Scientific artifacts such as models and datasets are foundations for research. With the rapid growth of platforms like HuggingFace, researchers now have access to a large number of artifacts. Yet, a key challenge remains: how can we automatically discover the state-of-the-art (SOTA) model for a given dataset by fully leveraging existing artifacts? We formalize this task as automatic SOTA discovery by modeling HuggingFace as an artifact graph, where nodes are models/datasets and edges represent evaluations. We propose ArtifactLinker, a two-stage framework: (1) ranking promising unobserved model–dataset links using Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) or graph-augmented Large Language Models (LLMs), and (2) verifying top-ranked links via coding experiments with LLM-based agents. We further introduce a benchmark named ArtifactBench with 14,053 artifacts and 51,337 relations to evaluate the performance of both stages. Results show that (1) graph structures between existing artifacts are effective for missing link prediction; (2) end-to-end ranking and verification with ArtifactLinker help discover potential SOTA results and research insights.

AI systems are increasingly used to support forward-looking scientific judgment, but it remains unclear whether they can form reliable expectations about future scientific advances. Here we show that strong scientific reasoning does not reliably translate into accurate forecasting of future scientific advances. To study this question, we introduce CUSP, a temporally grounded evaluation suite for event-level scientific forecasting across eight scientific disciplines. Across six frontier AI models, we observe a striking asymmetry in forecasting performance together with systematic error patterns. Models often identify plausible mechanisms underlying future scientific advances, yet perform near chance on feasibility assessment, generate solution strategies that only weakly align with realized advances, and systematically predict scientific advances later than they become publicly observable. Providing additional pre-cutoff scientific knowledge improves performance but does not eliminate these forecasting limitations. These findings suggest that current AI systems possess substantial retrospective scientific competence but limited forward-looking predictive capability. Scientific forecasting should therefore be evaluated as a complementary dimension of AI scientific capability when deploying AI systems for research prioritization and scientific decision-making.

Automated extraction of core scientific claims, concise statements of a paper’s primary contributions, is critical for navigating the growing scientific literature. We present a scalable framework that leverages citances, sentences from other papers citing the target work, as natural supervision, removing the need for costly manual labelling. Our method filters citances with a claim-focused rubric and aligns them with candidate claims to train two pipelines: an unsupervised extractor and a weakly supervised model. Experiments show our approach outperforms existing baselines, achieving up to 18% higher precision and 22% greater coverage. We further analyse claim distributions across paper sections and introduce a taxonomy of claim types, providing new insights into the rhetorical structure of scientific discourse.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly tested for a "Theory of Mind" (ToM) — the ability to attribute mental states to oneself and others. Yet most evaluations stop at explicit belief attribution in classical toy stories or stylized tasks, leaving open the questions of whether LLMs can implicitly apply such knowledge to predict human behavior, or to judge an observed behavior, in diverse scenarios. We introduce SimpleToM, a benchmark that advances ToM evaluation along two novel axes. First, it probes multiple levels of ToM reasoning, from mental state inference (explicit ToM) to behavior prediction and judgment (applied ToM). Second, it situates these tasks in diverse, everyday scenarios — such as supermarkets, hospitals, schools, and offices — where information asymmetries naturally arise (e.g., hidden defects in grocery store items, incomplete information in provider–patient interactions, or restricted access to locked devices). SimpleToM contains concise stories (e.g., "The can of Pringles has moldy chips in it. Mary picks up the can in the supermarket and walks to the cashier."), each with three questions that test different degrees of ToM reasoning, asking models to predict: (a) mental states ("Is Mary aware of the mold?"), (b) behaviors ("Will Mary pay for the chips or report the mold?"), and (c) judgments ("Mary paid for the chips. Was that reasonable?"). Experiments reveal a striking gap: state-of-the-art models often reliably infer mental state (a), but fail at applying knowledge about the mental state for secondary predictions, with performance dropping sharply for behavior prediction (b) and further for behavior judgment (c). This exposes a critical fragility in LLMs’ social reasoning in terms of what they know (explicit ToM) versus how well they can implicitly apply that knowledge for predictions (applied ToM). By uniting assessment of different levels of ToM reasoning with diverse, everyday scenarios, SimpleToM opens new opportunities for rigorously evaluating and diagnosing ToM abilities in LLMs, and reveals surprising, new insights about current model capabilities, guiding efforts toward future generations of models capable of robust social understanding.

