Can AI agents conduct open-ended AI research? Early evidence from two case studies

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27191v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 17:57:19 GMT
• Title: Can AI agents conduct open-ended AI research? Early evidence from two case studies
• Abstract summary: Evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin.<n>Current evaluations either test agents on narrow tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review.<n>We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R&D automation.
• Score: 16.75408134467252
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R\&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.

Related papers

• PaperDoctor: Evidence-Grounded and Actionable Feedback for Scientific Papers in Progress [130.58520199343707]
  PaperDoctor is an agent framework for pre-submission feedback with three key innovations.<n>First, a holistic hierarchical framework evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments.<n>Second, each finding contains an observation, a pointer to specific evidence such as a sentence, equation, or code line, and a revision suggestion.<n>Third, PaperDoctor selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments based on claim importance and compute budget.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-15T11:08:11Z)
• How Do Agents Fail on AutoResearch: End-to-End Diagnostic Evaluation on 100 Real-World Frontier Research Tasks [6.001213285107465]
  AutoResearchEval features 100 tasks grounded in published frontier science across 7 scientific domains.<n> evaluating 8 harness-model combinations yields 800 autoresearch agent trajectories.<n>We leverage a human-calibrated agent-as-a-judge pipeline to inspect complete trajectories and intermediate artifacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T21:39:38Z)
• Can AI Review Improve Paper Drafting? An Empirical Study on 20 Computer Architecture Submissions [4.04252733799147]
  We study 20 computer architecture papers, with varying levels of submission lineage, to expose how well AI review aligns with human review.<n>To conduct the case study, we build a web UI-integrated tool, emphAI-Paper-Review, that generates structured AI review of a draft paper.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-31T05:05:26Z)
• AI for Auto-Research: Roadmap & User Guide [107.0834449839233]
  We present an end-to-end analysis of AI across the complete research lifecycle.<n>We identify a sharp, stage-dependent boundary between reliable assistance and unreliable autonomy.<n>We show that greater automation can obscure rather than eliminate failure modes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:08:26Z)
• Stop Automating Peer Review Without Rigorous Evaluation [51.53099943385505]
  This position paper argues that today's AI systems should not be used to produce paper reviews.<n>We identify two critical issues: 1) AI reviewers exhibit a hivemind effect of excessive agreement within and across papers that reduces perspective diversity.<n>We argue that addressing the peer review crisis requires a science of peer review automation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-04T22:41:04Z)
• AutoResearchBench: Benchmarking AI Agents on Complex Scientific Literature Discovery [55.70879973230979]
  AutoResearchBench is a benchmark for autonomous scientific literature discovery.<n>Compared to previous benchmarks on agentic web browsing, AutoResearchBench is research-oriented.<n>Even the most powerful LLMs, despite having largely conquered general agentic web-browsing benchmarks such as BrowseComp, achieve only 9.39% accuracy on Deep Research and 9.31% IoU on Wide Research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-28T06:05:17Z)
• The Last Human-Written Paper: Agent-Native Research Artifacts [106.47848184955576]
  We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package.<n>Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T16:23:09Z)
• AstaBench: Rigorous Benchmarking of AI Agents with a Scientific Research Suite [75.58737079136942]
  We present AstaBench, a suite that provides the first holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research.<n>Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools.<n>Our evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-24T17:10:26Z)
• Stop DDoS Attacking the Research Community with AI-Generated Survey Papers [27.03595915182805]
  We argue that we must stop uploading massive amounts of AI-generated survey papers to the research community.<n>We call for restoring expert oversight and transparency in AI usage.<n>We show that safeguarding the integrity of surveys is no longer optional but imperative to the research community.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-09T05:55:13Z)
• AGI Is Coming... Right After AI Learns to Play Wordle [4.2909314120969855]
  multimodal agents, in particular, OpenAI's Computer-User Agent (CUA), trained to control and complete tasks through a standard computer interface, similar to humans.<n>We evaluated the agent's performance on the New York Times Wordle game to elicit model behaviors and identify shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T20:58:58Z)
• Evaluating Sakana's AI Scientist: Bold Claims, Mixed Results, and a Promising Future? [20.188659973082643]
  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)<n>Our evaluation of the AI Scientist reveals critical shortcomings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T06:22:03Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.