Daily Papers

The automation of scientific discovery has been a long-standing goal within the research community, driven by the potential to accelerate knowledge creation. While significant progress has been made using commercial large language models (LLMs) as research assistants or idea generators, the possibility of automating the entire research process with open-source LLMs remains largely unexplored. This paper explores the feasibility of using open-source post-trained LLMs as autonomous agents capable of performing the full cycle of automated research and review, from literature review and manuscript preparation to peer review and paper revision. Our iterative preference training framework consists of CycleResearcher, which conducts research tasks, and CycleReviewer, which simulates the peer review process, providing iterative feedback via reinforcement learning. To train these models, we develop two new datasets, Review-5k and Research-14k, reflecting real-world machine learning research and peer review dynamics. Our results demonstrate that CycleReviewer achieves a 26.89\% improvement in mean absolute error (MAE) over individual human reviewers in predicting paper scores, indicating that LLMs can surpass expert-level performance in research evaluation. In research, the papers generated by the CycleResearcher model achieved a score of 5.36 in simulated peer reviews, surpassing the preprint level of 5.24 from human experts and approaching the accepted paper level of 5.69. This work represents a significant step toward fully automated scientific inquiry, providing ethical safeguards and advancing AI-driven research capabilities. The code, dataset and model weight are released at http://github/minjun-zhu/Researcher.

As large language models (LLMs) advance, the ultimate vision for their role in science is emerging: we could build an AI collaborator to effectively assist human beings throughout the entire scientific research process. We refer to this envisioned system as ResearchGPT. Given that scientific research progresses through multiple interdependent phases, achieving this vision requires rigorous benchmarks that evaluate the end-to-end workflow rather than isolated sub-tasks. To this end, we contribute CS-54k, a high-quality corpus of scientific Q&A pairs in computer science, built from 14k CC-licensed papers. It is constructed through a scalable, paper-grounded pipeline that combines retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with multi-stage quality control to ensure factual grounding. From this unified corpus, we derive two complementary subsets: CS-4k, a carefully curated benchmark for evaluating AI's ability to assist scientific research, and CS-50k, a large-scale training dataset. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CS-4k stratifies state-of-the-art LLMs into distinct capability tiers. Open models trained on CS-50k with supervised training and reinforcement learning demonstrate substantial improvements. Even 7B-scale models, when properly trained, outperform many larger proprietary systems, such as GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. This indicates that making AI models better research assistants relies more on domain-aligned training with high-quality data than on pretraining scale or general benchmark performance. We release CS-4k and CS-50k in the hope of fostering AI systems as reliable collaborators in CS research.

As big data grows ubiquitous across many domains, more and more stakeholders seek to develop Machine Learning (ML) applications on their data. The success of an ML application usually depends on the close collaboration of ML experts and domain experts. However, the shortage of ML engineers remains a fundamental problem. Low-code Machine learning tools/platforms (aka, AutoML) aim to democratize ML development to domain experts by automating many repetitive tasks in the ML pipeline. This research presents an empirical study of around 14k posts (questions + accepted answers) from Stack Overflow (SO) that contained AutoML-related discussions. We examine how these topics are spread across the various Machine Learning Life Cycle (MLLC) phases and their popularity and difficulty. This study offers several interesting findings. First, we find 13 AutoML topics that we group into four categories. The MLOps topic category (43% questions) is the largest, followed by Model (28% questions), Data (27% questions), Documentation (2% questions). Second, Most questions are asked during Model training (29%) (i.e., implementation phase) and Data preparation (25%) MLLC phase. Third, AutoML practitioners find the MLOps topic category most challenging, especially topics related to model deployment & monitoring and Automated ML pipeline. These findings have implications for all three AutoML stakeholders: AutoML researchers, AutoML service vendors, and AutoML developers. Academia and Industry collaboration can improve different aspects of AutoML, such as better DevOps/deployment support and tutorial-based documentation.