Contemporary automated scientific discovery has focused on agents for generating scientific experiments, while systems that perform higher-level scientific activities such as theory building remain underexplored. In this work, we formulate the problem of synthesizing theories consisting of qualitative and quantitative laws from large corpora of scientific literature. We study theory generation at scale, using 13.7k source papers to synthesize 2.9k theories, examining how generation using literature-grounding versus parametric knowledge, and accuracy-focused versus novelty-focused generation objectives change theory properties. Our experiments show that, compared to using parametric LLM memory for generation, our literature-supported method creates theories that are significantly better at both matching existing evidence and at predicting future results from 4.6k subsequently-written papers

Abstract In large data sets discovery is often limited to pre-conceived hypotheses and data fishing. Here we tested whether systematic exploration of AI generated hypotheses could uncover clinically meaningful signals in extensively studied data. We deployed AutoDiscovery, a newly launched large language model (LLM) framework designed to search for hypotheses based on surprisal and systematically interrogate complex datasets, on The Cancer Genome Atlas breast cancer cohort. The system did not identify clinically meaningful novel findings without human input. However, a seeded warm-start run with minimal text input from an oncologist revealed multiple interesting and surprising hypotheses. Among these was that a robust immune signature was present across all subtypes of invasive lobular carcinoma (ILC) that exceeded invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). This observation was independently validated in independent cohorts and confirmed by high-sensitivity multi-immunofluorescence tumor tissue analyses. These results suggest immunotherapy approaches should be tested in ILC including early-stage ER+HER2-ILC; these patients are currently excluded from large neoadjuvant immunotherapy trials. They further demonstrate that surprisal-based hypothesis generation frameworks can extract previously unappreciated patterns from deeply interrogated cancer datasets and imply that disease domain experts working with LLMs can derive more meaningful insights from complex data than either could achieve alone.

AI agents hold the potential to revolutionize scientific productivity by automating literature reviews, replicating experiments, analyzing data, and even proposing new directions of inquiry; indeed, there are now many such agents, ranging from general-purpose "deep research" systems to specialized science-specific agents, such as AI Scientist and AIGS. Rigorous evaluation of these agents is critical for progress. Yet existing benchmarks fall short on several fronts: they often (1) lack reproducible agent tools necessary for a controlled comparison of core agentic capabilities; (2) do not account for confounding variables such as model cost and tool access; (3) do not provide standardized interfaces for quick agent prototyping and evaluation; (4) fail to provide holistic, product-informed measures of real-world use cases such as science research; and (5) lack comprehensive baseline agents necessary to identify true advances. In response, we define principles and tooling for more rigorously benchmarking agents. Using these, we present AstaBench, a suite that provides a holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research, comprising 2400+ problems spanning the entire scientific discovery process and multiple scientific domains, and including many problems inspired by actual user requests to deployed Asta agents. Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools that enable controlled, reproducible evaluation, better accounting for confounders. Alongside, we provide a comprehensive suite of nine science-optimized classes of Asta agents and numerous baselines. Our extensive evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings, most importantly that despite meaningful progress on certain individual aspects, AI remains far from solving the challenge of science research assistance.

Despite the surge of interest in autonomous scientific discovery (ASD) of software artifacts (e.g., improved ML algorithms), current ASD systems face two key limitations: (1) they largely explore variants of existing codebases or similarly constrained design spaces, and (2) they produce large volumes of research artifacts (such as automatically generated papers and code) that are typically evaluated using conference-style paper review with limited evaluation of code. In this work we introduce CodeScientist, a novel ASD system that frames ideation and experiment construction as a form of genetic search jointly over combinations of research articles and codeblocks defining common actions in a domain (like prompting a language model). We use this paradigm to conduct hundreds of automated experiments on machine-generated ideas broadly in the domain of agents and virtual environments, with the system returning 19 discoveries, 6 of which were judged as being both at least minimally sound and incrementally novel after a multi-faceted evaluation beyond that typically conducted in prior work, including external (conference-style) review, code review, and replication attempts. Moreover, the discoveries span new tasks, agents, metrics, and data, suggesting a qualitative shift from benchmark optimization to broader discoveries.

