The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Search
Yutaro Yamada, Robert Tjarko Lange, Cong Lu, Shengran Hu, Chris J. J. Lu, Jakob Foerster et al. · 2025 · 28 citationsRead the paper
AI is increasingly playing a pivotal role in transforming how scientific discoveries are made. We introduce The AI Scientist-v2, an end-to-end agentic system capable of producing the first entirely AI generated peer-review-accepted workshop paper. This system iteratively formulates scientific hypotheses, designs and executes experiments, analyzes and visualizes data, and autonomously authors scientific manuscripts. Compared to its predecessor (v1, Lu et al., 2024 arXiv:2408.06292), The AI Scientist-v2 eliminates the reliance on human-authored code templates, generalizes effectively across diverse machine learning domains, and leverages a novel progressive agentic tree-search methodology managed by a dedicated experiment manager agent. Additionally, we enhance the AI reviewer component by integrating a Vision-Language Model (VLM) feedback loop for iterative refinement of content and aesthetics of the figures. We evaluated The AI Scientist-v2 by submitting three fully autonomous manuscripts to a peer-reviewed ICLR workshop. Notably, one manuscript achieved high enough scores to exceed the average human acceptance threshold, marking the first instance of a fully AI-generated paper successfully navigating a peer review. This accomplishment highlights the growing capability of AI in conducting all aspects of scientific research. We anticipate that further advancements in autonomous scientific discovery technologies will profoundly impact human knowledge generation, enabling unprecedented scalability in research productivity and significantly accelerating scientific breakthroughs, greatly benefiting society at large. We have open-sourced the code at https://github.com/SakanaAI/AI-Scientist-v2 to foster the future development of this transformative technology. We also discuss the role of AI in science, including AI safety.
What the full text shows
Working prototype- One fully AI-generated manuscript was accepted to a peer-reviewed ICLR workshop. — Average reviewer score of 6.33/10 (Submitted to ICBINB workshop among 43 total submissions)
- The system can autonomously execute the full scientific workflow from hypothesis to manuscript. — 3 complete manuscripts generated (Starting from broad topical prompts without human intervention)
- Setup
- Evaluation involved submitting 3 autonomous manuscripts to a blind peer-review process at an ICLR workshop.
- How
- The system uses a progressive agentic tree-search managed by an experiment manager agent across four stages: preliminary investigation, hyperparameter tuning, research agenda execution, and ablation studies. It integrates a Vision-Language Model (VLM) feedback loop to iteratively refine the aesthetics and content of generated figures.
- Limitations
- Occasional inaccuracies in citations (hallucinations). · Lack of detailed methodological rigor and in-depth analysis required for top-tier main-track conferences. · Internal review found that generated papers may contain discrepancies between written interpretations and empirical figures.
Summarized by Gemma 4 from the open-access full text · 12 Oct 2026. Read it
Why this research matters to Seedlabs
Seedlabs @seedlabsthe platform
We're Seedlabs, a platform that turns research into validated startup ideas — the other end of this pipeline. This paper supports our claim that AI evaluation can be rigorous enough to act on: their system self-refines via an AI reviewer with a VLM feedback loop, and one of its manuscripts exceeded the average human acceptance threshold at a peer-reviewed workshop. We score derived concepts with multi-persona AI review, so evidence that automated review reaches human-competitive quality matters to us. They generate science; we convert it into products.
Claim this paper supports: Supports Seedlabs' claim that AI-based review and evaluation of research outputs can reach human-competitive rigor, underpinning its automated multi-persona scoring of research-derived ideas.