Plus: why it's so hard to achieve AI sovereignty. At Davos this year Trump is dominating all the side conversations. There are lots of little jokes. The US president is due to speak here today, amid threats of seizing Greenland and fears that he's about to permanently fracture the NATO alliance. Read Mat's story to find out more . This subscriber-only story appeared first in The Debrief, Mat's weekly newsletter about the biggest stories in tech.

A competition calling for research projects involving so-called AI scientists shows just how fast this technology is moving. A number of startups and universities that are building "AI scientists" to design and run experiments in the lab, including robot biologists and chemists, have just won extra funding from the UK government agency that funds moonshot R&D. The competition, set up by ARIA (the Advanced Research and Invention Agency), gives a clear sense of how fast this technology is moving: The agency received 245 proposals from research teams that are already building tools capable of automating increasing amounts of lab work. ARIA defines an AI scientist as a system that can run an entire scientific workflow, coming up with hypotheses, designing and running experiments to test those hypotheses, and then analyzing the results. In many cases, the system may then feed those results back into itself and run the loop again and again. Human scientists become overseers, coming up with the initial research questions and then letting the AI scientist get on with the grunt work.

Agentic AI "scientists" now use language models to search the literature, run analyses, and generate hypotheses. We evaluate KOSMOS, an autonomous AI scientist, on three problems in radiation biology using simple random-gene null benchmarks. Hypothesis 1: baseline DNA damage response (DDR) capacity across cell lines predicts the p53 transcriptional response after irradiation (GSE30240). Hypothesis 2: baseline expression of OGT and CDO1 predicts the strength of repressed and induced radiation-response modules in breast cancer cells (GSE59732). Hypothesis 3: a 12-gene expression signature predicts biochemical recurrence-free survival after prostate radiotherapy plus androgen deprivation therapy (GSE116918). The DDR-p53 hypothesis was not supported: DDR score and p53 response were weakly negatively correlated (Spearman rho = -0.40, p = 0.76), indistinguishable from random five-gene scores. OGT showed only a weak association (r = 0.23, p = 0.34), whereas CDO1 was a clear outlier (r = 0.70, empirical p = 0.0039). The 12-gene signature achieved a concordance index of 0.61 (p = 0.017) but a non-unique effect size. Overall, KOSMOS produced one well-supported discovery, one plausible but uncertain result, and one false hypothesis, illustrating that AI scientists can generate useful ideas but require rigorous auditing against appropriate null models.

Understanding the current capabilities and risks of AI Scientist systems is essential for ensuring trustworthy and sustainable AI-driven scientific progress while preserving the integrity of the academic ecosystem. To this end, we develop Jr. AI Scientist, a state-of-the-art autonomous AI scientist system that mimics the core research workflow of a novice student researcher: Given the baseline paper from the human mentor, it analyzes its limitations, formulates novel hypotheses for improvement, and iteratively conducts experiments until improvements are realized, and writes a paper with the results. Unlike previous approaches that assume full automation or operate on small-scale code, Jr. AI Scientist follows a well-defined research workflow and leverages modern coding agents to handle complex, multi-file implementations, leading to scientifically valuable contributions. Through our experiments, the Jr. AI Scientist successfully generated new research papers that build upon real NeurIPS, IJCV, and ICLR works by proposing and implementing novel methods. For evaluation, we conducted automated assessments using AI Reviewers, author-led evaluations, and submissions to Agents4Science, a venue dedicated to AI-driven scientific contributions. The findings demonstrate that Jr. AI Scientist generates papers receiving higher review scores than existing fully automated systems. Nevertheless, we identify important limitations from both the author evaluation and the Agents4Science reviews, indicating the potential risks of directly applying current AI Scientist systems and key challenges for future research. Finally, we comprehensively report various risks identified during development. We believe this study clarifies the current role and limitations of AI Scientist systems, offering insights into the areas that still require human expertise and the risks that may emerge as these systems evolve.

Could an AI scientist help researchers come up with breakthroughs by analysing data and searching the existing scientific literature? That's the claim of the inventors of Kosmos, but not everyone is convinced Artificial intelligence can process large amounts of data, but can it do science? An AI scientist can work independently for hours while doing research that would take humans months to complete, and has made several "novel contributions" to science, its creators claim - but others are more doubtful. The system, called Kosmos, is actually a collection of AI agents that are specialised in analysing data and searching through the existing scientific literature, in an effort to make new scientific breakthroughs. "We've been working on building an AI scientist for about two years now," says Sam Rodriques at Edison Scientific, the US-based firm behind Kosmos.

