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem appears: the cited systems (ARIS, EvoScientist, FARS, The AI Scientist, Co-Scientist) are external prior work, and the paper does not invoke a formal theorem to force its conclusions. The preregistered 50-student study is presented as future work, not as completed evidence. Consequently, the derivation chain, such as it is, is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Weakness in evaluation design (single GPT-5 Codex rubric, unmatched baselines) is a validity concern, not circularity, and the paper itself flags these boundaries.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The framework's central claims rest on design choices such as persistent memory, agent roles, and governed transitions, which are justified by architecture and case illustration rather than controlled experiments. There are no fitted numerical parameters, but the evaluation relies on self-produced artifacts and an LLM-as-judge, which introduces circularity.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Scientific intelligence emerges from sustained interaction among knowledge, hypotheses, experiments, and collective verification.
    Central premise stated in the abstract and Section 1.3; the paper argues BLAZE instantiates this premise rather than proving it.
  • domain assumption Persistent, role-differentiated agents with evidence-bound objections generate better hypotheses than a single model.
    Section 5.2 states this design constraint; no controlled experiment compares to single-model generation.
  • domain assumption A traceable Research Object with provenance links makes research more reproducible and cumulative.
    Section 3.2 defines the Research Object and asserts this property; the case studies show artifacts exist but do not measure cumulative benefit.
  • ad hoc to paper A single LLM (GPT-5 Codex) rubric assessment of frozen packages is a reliable measure of research delivery quality.
    Section 9.1.2 uses this assessment without human verification or inter-rater agreement; this is a specific evaluation choice, not a standard method.
invented entities (3)
  • Research Object
    purpose: Formal state representation linking research question, hypotheses, plans, evidence, claims, reviews, approvals, and provenance across the lifecycle.
    Described in Section 3.2 as a tuple R; it is a software abstraction with no independent falsifiable handle.
  • Evidence Packet
    purpose: Typed record that binds a candidate claim to source artifacts, provenance, validators, and human ownership during manuscript generation.
    Defined in Section 7.1; internal mechanism, no external validation.
  • Socialized Scientific Intelligence
    purpose: The emergent collective capacity from organized human-machine scientific process.
    A conceptual term introduced in the abstract and Section 1.1; not directly measurable.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Towards a new paradigm of scientific discovery with socialized artificial intelligence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UO3ZQ4B6

@misc{pith2026260802775,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Towards a new paradigm of scientific discovery with socialized artificial intelligence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UO3ZQ4B6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02775}
}
read the original abstract

Scientific discovery has advanced through successive transformations in the organization of knowledge. Observation and experimentation established the empirical foundations of science. Theory made it possible to derive general principles from particular phenomena. Computation extended inquiry into systems beyond direct observation, while data-intensive methods opened new spaces of pattern and prediction. Science now confronts a different frontier. The central challenge is no longer simply to produce more information, but to organize expanding knowledge, reasoning, and evidence into a coherent process of discovery. Here, we introduce Bridging Literature, Agents, and Zero-gap Experimentation (BLAZE), a paradigm of socialized scientific intelligence. BLAZE conceives AI not as an assistant for isolated research tasks, but as an organizational infrastructure for scientific discovery. It connects persistent knowledge, collective reasoning, empirical validation, and human judgment within a continuous research lifecycle, transforming fragmented activities into a cumulative process of inquiry, criticism, and revision. The central premise of BLAZE is that scientific intelligence does not arise from computation alone. It emerges from the sustained interaction among knowledge, hypotheses, experiments, and collective verification. By organizing humans and machines within a shared scientific process, BLAZE makes discovery more traceable, reproducible, and cumulative while preserving human creativity, judgment, and responsibility. Socialized scientific intelligence may provide a foundation for the next era of science. Its purpose is not to replace human discovery, but to extend the scale, depth, and continuity of collective scientific inquiry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02775 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The evolving organization of scientific discovery. Scientific inquiry has progressively expanded from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. From fragmented research workflows to a socialized AI4R infrastructure. Existing workflows remain either [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Overview of the BLAZE research lifecycle. The lifecycle comprises four macro phases, Knowledge, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Knowledge-layer architecture of BLAZE Research. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: BLAZE brings together PIs, domain experts, methodologists, skeptics, reviewers and editors to evaluate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Closed-loop protocol and evidence boundary. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evidence-constrained manuscript generation. a, Literature records, idea reports, baseline reports, experiment logs, review records, and human decisions are compiled into evidence packets with source identifiers, candidate claims, evidence payloads, risk labels, validat…

