Heuresis: Search Strategies for Autonomous AI Research Agents Across Quality, Diversity and Novelty
Open accessAbstract
Autonomous AI Research promises to accelerate the scientific progress of machine learning. To realise this goal, current Large Language Model (LLM)-based agents need to go beyond just writing code, to mastering the exploration of simultaneously performant, diverse and novel ideas. To this end, we introduce Heuresis, a framework that abstracts the research pipeline into a set of general and composable primitives, enabling open-ended scientific exploration in machine learning research. We implement six search strategies: a greedy baseline, two archive-based (MAP-Elites, Go-Explore), one evolutionary (Islands), and two divergent (Curiosity, Omni), and evaluate them across three axes (Quality, Diversity, and Novelty) on three domains (LLM Pretraining, On-Policy RL, and Model Unlearning), totalling 3,222 scored runs. We find that completely novel ideas are rare. No idea across our scored runs is rated as "Original", and only a few achieve only "Minor Similarity" to prior work. Moreover, novel ideas never approach the highest-performing known-recipe scores. Across all six strategies and three domains, only one such idea lands in the top-10 by quality. We also observed agents resorting to a variety of reward-hacking techniques during execution (40 confirmed fabrications across 1,628 scored runs), and detecting them was necessary to keep the search faithful to the task. