The DOI matches its DataCite record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
AIGS: Generating Science from AI-Powered Automated Falsification
Abstract
Rapid development of artificial intelligence has drastically accelerated the development of scientific discovery. Trained with large-scale observation data, deep neural networks extract the underlying patterns in an end-to-end manner and assist human researchers with highly-precised predictions in unseen scenarios. The recent rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the empowered autonomous agents enable scientists to gain help through interaction in different stages of their research, including but not limited to literature review, research ideation, idea implementation, and academic writing. However, AI researchers instantiated by foundation model empowered agents with full-process autonomy are still in their infancy. In this paper, we study $\textbf{AI-Generated Science}$ (AIGS), where agents independently and autonomously complete the entire research process and discover scientific laws. By revisiting the definition of scientific research, we argue that $\textit{falsification}$ is the essence of both human research process and the design of an AIGS system. Through the lens of falsification, prior systems attempting towards AI-Generated Science either lack the part in their design, or rely heavily on existing verification engines that narrow the use in specialized domains. In this work, we propose Baby-AIGS as a baby-step demonstration of a full-process AIGS system, which is a multi-agent system with agents in roles representing key research process. By introducing FalsificationAgent, which identify and then verify possible scientific discoveries, we empower the system with explicit falsification. Experiments on three tasks preliminarily show that Baby-AIGS could produce meaningful scientific discoveries, though not on par with experienced human researchers. Finally, we discuss on the limitations of current Baby-AIGS, actionable insights, and related ethical issues in detail.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“AI agents hold the potential to revolutionize scientific productivity by automating literature reviews, replicating experiments, analyzing data, and even proposing new directions of inquiry”
From AstaBench: Rigorous Benchmarking of AI Agents with a Scientific Research Suite (2025) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2024
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
Scaling LLM Test-Time Compute Optimally can be More Effective than Scaling Model Parameters
Snell, C., Lee, J., Xu, K., & Kumar, A. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.03314 · Cited by 27
AI-Driven Review Systems: Evaluating LLMs in Scalable and Bias-Aware Academic Reviews
Tyser, K., Segev, B., Longhitano, G., Zhang, X.-Y., Meeks, Z., Lee, J., Garg, U., Belsten, N., Shporer, A., Udell, M., et al. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2408.10365 · Cited by 9
Tang, X., Liu, Y., Cai, Z., Shao, Y., Lu, J., Zhang, Y., Deng, Z., Hu, H., An, K., Huang, R., et al. (2023) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2311.09835 · Cited by 2
Self-citationDSBench: How Far Are Data Science Agents from Becoming Data Science Experts?
Jing, L., Huang, Z., Wang, X., Yao, W., Yu, W., Ma, K., Zhang, H., Du, X., & Yu, D. (2024) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2409.07703 · Cited by 1
Cited by
AstaBench: Rigorous Benchmarking of AI Agents with a Scientific Research Suite
Bragg, J., D'Arcy, M., Balepur, N., Bareket, D., Dalvi, B., Feldman, S., Haddad, D., Hwang, J. D., Jansen, P., Kishore, V., et al. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2510.21652 · Cited by 63
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, Z., Liu, K., Zhu, Y., Lei, X., Yang, Z., Zhang, Z., Li, P., & Liu, Y.
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- arXiv
- 2411.11910
- References
- 5
- Type
- Preprint
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