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    University of Chicago Press Chicago, 1970

    Thomas S Kuhn and Ian Hacking.The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press Chicago, 1970

    1970

  2. [2]

    Cambridge University Press, 1983

    Ian Hacking.Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science. Cambridge University Press, 1983

    1983

  3. [3]

    Princeton University Press, 2011

    Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer.Leviathan and the air-pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princeton University Press, 2011

    2011

  4. [4]

    University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1997

    Peter Galison.Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1997

    1997

  5. [5]

    More is different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science

    Philip W Anderson. More is different: broken symmetry and the nature of the hierarchical structure of science. Science, 177(4047):393–396, 1972

    1972

  6. [6]

    Microsoft Research Redmond, W A, 2009

    Anthony JG Hey, Stewart Tansley, Kristin Michele Tolle, et al.The fourth paradigm: data-intensive scientific discovery, volume 1. Microsoft Research Redmond, W A, 2009

    2009

  7. [7]

    Automating the search for artificial life with foundation models.Artificial Life, 31(3):368–396, 2025

    Akarsh Kumar, Chris Lu, Louis Kirsch, Yujin Tang, Kenneth O Stanley, Phillip Isola, and David Ha. Automating the search for artificial life with foundation models.Artificial Life, 31(3):368–396, 2025

    2025

  8. [8]

    Research on key technologies of artificial intelligence for research and develop- ment.Information and Communications Technology and Policy, 51(8):42–49, 2025

    DONG Hao and ZHOU Jingcai. Research on key technologies of artificial intelligence for research and develop- ment.Information and Communications Technology and Policy, 51(8):42–49, 2025

    2025

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    An agentic framework for autonomous metamaterial modeling and inverse design.ACS Photonics, 12(11):6071–6080, 2025

    Darui Lu, Jordan M Malof, and Willie J Padilla. An agentic framework for autonomous metamaterial modeling and inverse design.ACS Photonics, 12(11):6071–6080, 2025

    2025

  2. [10]

    Fangyu LIAO, Yang WANG, Rongqiang CAO, Bo ZHANG, Zhenyu LI, Huajin WANG, Xin CHEN, Dong LI, Yangang WANG, Xin WEI, et al. Architecture and key technologies of new research informatization infrastructure platform under the fifth research paradigm.Bulletin of Chinese Academy of ...

    2024

  3. [11]

    Build your personalized research group: A multiagent framework for continual and interactive science automation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15624, 2025

    Ed Li, Junyu Ren, Xintian Pan, Cat Yan, Chuanhao Li, Dirk Bergemann, and Zhuoran Yang. Build your personalized research group: A multiagent framework for continual and interactive science automation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.15624, 2025. 35

  4. [12]

    Ai4r: The fifth scientific research paradigm.Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version), 39(1):1–9, 2024

    Guojie LI. Ai4r: The fifth scientific research paradigm.Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Chinese Version), 39(1):1–9, 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Foundation models for scientific discovery: From paradigm enhancement to paradigm transition.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:1–7, 2026

    Fan Liu, Jindong Han, Tengfei Lyu, Weijia Zhang, Zherui Yang, Lu Dai, Cancheng Liu, and Hao Liu. Foundation models for scientific discovery: From paradigm enhancement to paradigm transition.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:1–7, 2026

    2026

  6. [14]

    Lutz Bornmann and Rüdiger Mutz. Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references.Journal of the association for information science and technology, 66(11):2215–2222, 2015

    2015

  7. [15]

    Aris: Autonomous research via adversarial multi-agent collaboration

    Ruofeng Yang, Yongcan Li, and Shuai Li. Aris: Autonomous research via adversarial multi-agent collaboration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.03042, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Autosota: An end-to-end automated research system for state-of-the-art ai model discovery

