In plain words: A system handles the whole research cycle: it invents an idea, writes and runs the code, analyzes results, drafts the paper, and reviews its own work. One AI-written paper passed the first round of peer review at a workshop that accepts 70 percent.
Abstract · Towards End-to-End Automation of AI Research
The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI. While the community has made significant progress in automating individual components of the scientific process, a system that autonomously navigates the entire research lifecycle -- from conception to publication -- has remained out of reach. Here, we present the strongest demonstration to date toward automating the entire process end-to-end. We present The AI Scientist, which creates research ideas, writes code, runs experiments, plots and analyzes data, writes the entire scientific manuscript and performs its own peer review. Its ideas, execution, and presentation are of sufficient quality to produce a manuscript generated by an AI system that passes the first round of peer review at a major machine learning conference workshop. The workshop has an acceptance rate of 70 percent. Our system leverages modern foundation models within a complex agentic system. We evaluate The AI Scientist in two settings: a focused mode using human-provided code templates as an initial scaffold to conduct research on a specific topic, and a template-free, open-ended mode that leverages agentic search for wider scientific exploration. Both settings produce diverse ideas and automatically test, report on, and evaluate them. This achievement demonstrates AI's growing capacity for scientific contribution and signifies a potential paradigm shift in how research is conducted. As with any impactful new technology, there could be significant risks, including taxing overwhelmed review systems and adding noise to scientific literature. However, if developed responsibly, such autonomous systems could greatly accelerate scientific discovery.
Yutaro Yamada, Robert Tjarko Lange, Cong Lu, Chris Lu, Shengran Hu, Jakob Foerster, David Ha, Jeff Clune
arXiv:2606.15497 · cs.AI · submitted Mar 31, 2026
abstract · pdf · html · Published in Nature 651, 914-919 (2026)
> The quality of the research generated by The AI Scientist is still preliminary. While the template-free system successfully generated a peer-reviewed workshop paper, this achievement must be contextualized. Acceptance occurred at a workshop, where papers generally report exploratory work and acceptance rates (60-80%) are much higher than at main conferences (20-30%). With only one of three submissions accepted, the system does not yet consistently meet even workshop-level standards, let alone the rigor required for top-tier conference publications.
> Paradigm-Shifting Creativity: The system currently excels at operating within the existing scientific playbook—combining known concepts or exploring variations on a theme. It does not yet demonstrate hints of being able to create a new playbook entirely by formulating a truly non-obvious, paradigm-shifting hypothesis.
(And others covered by the paper)