CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 158Computational Drug Discovery MethodsArtificial Intelligence ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Accelerating scientific discovery with Co-Scientist

Open access
Gottweis, Juraj, Weng, Wei-Hung, Daryin, Alexander, Tu, Tao, Sirkovic, Petar, Myaskovsky, Artiom, Glowaty, Grzegorz, Weissenberger, Felix +43 more·2025·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2502.18864arXiv 2502.18864PMC PMC13345588

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41586-026-10644-y

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Scientific discovery is driven by scientists generating novel hypotheses for complex problems that undergo rigorous experimental validation. To augment this process, we introduce Co-Scientist, a multi-agent AI system built on Gemini for structured scientific thinking and hypothesis generation. Co-Scientist aims to help scientists discover new original knowledge. Conditioned on their research objectives and prior scientific evidence, it formulates demonstrably novel research hypotheses for experimental verification. The system's design involves agents continuously generating, critiquing and refining hypotheses accelerated by scaling test-time compute. Key contributions include: (1) a multi-agent architecture with an asynchronous task execution framework for flexible compute scaling; (2) a tournament evolution process for self-improving hypotheses generation. Automated evaluations show continued benefits of test-time compute scaling, improving hypothesis quality over time. While general purpose, we focus the validation in three biomedical applications: drug repurposing, novel target discovery, and explaining mechanisms of anti-microbial resistance. Specifically, Co-Scientist helped identify new drug repurposing candidates and synergistic combination therapies for acute myeloid leukemia, which were validated through in vitro experiments. These real-world validations demonstrate the potential of Co-Scientist to accelerate scientific discovery and usher in an era of AI empowered scientists.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2502.18864

Cites

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • AI Co-Scientist seeks to automate scientific discovery using distinct agents for tasks like hypothesis discovery, ranking of hypotheses, and literature review.

    “Evolutionary methods have also found use in the recent AI Co-Scientist work [34], which seeks to automate scientific discovery using distinct agents for tasks like hypothesis discovery, ranking of hypotheses, and literature review.”

    From AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Co-Scientist overview and Methods describe distinct agents for hypothesis generation and ranking, with literature search used in their work. But the Related works section explicitly says, “our goal is not to automate scientific discovery, rather to build a helpful AI collaborator for scientists,” contrary to the citing sentence’s description of its goal. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • AI Co-Scientist represents scientific hypotheses and their evaluation criteria in natural language.

    “AI Co-Scientist represents scientific hypotheses and their evaluation criteria in natural language”

    From AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

  • Concurrent work shows that LLM-provided evaluation of ideas is possible.

    “concurrent work shows this is possible [34]”

    From AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery (2025) · cites this paper as [34]

  • AI Co-Scientist uses asynchronous agents and tournament-based refinement to develop scientific hypotheses.

    “AI Co-Scientist (Gottweis et al., 2025) uses asynchronous agents and tournament-based refinement to develop scientific hypotheses.”

    From GitSwarm: Decentralized Compounding Inference (2026) · cites this paper as Gottweis et al., 2025

  • Google has developed an AI research agent called AI co-scientist, described as a multi-agent AI system built with Gemini 2.0 as a virtual scientific collaborator.

    “For example, Google has developed an AI research agent called ‘AI coscientist,’ which the company describes as “a multi-agent AI system built with Gemini 2.0 as a virtual scientific collaborator to help scientists generate novel hypotheses and research proposals, and to accelerate the clock speed of scientific and biomedical discoveries” [13].”

    From Autonomous artificial intelligence, scientific research, and human values (2026) · cites this paper as [13]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