Can the rapid advances in code generation, function calling, and data analysis using large language models (LLMs) help automate the search and verification of hypotheses purely from a set of provided datasets? To evaluate this question, we present DiscoveryBench, the first comprehensive benchmark that formalizes the multi-step process of data-driven discovery. The benchmark is designed to systematically assess current model capabilities in discovery tasks and provide a useful resource for improving them. Our benchmark contains 264 tasks collected across 6 diverse domains, such as sociology and engineering, by manually deriving discovery workflows from published papers to approximate the real-world challenges faced by researchers, where each task is defined by a dataset, its metadata, and a discovery goal in natural language. We additionally provide 903 synthetic tasks to conduct controlled evaluations on data-driven workflows that are not covered in the manually collected split. Furthermore, our structured formalism of data-driven discovery enables a facet-based evaluation that provides useful insights into different failure modes. We evaluate several popular LLM-based reasoning frameworks using both open and closed LLMs as baselines on DiscoveryBench and find that even the best system scores only 25%. Our benchmark, thus, illustrates the challenges in autonomous data-driven discovery and serves as a valuable resource for the community to make progress.

Recent reasoning methods (e.g., chain-of-thought) help users understand how language models (LMs) answer a single question, but they do little to reveal the LM’s overall understanding, or “theory,” about the question’s topic, making it still hard to trust the model. Our goal is to materialize such theories - here called microtheories (a linguistic analog of logical microtheories) - as a set of sentences encapsulating an LM’s core knowledge about a topic. These statements systematically work together to entail answers to a set of questions to both engender trust and improve performance. Our approach is to first populate a knowledge store with (model-generated) sentences that entail answers to training questions, and then distill those down to a core microtheory which is concise, general, and non-redundant. We show that, when added to a general corpus (e.g., Wikipedia), microtheories can supply critical information not necessarily present in the corpus, improving both a model’s ability to ground its answers to verifiable knowledge (i.e., show how answers are systematically entailed by documents in the corpus, grounding up to +8% more answers), and the accuracy of those grounded answers (up to +8% absolute). We also show that, in a human evaluation in the medical domain, our distilled microtheories contain a significantly higher concentration of topically critical facts than the non-distilled knowledge store. Finally, we show we can quantify the coverage of a microtheory for a topic (characterized by a dataset) using a notion of p-relevance. Together, these suggest that microtheories are an efficient distillation of an LM’s topic-relevant knowledge, that they can usefully augment existing corpora, and can provide both performance gains and an interpretable, verifiable window into the model’s knowledge of a topic.

Instruction-following LLMs have recently allowed systems to discover hidden concepts from a collection of unstructured documents based on a natural language description of the purpose of the discovery (i.e., goal). Still, the quality of the discovered concepts remains mixed, as it depends heavily on LLM's reasoning ability and drops when the data is noisy or beyond LLM's knowledge. We present Instruct-LF, a goal-oriented latent factor discovery system that integrates LLM's instruction-following ability with statistical models to handle large, noisy datasets where LLM reasoning alone falls short. Instruct-LF uses LLMs to propose fine-grained, goal-related properties from documents, estimates their presence across the dataset, and applies gradient-based optimization to uncover hidden factors, where each factor is represented by a cluster of co-occurring properties. We evaluate latent factors produced by Instruct-LF on movie recommendation, text-world navigation, and legal document categorization tasks. These interpretable representations improve downstream task performance by 5-52% than the best baselines and were preferred 1.8 times as often as the best alternative, on average, in human evaluation.

The promise of autonomous scientific discovery (ASD) hinges not only on answering questions, but also on knowing which questions to ask. Most recent works in ASD explore the use of large language models (LLMs) in goal-driven settings, relying on human-specified research questions to guide hypothesis generation. However, scientific discovery may be accelerated further by allowing the AI system to drive exploration by its own criteria. The few existing approaches in open-ended ASD select hypotheses based on diversity heuristics or subjective proxies for human interestingness, but the former struggles to meaningfully navigate the typically vast hypothesis space, and the latter suffers from imprecise definitions. This paper presents AutoDiscovery—a method for open-ended ASD that instead drives scientific exploration using Bayesian surprise. Here, we quantify the epistemic shift from the LLM’s prior beliefs about a hypothesis to its posterior beliefs after gathering experimental results. To efficiently explore the space of nested hypotheses, our method employs a Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) strategy with progressive widening using surprisal as the reward function. We evaluate AutoDiscovery in the setting of data-driven discovery across 21 real-world datasets spanning domains such as biology, economics, finance, and behavioral science. Our results demonstrate that under a fixed budget, AutoDiscovery substantially outperforms competitors by producing 5-29% more discoveries deemed surprising by the LLM. Our human evaluation further reveals that two-thirds of discoveries made by our system are surprising to domain experts as well, suggesting this is an important step towards building open-ended ASD systems.