    Yu Li, Chenyang Shao, Xinyang Liu, Ruotong Zhao, Peijie Liu, Hongyuan Su, Zhibin Chen, Qinglong Yang, Anjie Xu, Yi Fang, et al. Autosota: An end-to-end automated research system for state-of-the-art ai model discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05550, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Fars: A fully automated research system deployed at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.31651, 2026

    Qiong Tang, Xiangkun Hu, Xiangyang Liu, Yiran Chen, and Yunfan Shao. Fars: A fully automated research system deployed at scale.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.31651, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  10. [18]

    A survey of scientific large language models: From data foundations to agent frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.21148, 2025

    Ming Hu, Chenglong Ma, Wei Li, Wanghan Xu, Jiamin Wu, Jucheng Hu, Tianbin Li, Guohang Zhuang, Jiaqi Liu, Yingzhou Lu, et al. A survey of scientific large language models: From data foundations to agent frontiers.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.21148, 2025

    2025

  11. [19]

    Nobel turing challenge: creating the engine for scientific discovery.NPJ Systems Biology and Applications, 7(1):1–12, 2021

    Hiroaki Kitano. Nobel turing challenge: creating the engine for scientific discovery.NPJ Systems Biology and Applications, 7(1):1–12, 2021

    2021

  12. [20]

    Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence.Nature, 620(7972):47–60, 2023

    Hanchen Wang, Tianfan Fu, Yuanqi Du, Wenhao Gao, Kexin Huang, Ziming Liu, Payal Chandak, Shengchao Liu, Peter Van Katwyk, Andreea Deac, et al. Scientific discovery in the age of artificial intelligence.Nature, 620(7972):47–60, 2023

    2023

  13. [21]

    Autonomous chemical research with large language models.Nature, 624(7992):570–578, 2023

    Daniil A Boiko, Robert MacKnight, Ben Kline, and Gabe Gomes. Autonomous chemical research with large language models.Nature, 624(7992):570–578, 2023

    2023

  14. [22]

    Perspective on utilizing foundation models for laboratory automation in materials research

    Kan Hatakeyama-Sato, Toshihiko Nishida, Kenta Kitamura, Yoshitaka Ushiku, Koichi Takahashi, Yuta Nabae, and Teruaki Hayakawa. Perspective on utilizing foundation models for laboratory automation in materials research. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials: Methods, 5(1)...

    2025

  15. [23]

    Evoscientist: Towards multi-agent evolving ai scientists for end-to-end scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08127, 2026

    Yougang Lyu, Xi Zhang, Xinhao Yi, Yuyue Zhao, Shuyu Guo, Wenxiang Hu, Jan Piotrowski, Jakub Kaliski, Jacopo Urbani, Zaiqiao Meng, et al. Evoscientist: Towards multi-agent evolving ai scientists for end-to-end scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.08127, 2026

    2026

  16. [24]

    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold.Nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin Žídek, Anna Potapenko, et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold.Nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    2021

  17. [25]

    Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3.Nature, 630(8016):493–500, 2024

    Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ronneberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J Ballard, Joshua Bambrick, et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3.Nature, 630(8016):493–500, 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Scaling deep learning for materials discovery.Nature, 624(7990):80–85, 2023

    Amil Merchant, Simon Batzner, Samuel S Schoenholz, Muratahan Aykol, Gowoon Cheon, and Ekin Dogus Cubuk. Scaling deep learning for materials discovery.Nature, 624(7990):80–85, 2023

    2023

  19. [27]

    Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Mohammadamin Barekatain, Alexander Novikov, Matej Balog, M Pawan Kumar, Emilien Dupont, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Jordan S Ellenberg, Pengming Wang, Omar Fawzi, et al. Mathematical discoveries from program search with large language models.Nature, 625(79...

    2024

  20. [28]

    Alhussein Fawzi, Matej Balog, Aja Huang, Thomas Hubert, Bernardino Romera-Paredes, Mohammadamin Barekatain, Alexander Novikov, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Julian Schrittwieser, Grzegorz Swirszcz, et al. Discovering faster matrix multiplication algorithms with reinforcement learning....