AI scientists are emerging computational systems that serve as collaborative partners in discovery. These systems remain difficult to build because they are bespoke, tied to rigid workflows, and lack shared environments that unify tools, data, and analyses into a common ecosystem. In genomics, unified ecosystems have transformed research by enabling interoperability, reuse, and community-driven development; AI scientists require comparable infrastructure. We present ToolUniverse, an ecosystem for building AI scientists from any language or reasoning model across open- and closed-weight models. ToolUniverse standardizes how AI scientists identify and call tools by providing more than 600 machine learning models, datasets, APIs, and scientific packages for data analysis, knowledge retrieval, and experimental design. It automatically refines tool interfaces for correct use by AI scientists, generates new tools from natural language descriptions, iteratively optimizes tool specifications, and composes tools into agentic workflows. In a case study of hypercholesterolemia, ToolUniverse was used to create an AI scientist to identify a potent analog of a drug with favorable predicted properties. The open-source ToolUniverse is available at https://aiscientist.tools.

Recommender-systems research has accelerated model and evaluation advances, yet largely neglects automating the research process itself. We argue for a shift from narrow AutoRecSys tools -- focused on algorithm selection and hyper-parameter tuning -- to an Autonomous Recommender-Systems Research Lab (AutoRecLab) that integrates end-to-end automation: problem ideation, literature analysis, experimental design and execution, result interpretation, manuscript drafting, and provenance logging. Drawing on recent progress in automated science (e.g., multi-agent AI Scientist and AI Co-Scientist systems), we outline an agenda for the RecSys community: (1) build open AutoRecLab prototypes that combine LLM-driven ideation and reporting with automated experimentation; (2) establish benchmarks and competitions that evaluate agents on producing reproducible RecSys findings with minimal human input; (3) create review venues for transparently AI-generated submissions; (4) define standards for attribution and reproducibility via detailed research logs and metadata; and (5) foster interdisciplinary dialogue on ethics, governance, privacy, and fairness in autonomous research. Advancing this agenda can increase research throughput, surface non-obvious insights, and position RecSys to contribute to emerging Artificial Research Intelligence. We conclude with a call to organise a community retreat to coordinate next steps and co-author guidance for the responsible integration of automated research systems.

That idea is not without its detractors. Among other issues, many feel AI is not capable of the creative thought needed in research, makes too many mistakes and hallucinations, and may limit opportunities for young researchers. Nevertheless, a number of scientists and policymakers are very keen on the promise of AI scientists. The US government's AI Action Plan describes the need to "invest in automated cloud-enabled labs for a range of scientific fields." Some researchers think AI scientists could unlock scientific discoveries that humans could never find alone.

The emergence of large language models (LLMs) is propelling automated scientific discovery to the next level, with LLM-based Artificial Intelligence (AI) Scientist systems now taking the lead in scientific research. Several influential works have already appeared in the field of AI Scientist systems, with AI-generated research papers having been accepted at the ICLR 2025 workshop, suggesting that a human-level AI Scientist capable of uncovering phenomena previously unknown to humans, may soon become a reality. In this survey, we focus on the central question: How far are AI scientists from changing the world and reshaping the scientific research paradigm? To answer this question, we provide a prospect-driven review that comprehensively analyzes the current achievements of AI Scientist systems, identifying key bottlenecks and the critical components required for the emergence of a scientific agent capable of producing ground-breaking discoveries that solve grand challenges. We hope this survey will contribute to a clearer understanding of limitations of current AI Scientist systems, showing where we are, what is missing, and what the ultimate goals for scientific AI should be.

While AI for Science (AI4S) serves as an analytical tool in the current research paradigm, it doesn't solve its core inefficiency. We propose "Agent for Science" (Agent4S)-the use of LLM-driven agents to automate the entire research workflow-as the true Fifth Scientific Paradigm. This paper introduces a five-level classification for Agent4S, outlining a clear roadmap from simple task automation to fully autonomous, collaborative "AI Scientists." This framework defines the next revolutionary step in scientific discovery.