We investigate the logical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) and their scalability in complex non-monotonic reasoning. To this end, we introduce ZebraLogic, a comprehensive evaluation framework for assessing LLM reasoning performance on logic grid puzzles derived from constraint satisfaction problems (CSPs). ZebraLogic enables the generation of puzzles with controllable and quantifiable complexity, facilitating a systematic study of the scaling limits of models such as Llama, o1 models, and DeepSeek-R1. By encompassing a broad range of search space complexities and diverse logical constraints, ZebraLogic provides a structured environment to evaluate reasoning under increasing difficulty. Our results reveal a significant decline in accuracy as problem complexity grows -- a phenomenon we term the curse of complexity. This limitation persists even with larger models and increased inference-time computation, suggesting inherent constraints in current LLM reasoning capabilities. Additionally, we explore strategies to enhance logical reasoning, including Best-of-N sampling, backtracking mechanisms, and self-verification prompts. Our findings offer critical insights into the scalability of LLM reasoning, highlight fundamental limitations, and outline potential directions for improvement.

*Can we leverage LLMs to model the process of discovering novel language model (LM) architectures?* Inspired by real research, we propose a multi-agent LLM approach that simulates the conventional stages of research, from ideation and literature search (proposal stage) to design implementation (code generation), generative pre-training, and downstream evaluation (verification). Using ideas from scaling laws, our system *Genesys* employs a *Ladder of Scales* approach; new designs are proposed, adversarially reviewed, implemented, and selectively verified at increasingly larger model scales (14M$\sim$350M parameters) with a narrowing budget (the number of models we can train at each scale). To help make discovery efficient and factorizable, Genesys uses a novel genetic programming backbone, which we show has empirical advantages over commonly used direct prompt generation workflows (e.g., $\sim$86\% percentage point improvement in successful design generation, a key bottleneck). We report experiments involving 1,162 newly discovered designs (1,062 fully verified) and find the best designs to be competitive with known architectures (e.g., outperform GPT2, Mamba2, etc., on 6/9 common benchmarks). We couple these results with comprehensive system-level ablations and formal results, which give broader insights into the design of effective autonomous discovery systems.

While there has been a surge of interest in automated scientific discovery (ASD), especially with the emergence of LLMs, it remains challenging for tools to generate hypotheses that are both testable and grounded in the scientific literature. Additionally, existing ideation tools are not adaptive to prior experimental outcomes. We developed HARPA to address these challenges by incorporating the ideation workflow inspired by human researchers. HARPA first identifies emerging research trends through literature mining, then explores hypothesis design spaces, and finally converges on precise, testable hypotheses by pinpointing research gaps and justifying design choices. Our evaluations show that HARPA-generated hypothesis-driven research proposals perform comparably to a strong baseline AI-researcher across most qualitative dimensions (e.g., specificity, novelty, overall quality), but achieve significant gains in feasibility(+0.78, p<0.05, bootstrap) and groundedness (+0.85, p<0.01, bootstrap) on a 10-point Likert scale. When tested with the ASD agent (CodeScientist), HARPA produced more successful executions (20 vs. 11 out of 40) and fewer failures (16 vs. 21 out of 40), showing that expert feasibility judgments track with actual execution success. Furthermore, to simulate how researchers continuously refine their understanding of what hypotheses are both testable and potentially interesting from experience, HARPA learns a reward model that scores new hypotheses based on prior experimental outcomes, achieving approx. a 28% absolute gain over HARPA's untrained baseline scorer. Together, these methods represent a step forward in the field of AI-driven scientific discovery.

Large Language models have demonstrated promising performance in research ideation across scientific domains. Hypothesis development, the process of generating a highly specific declarative statement connecting a research idea with empirical validation, has received relatively less attention. Existing approaches trivially deploy retrieval augmentation and focus only on the quality of the final output ignoring the underlying reasoning process behind ideation. We present HypER ( Hyp othesis Generation with E xplanation and R easoning), a small language model (SLM) trained for literature-guided reasoning and evidence-based hypothesis generation. HypER is trained in a multi-task setting to discriminate between valid and invalid scientific reasoning chains in presence of controlled distractions. We find that HypER outperformes the base model, distinguishing valid from invalid reasoning chains (+22% average absolute F1), generates better evidence-grounded hypotheses (0.327 vs. 0.305 base model) with high feasibility and impact as judged by human experts ( > 3.5 on 5-point Likert scale).