    2022

  21. [29]

    An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials.Nature, 624(7990):86–91, 2023

    Nathan J Szymanski, Bernardus Rendy, Yuxing Fei, Rishi E Kumar, Tanjin He, David Milsted, Matthew J McDermott, Max Gallant, Ekin Dogus Cubuk, Amil Merchant, et al. An autonomous laboratory for the accelerated synthesis of novel materials.Nature, 624(7990):86–91, 2023

    2023

  22. [30]

    Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries.Scientometrics, 90(3):891– 904, 2012

    Daniele Fanelli. Negative results are disappearing from most disciplines and countries.Scientometrics, 90(3):891– 904, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Specter: Document-level representation learning using citation-informed transformers

    Arman Cohan, Sergey Feldman, Iz Beltagy, Doug Downey, and Daniel S Weld. Specter: Document-level representation learning using citation-informed transformers. InProceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, pages 2270–2282, 2020. 36

    2020

  24. [32]

    Scientific document retrieval using multi-level aspect-based queries.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:38404–38419, 2023

    Jianyou Andre Wang, Kaicheng Wang, Xiaoyue Wang, Prudhviraj Naidu, Leon Bergen, and Ramamohan Paturi. Scientific document retrieval using multi-level aspect-based queries.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36:38404–38419, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Structured information extraction from scientific text with large language models

    John Dagdelen, Alexander Dunn, Sanghoon Lee, Nicholas Walker, Andrew S Rosen, Gerbrand Ceder, Kristin A Persson, and Anubhav Jain. Structured information extraction from scientific text with large language models. Nature Communications, 15(1):1418, 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Micropublications: a semantic model for claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications.Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 5(1):28, 2014

    Tim Clark, Paolo N Ciccarese, and Carole A Goble. Micropublications: a semantic model for claims, evidence, arguments and annotations in biomedical communications.Journal of Biomedical Semantics, 5(1):28, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    HLM-Cite: Hybrid language model workflow for text-based scientific citation prediction.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:48189–48223, 2024

    Qianyue Hao, Jingyang Fan, Fengli Xu, Jian Yuan, and Yong Li. HLM-Cite: Hybrid language model workflow for text-based scientific citation prediction.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 37:48189–48223, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    CiteME: Can language models accurately cite scientific claims? InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, 2024

    Ori Press, Andreas Hochlehnert, Ameya Prabhu, Vishaal Udandarao, Ofir Press, and Matthias Bethge. CiteME: Can language models accurately cite scientific claims? InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 37, 2024. Datasets and Benchmarks Track

    2024

  29. [37]

    AutoSurvey: Large language models can automatically write surveys

    Yidong Wang, Qi Guo, Wenjin Yao, Hongbo Zhang, Xin Zhang, Zhen Wu, Meishan Zhang, Xinyu Dai, Min Zhang, Qingsong Wen, Wei Ye, Shikun Zhang, and Yue Zhang. AutoSurvey: Large language models can automatically write surveys. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vo...

    2024

  30. [38]

    ResearchAgent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models

    Jinheon Baek, Sujay Kumar Jauhar, Silviu Cucerzan, and Sung Ju Hwang. ResearchAgent: Iterative research idea generation over scientific literature with large language models. InProceedings of the 2025 Conference of the Nations of the Americas Chapter of the Association for Com...

    2025

  31. [39]

    Ai-generated hypotheses and the emergence of autonomous scientific discovery.ACS Materials Letters, 8(6):1457–1464, 2026

    T Jesper Jacobsson. Ai-generated hypotheses and the emergence of autonomous scientific discovery.ACS Materials Letters, 8(6):1457–1464, 2026

    2026

  32. [40]

    Agentichypothesis: A survey on hypothesis generation using llm systems

    Adib Bazgir, Yuwen Zhang, et al. Agentichypothesis: A survey on hypothesis generation using llm systems. Towards Agentic AI for Science: Hypothesis Generation, Comprehension, Quantification, and Validation, 2025

    2025

  33. [41]

    A survey on hypothesis generation for scientific discovery in the era of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.05496, 2025

    Atilla Kaan Alkan, Shashwat Sourav, Maja Jablonska, Simone Astarita, Rishabh Chakrabarty, Nikhil Garuda, Pranav Khetarpal, Maciej Pióro, Dimitrios Tanoglidis, Kartheik G Iyer, et al. A survey on hypothesis generation for scientific discovery in the era of large language models...