Cited by 158

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. [1]1. Rein, D. et al. GPQA: A graduate-level Google-proof Q&A benchmark. in First Conference on Language Modeling (2024).
  2. [7]7. Verstovsek, S. & Komrokji, R. S. A comprehensive review of pacritinib in myelofibrosis. Future Oncol 11 , 2819-2830 (2015).
  3. [19]19. [Resnik, D. B. The Ethics of Science: An Introduction . (Routledge, 2005).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/rsjR)
  4. [20]20. [Rollin, B. E. Science and Ethics . (Cambridge University Press, 2006).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/6Vmh)
  5. [21]21. Alasuutari, P., Bickman, L. & Brannen, J. The SAGE Handbook of Social Research Methods . (SAGE, 2008).
  6. [23]23. [Edel, A. Science and the Structure of Ethics . (Routledge, 2018).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/wIfB)
  7. [32]32. Verschraegen, G. Regulating scientific research: A constitutional moment? Journal of Law and Society 45 , S163-S184 (2018).
  8. [36]36. [Tang, X. et al. Prioritizing safeguarding over autonomy: Risks of LLM agents for science. in ICLR 2024 Workshop on Large Language Model (LLM) Agents (2024).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/QN0q)
  9. [41]41. [Ke, P. et al. CritiqueLLM: Towards an informative critique generation model for evaluation of large language model generation. in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers) 13034-13054 (2024).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/xSyG)
  10. [45]45. [Zheng, L. et al. Judging LLM-as-a-judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena. Advances in neural information processing systems 36 , 46595-46623 (2023).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/l9R0)
  11. [46]46. Li, D. et al. From generation to judgment: Opportunities and challenges of LLM-as-a-judge. in Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing 2757-2791 (2025).
  12. [48]48. Chen, D. et al. MLLM-as-a-judge: Assessing multimodal LLM-as-a-judge with vision-language benchmark. in Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning (2024).
  13. [49]49. Szymanski, A. et al. Limitations of the LLM-as-a-judge approach for evaluating LLM outputs in expert knowledge tasks. in Proceedings of the 30th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces 952-966 (2025).
  14. [51]51. He, J. & Vechev, M. Large language models for code: Security hardening and adversarial testing. in Proceedings of the 2023 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security 1865-1879 (2023).
  15. [52]52. Zhu, K. et al. PromptBench: Towards evaluating the robustness of large language models on adversarial prompts. Proceedings of the 1st ACM workshop on large AI systems and models with privacy and safety analysis (2023).
  16. [54]54. [Zhang, Z. et al. Defending large language models against jailbreaking attacks through goal prioritization. in Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/My8L)
  17. [55]55. Chao, P. et al. JailbreakBench: An open robustness benchmark for jailbreaking large language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 , 55005-55029 (2024).
  18. [56]56. [Zhao, Y. et al. On evaluating adversarial robustness of large vision-language models. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 36 , 54111-54138 (2023).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/KWlG)
  19. [62]62. [Qi, X. et al. Visual adversarial examples jailbreak aligned large language models. in Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence vol. 38 21527-21536 (2024).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/P0tq)
  20. [63]63. [Chao, P. et al. Jailbreaking black box large language models in twenty queries. in 2025 IEEE Conference on Secure and Trustworthy Machine Learning (SaTML) 23-42 (2025).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/Ddg1)
  21. [32]32. [conference on computer vision 56-72 (Springer, 2024).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/Vyjf)
  22. [66]66. Shneiderman, B. Bridging the gap between ethics and practice: guidelines for reliable, safe, and trustworthy human-centered AI systems. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS) 10 , 1-31 (2020).
  23. [71]71. [Lin, Z. et al. Language models of protein sequences at the scale of evolution enable accurate structure prediction. BioRxiv 2022 , 500902 (2022).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/FcW0)
  24. [74]74. [Erhan, D., Courville, A., Bengio, Y. & Vincent, P. Why does unsupervised pre-training help deep learning? in Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on artificial intelligence and statistics 201-208 (JMLR Workshop and Conference Proceedings, 2010).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/WN3L)
  25. [76]76. Team, G. et al. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312. 11805 (2023).
  26. [80]80. [Wei, J. et al. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 35 , 24824-24837 (2022).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/x7bK)
  27. [84]84. [Yao, S. et al. Tree of thoughts: Deliberate problem solving with large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems 36 , 11809-11822 (2023).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/d50B)
  28. [85]85. [Zelikman, E., Wu, Y., Mu, J. & Goodman, N. Star: Bootstrapping reasoning with reasoning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 35 , 15476-15488 (2022).](http://paperpile.com/b/Zh101f/jUgl)
  29. [86]86. Chen, L. et al. Are more LLM calls all you need? towards the scaling properties of compound AI systems. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 37 , 45767-45790 (2024).
  30. [69]69. 100.Zhou, Y. et al . Hypothesis generation with large language models. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on NLP for Science (NLP4Science) 117-139 (2024).
  31. [71]71. 102.Swanson, K., Wu, W., Bulaong, N. L., Pak, J. E. & Zou, J. The Virtual Lab: AI Agents Design New SARS-CoV-2 Nanobodies with Experimental Validation. bioRxiv 2024.11.11.623004 (2024).
  32. [77]77. 108.Tu, T. et al. Genetic discovery enabled by a large language model. bioRxiv 2023.11.09.566468 (2023).
  33. [80]80. 111.Ruffolo, J. A. et al. Design of highly functional genome editors by modeling the universe of CRISPR-Cas sequences. bioRxiv 2024.04.22.590591 (2024).
  34. [81]81. 112.Shaw, P. et al. ProtEx: a retrieval-augmented approach for protein function prediction. bioRxiv 2024.05.30.596539 (2024).
  35. [83]83. 114.Krishnamurthy, N., Grimshaw, A. A., Axson, S. A., Choe, S. H. & Miller, J. E. Drug repurposing: a systematic review on root causes, barriers and facilitators. BMC Health Serv Res 22 , 970 (2022).

Authors
Gottweis, J., Weng, W.-H., Daryin, A., Tu, T., Sirkovic, P., Myaskovsky, A., Glowaty, G., Weissenberger, F., Orlandi, A., Popovici, D., Palepu, A., Rong, K., Tanno, R., Saab, K., Zhang, F., Blum, J., Carroll, A., Kulkarni, K., Tomasev, N., Zverinski, D., Rendulic, I., Vedadi, E., Hasler, F., Rimanic, L., Boia, M., Budiselic, I., Feinstein, B., Bellaiche, M., Sheffer, T., Freyberg, J., Ratcliff, J., Bertolli, O., Chou, K., Hassidim, A., Gokturk, B., Vahdat, A., Guan, Y., Dhillon, V., Vaishnav, E. D., Lee, B., Costa, T. R. D., Penadés, J. R., Peltz, G., Matias, Y., Manyika, J., Hassabis, D., Xu, Y., Kohli, P., Pawlosky, A., Karthikesalingam, A., & Natarajan, V.
Affiliations
  • Google (Switzerland) (CH)
  • Google (United States) (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Houston Methodist (US)
  • Imperial College London (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Gottweis, Juraj
  • Weng, Wei-Hung
  • Kohli, Pushmeet
  • Pawlosky, Annalisa
  • Karthikesalingam, Alan
  • Natarajan, Vivek
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
Volume
655
Issue
8122
Pages
487-496
ISSN
0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2502.18864
arXiv
2502.18864
PMC
PMC13345588
OpenAlex
W4416043407
Cited by
158
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 128 · 2025: 30
FWCI
464.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • Imperial College London
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01dc021133-02, 1R01DC021133, R24OD035408)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
multi-agent systems, hypothesis generation, scientific discovery, Gemini, test-time compute scaling, asynchronous task execution, drug repurposing, antibiotic resistance mechanisms, acute myeloid leukemia, combination therapy
MeSH terms
Generative Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Drug Discovery

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