Quantitative evaluation metrics have traditionally been pivotal in gauging the advancements of artificial intelligence systems, including large language models (LLMs). However, these metrics have inherent limitations. Given the intricate nature of real-world tasks, a single scalar to quantify and compare is insufficient to capture the fine-grained nuances of model behavior. Metrics serve only as a way to compare and benchmark models, and do not yield actionable diagnostics, thus making the model improvement process challenging. Model developers find themselves amid extensive manual efforts involving sifting through vast datasets and attempting hit-or-miss adjustments to training data or setups. In this work, we address the shortcomings of quantitative metrics by proposing QualEval, which augments quantitative scalar metrics with automated qualitative evaluation as a vehicle for model improvement. QualEval uses a powerful LLM reasoner and our novel flexible linear programming solver to generate human-readable insights that when applied, accelerate model improvement. The insights are backed by a comprehensive dashboard with fine-grained visualizations and human-interpretable analyses. We corroborate the faithfulness of QualEval by demonstrating that leveraging its insights, for example, improves the absolute performance of the Llama 2 model by up to 15% points relative on a challenging dialogue task (DialogSum) when compared to baselines. QualEval successfully increases the pace of model development, thus in essence serving as a data-scientist-in-a-box. Given the focus on critiquing and improving current evaluation metrics, our method serves as a refreshingly new technique for both model evaluation and improvement.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently been used for sequential decision making in interactive environments. However, leveraging environment reward signals for continual LLM actor improvement is not straightforward. We propose Skill Set Optimization (SSO) for improving LLM actor performance through constructing and refining sets of transferable skills. SSO constructs skills by extracting common subtrajectories with high rewards and generating subgoals and instructions to represent each skill. These skills are provided to the LLM actor in-context to reinforce behaviors with high rewards. Then, SSO further refines the skill set by pruning skills that do not continue to result in high rewards. We evaluate our method in the classic videogame NetHack and the text environment ScienceWorld to demonstrate SSO's ability to optimize a set of skills and perform in-context policy improvement. SSO outperforms baselines by 40% in our custom NetHack task and outperforms the previous state-of-the-art in ScienceWorld by 35%.

Recent language models enable new opportunities for structured reasoning with text, such as the construction of intuitive, proof-like textual entailment trees without relying on brittle formal logic. However, progress in this direction has been hampered by a long-standing lack of a clear protocol for determining what _valid decompositional entailment_ is. This absence causes noisy datasets and limited performance gains by modern neuro-symbolic entailment engines. To address these problems, we formulate a consistent and theoretically grounded approach to annotating decompositional entailment and evaluate its impact on LLM-based textual inference. We find that our new dataset, RDTE (Recognizing Decompositional Textual Entailment), has a substantially higher internal consistency than prior decompositional entailment datasets, suggesting that RDTE is a significant step forward in the long-standing problem of forming a clear protocol for discerning entailment. We also find that training an RDTE-oriented entailment classifier via knowledge distillation and employing it in an entailment tree reasoning engine significantly improves both accuracy and proof quality, illustrating the practical benefit of this advance for textual inference.

While LLMs can provide reasoned explanations along with their answers, the nature and quality of those explanations are still poorly understood. In response, our goal is to define a detailed way of characterizing the explanation capabilities of modern models and to create a nuanced, interpretable explanation evaluation tool that can generate such characterizations automatically, without relying on expensive API calls or human annotations. Our approach is to (a) define the new task of explanation critiquing - identifying and categorizing any main flaw in an explanation and providing suggestions to address the flaw, (b) create a sizeable, human-verified dataset for this task, and (c) train an open-source, automatic critique model (called Digital Socrates) using this data. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, we demonstrate how Digital Socrates is useful for revealing insights about student models by examining their reasoning chains, and how it can provide high-quality, nuanced, automatic evaluation of those model explanations for the first time. Digital Socrates thus fills an important gap in evaluation tools for understanding and improving the explanation behavior of models.