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Towards autonomous quantum physics research using llm agents with access to intelligent tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11752, 2025

    Sören Arlt, Xuemei Gu, and Mario Krenn. Towards autonomous quantum physics research using llm agents with access to intelligent tools.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.11752, 2025

    2025

  35. [43]

    A compre- hensive empirical evaluation of agent frameworks on code-centric software engineering tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00872, 2025

    Zhuowen Yin, Cuifeng Gao, Chunsong Fan, Wenzhang Yang, Yinxing Xue, and Lijun Zhang. A compre- hensive empirical evaluation of agent frameworks on code-centric software engineering tasks.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00872, 2025

    2025

  36. [44]

    Alpharesearch: Accelerating new algorithm discovery with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08522, 2025

    Zhaojian Yu, Kaiyue Feng, Yilun Zhao, Shilin He, Xiao-Ping Zhang, and Arman Cohan. Alpharesearch: Accelerating new algorithm discovery with language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.08522, 2025

    2025

  37. [45]

    Sciagents: automating scientific discovery through bioinspired multi-agent intelligent graph reasoning.Advanced Materials, 37(22):2413523, 2025

    Alireza Ghafarollahi and Markus J Buehler. Sciagents: automating scientific discovery through bioinspired multi-agent intelligent graph reasoning.Advanced Materials, 37(22):2413523, 2025

    2025

  38. [46]

    Towards end-to-end automation of AI research.Nature, 651(8107):914–919, 2026

    Chris Lu, Cong Lu, Robert Tjarko Lange, Yutaro Yamada, Shengran Hu, Jakob Foerster, David Ha, and Jeff Clune. Towards end-to-end automation of AI research.Nature, 651(8107):914–919, 2026

    2026

  39. [47]

    Joeran Beel, Min-Yen Kan, and Moritz Baumgart. Evaluating sakana’s ai scientist for autonomous research: Wish- ful thinking or an emerging reality towards’ artificial research intelligence’(ari).arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.14297, 2025

    2025

  40. [48]

    Moose-chem2: Exploring llm limits in fine-grained scientific hypothesis discovery via hierarchical search.Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 38:89045–89076, 2026

    Zonglin Yang, Wanhao Liu, Ben Gao, Yujie Liu, Wei Li, Tong Xie, Lidong Bing, Wanli Ouyang, Erik Cambria, and Dongzhan Zhou. Moose-chem2: Exploring llm limits in fine-grained scientific hypothesis discovery via hierarchical search.Advances in Neural Information Processing Syste...

    2026

  41. [49]

    Bulaong, Julia E

    Kyle Swanson, Wesley Wu, Nina L. Bulaong, Julia E. Pak, and James Zou. The virtual lab of ai agents designs new SARS-CoV-2 nanobodies.Nature, 646:716–723, 2025

    2025

  42. [50]

    CASSIA: a multi-agent large language model for automated and interpretable cell annotation.Nature Communications, 17:389, 2026

    Elliot Xie, Lingxin Cheng, Jack Shireman, Yujia Cai, Jihua Liu, Chitrasen Mohanty, Mahua Dey, and Christina Kendziorski. CASSIA: a multi-agent large language model for automated and interpretable cell annotation.Nature Communications, 17:389, 2026

    2026

  43. [51]

    Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325, 2023

    Yilun Du, Shuang Li, Antonio Torralba, Joshua B Tenenbaum, and Igor Mordatch. Improving factuality and reasoning in language models through multiagent debate.arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.14325, 2023. 37

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Juraj Gottweis, Wei-Hung Weng, Alexander Daryin, Tao Tu, Petar Sirkovic, Artiom Myaskovsky, Grzegorz Glowaty, Felix Weissenberger, Alessio Orlandi, Dan Popovici, Anil Palepu, Keran Rong, Ryutaro Tanno, Khaled Saab, Fan Zhang, Jacob Blum, Andrew Carroll, Kavita Kulkarni, Nenad ...

    2026

  45. [53]

    Agenticsciml: collaborative multi-agent systems for emergent discovery in scientific machine learning.npj Artificial Intelligence, 2:57, 2026

    Qile Jiang and George Karniadakis. Agenticsciml: collaborative multi-agent systems for emergent discovery in scientific machine learning.npj Artificial Intelligence, 2:57, 2026

    2026

  46. [54]

    Ghareeb, Benjamin Chang, Ludovico Mitchener, Angela Yiu, Caralyn J

    Ali E. Ghareeb, Benjamin Chang, Ludovico Mitchener, Angela Yiu, Caralyn J. Szostkiewicz, Dmytro Shved, Gavin J. Gyimesi, Jon M. Laurent, Samantha M. Wright, Muhammed T. Razzak, Andrew D. White, Silvia C. Finnemann, Michaela M. Hinks, and Samuel G. Rodriques. A multi-agent syst...

    2026

  47. [55]

    Smedskjaer, Katrin Wondraczek, Lothar Wondraczek, Nitya Nand Gosvami, and N

    Indrajeet Mandal, Jitendra Soni, Mohd Zaki, Morten M. Smedskjaer, Katrin Wondraczek, Lothar Wondraczek, Nitya Nand Gosvami, and N. M. Anoop Krishnan. Evaluating large language model agents for automation of atomic force microscopy.Nature Communications, 16:9104, 2025

    2025

  48. [56]

    Aide: Ai-driven exploration in the space of code

    Zhengyao Jiang, Dominik Schmidt, Dhruv Srikanth, Dixing Xu, Ian Kaplan, Deniss Jacenko, and Yuxiang Wu. Aide: Ai-driven exploration in the space of code. arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.13138, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Alexander Novikov, Ngan V˜u, Marvin Eisenberger, Emilien Dupont, Po-Sen Huang, Adam Zsolt Wagner, Sergey Shirobokov, Borislav Kozlovskii, Francisco J. R. Ruiz, Abbas Mehrabian, M. Pawan Kumar, Abigail See, Swarat Chaudhuri, George Holland, Alex Davies, Sebastian Nowozin, Pushm...

    2025 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Mlagentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation

    Qian Huang, Jian V ora, Percy Liang, and Jure Leskovec. Mlagentbench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.03302, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Mle-bench: Evaluating machine learning agents on machine learning engineering

    Jun Shern Chan, Neil Chowdhury, Oliver Jaffe, James Aung, Dane Sherburn, Evan Mays, Giulio Starace, Kevin Liu, Leon Maksin, Tejal Patwardhan, Lilian Weng, and Aleksander M ˛ adry. Mle-bench: Evaluating machine learning agents on machine learning engineering. arXiv preprint arX...

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Agent laboratory: Using llm agents as research assistants

    Samuel Schmidgall, Yusheng Su, Ze Wang, Ximeng Sun, Jialian Wu, Xiaodong Yu, Jiang Liu, Michael Moor, Zicheng Liu, and Emad Barsoum. Agent laboratory: Using llm agents as research assistants. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.04227, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Mlr-bench: Evaluating ai agents on open-ended machine learning research

    Hui Chen, Miao Xiong, Yujie Lu, Wei Han, Ailin Deng, Yufei He, Jiaying Wu, Yibo Li, Yue Liu, and Bryan Hooi. Mlr-bench: Evaluating ai agents on open-ended machine learning research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.19955, 2025

    2025

  54. [62]

    McFarland, and James Zou

    Weixin Liang, Yuhui Zhang, Hancheng Cao, Binglu Wang, Daisy Yi Ding, Xinyu Yang, Kailas V odrahalli, Siyu He, Daniel Scott Smith, Yian Yin, Daniel A. McFarland, and James Zou. Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? a large-scale empirical analysi...

    2024

  55. [63]

    A survey on llm-as-a-judge

    Jiawei Gu, Xuhui Jiang, Zhichao Shi, Hexiang Tan, Xuehao Zhai, Chengjin Xu, Wei Li, Yinghan Shen, Shengjie Ma, Honghao Liu, Saizhuo Wang, Kun Zhang, Yuanzhuo Wang, Wen Gao, Lionel Ni, and Jian Guo. A survey on llm-as-a-judge. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.15594, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Gpt4 is slightly helpful for peer-review assistance: A pilot study, 2023

    Zachary Robertson. Gpt4 is slightly helpful for peer-review assistance: A pilot study, 2023

    2023

  57. [65]

    A large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review.Nature Machine Intelligence, 8(3):326–336, 2026

    Nitya Thakkar, Mert Yuksekgonul, Jake Silberg, Animesh Garg, Nanyun Peng, Fei Sha, Rose Yu, Carl V ondrick, and James Zou. A large-scale randomized study of large language model feedback in peer review.Nature Machine Intelligence, 8(3):326–336, 2026

    2026

  58. [66]

    Peer review in the time of artificial intelligence.Nature Nanotechnology, 21:479, 2026

    2026

  59. [67]

    Autonomous mobile robots for exploratory synthetic chemistry.Nature, 635(8040):890–897, 2024

    Tianwei Dai, Sriram Vijayakrishnan, Filip T Szczypi´nski, Jean-François Ayme, Ehsan Simaei, Thomas Fellowes, Rob Clowes, Lyubomir Kotopanov, Caitlin E Shields, Zhengxue Zhou, et al. Autonomous mobile robots for exploratory synthetic chemistry.Nature, 635(8040):890–897, 2024

    2024

  60. [68]

    Roch, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik

    Florian Häse, Loïc M. Roch, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Next-generation experimentation with self-driving laboratories.Trends in Chemistry, 1(3):282–291, 2019

    2019

  61. [69]

    A mobile robotic chemist.Nature, 583(7815):237–241, 2020

    Benjamin Burger, Phillip M Maffettone, Vladimir V Gusev, Catherine M Aitchison, Yang Bai, Xiaoyan Wang, Xiaobo Li, Ben M Alston, Buyi Li, Rob Clowes, et al. A mobile robotic chemist.Nature, 583(7815):237–241, 2020. 38

    2020

  62. [70]

    Localization, inspection, and reasoning (LIRA) module for autonomous workflows in self-driving laboratories.Communications Chemistry, 8(1):384, 2025

    Zhengxue Zhou, Satheeshkumar Veeramani, Francisco Munguia-Galeano, Hatem Fakhruldeen, and Andrew I Cooper. Localization, inspection, and reasoning (LIRA) module for autonomous workflows in self-driving laboratories.Communications Chemistry, 8(1):384, 2025

    2025

  63. [71]

    Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D

    Andres M. Bran, Sam Cox, Oliver Schilter, Carlo Baldassari, Andrew D. White, and Philippe Schwaller. Aug- menting large language models with chemistry tools.Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(5):525–535, 2024

    2024

  64. [72]

    Wu, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik

    Martin Seifrid, Robert Pollice, Andrés Aguilar-Granda, Zamyla Morgan Chan, Kazuhiro Hotta, Cher Tian Ser, Jenya Vestfrid, Tony C. Wu, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik. Autonomous chemical experiments: Challenges and perspectives on establishing a self-driving lab.Accounts of Chemical Res...

    2022

  65. [73]

    Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E

    Mark D. Wilkinson, Michel Dumontier, IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg, Gabrielle Appleton, Myles Axton, Arie Baak, Niklas Blomberg, Jan-Willem Boiten, Luiz Bonino da Silva Santos, Philip E. Bourne, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship.Scien...

    2016 doi

  66. [74]

    PROV-DM: The PROV data model

    Luc Moreau and Paolo Missier. PROV-DM: The PROV data model. W3C recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, April 2013. Available athttps://www.w3.org/TR/prov-dm/

    2013

  67. [75]

    Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023

    Qingyun Wu, Gagan Bansal, Jieyu Zhang, Yiran Wu, Beibin Li, Erkang Zhu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyun Zhang, Shaokun Zhang, Jiale Liu, et al. Autogen: Enabling next-gen llm applications via multi-agent conversation.arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.08155, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  68. [76]

    Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework

    Sirui Hong, Mingchen Zhuge, Jonathan Chen, Xiawu Zheng, Yuheng Cheng, Jinlin Wang, Ceyao Zhang, Steven Yau, Zijuan Lin, Liyang Zhou, et al. Metagpt: Meta programming for a multi-agent collaborative framework. In International Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024...

    2024

  69. [77]

    Trustworthy ai development guidelines for human system interaction

    Chathurika S Wickramasinghe, Daniel L Marino, Javier Grandio, and Milos Manic. Trustworthy ai development guidelines for human system interaction. In2020 13th International Conference on Human System Interaction (HSI), pages 130–136. IEEE, 2020

    2020

  70. [78]

    The singapore statement on research integrity.Croatian Medical Journal, 51(5):381–382, 2010

    Ana Maruši ´c. The singapore statement on research integrity.Croatian Medical Journal, 51(5):381–382, 2010

    2010

  71. [79]

    Ten simple rules for reproducible computational research.PLOS Computational Biology, 9(10):e1003285, 2013

    Geir Kjetil Sandve, Anton Nekrutenko, James Taylor, and Eivind Hovig. Ten simple rules for reproducible computational research.PLOS Computational Biology, 9(10):e1003285, 2013. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003285

    2013 doi

  72. [80]

    Wasserstein and Nicole A

    Ronald L. Wasserstein and Nicole A. Lazar. The ASA’s statement onp-values: Context, process, and purpose. The American Statistician, 70(2):129–133, 2016. doi:10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108

    2016 arXiv

  73. [81]

    A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants.PloS one, 5(12):e14331, 2010

    Lutz Bornmann, Rüdiger Mutz, and Hans-Dieter Daniel. A reliability-generalization study of journal peer reviews: A multilevel meta-analysis of inter-rater reliability and its determinants.PloS one, 5(12):e14331, 2010

    2010

  74. [82]

    Is llm a reliable reviewer? a comprehensive evaluation of llm on automatic paper reviewing tasks

    Ruiyang Zhou, Lu Chen, and Kai Yu. Is llm a reliable reviewer? a comprehensive evaluation of llm on automatic paper reviewing tasks. InProceedings of the 2024 joint international conference on computational linguistics, language resources and evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024), pag...

    2024

  75. [83]

    CLAIMCHECK: How grounded are LLM critiques of scientific papers? InFindings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2025, pages 21712–21735, Suzhou, China, 2025

    Jiefu Ou, William Gantt Walden, Kate Sanders, Zhengping Jiang, Kaiser Sun, Jeffrey Cheng, William Jurayj, Miriam Wanner, Shaobo Liang, Candice Morgan, Seunghoon Han, Weiqi Wang, Chandler May, Hannah Recknor, Daniel Khashabi, and Benjamin Van Durme. CLAIMCHECK: How grounded are...

    2025

  76. [84]

    On calibration of modern neural networks

    Chuan Guo, Geoff Pleiss, Yu Sun, and Kilian Q Weinberger. On calibration of modern neural networks. In International conference on machine learning, pages 1321–1330. PMLR, 2017

    2017

  77. [85]

    Selective classification for deep neural networks

    Yonatan Geifman and Ran El-Yaniv. Selective classification for deep neural networks. InAdvances in neural information processing systems, volume 30, 2017

    2017

  78. [86]

    Consistent estimators for learning to defer to an expert

    Hussein Mozannar and David Sontag. Consistent estimators for learning to defer to an expert. InInternational conference on machine learning, pages 7076–7087. PMLR, 2020

    2020

  79. [87]

    Development of the review quality instrument (rqi) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts.Journal of clinical epidemiology, 52(7):625–629, 1999

    Susan Van Rooyen, Nick Black, and Fiona Godlee. Development of the review quality instrument (rqi) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts.Journal of clinical epidemiology, 52(7):625–629, 1999

    1999

  80. [88]

    One-dimensional ice shelf hardness inversion: Clustering behavior and collocation resampling in physics-informed neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 492:112435, 2023

    Yunona Iwasaki and Ching-Yao Lai. One-dimensional ice shelf hardness inversion: Clustering behavior and collocation resampling in physics-informed neural networks.Journal of Computational Physics, 492:112435, 2023

    2023

  81. [89]

    Risks of AI scientists: prioritizing safeguarding over autonomy.Nature Communications, 16(1):8317, 2025

    Xiangru Tang, Qiao Jin, Kunlun Zhu, Tongxin Yuan, Yichi Zhang, Wangchunshu Zhou, Meng Qu, Yilun Zhao, Jian Tang, Zhuosheng Zhang, Arman Cohan, Dov Greenbaum, Zhiyong Lu, and Mark Gerstein. Risks of AI scientists: prioritizing safeguarding over autonomy.Nature Communications, 1...

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.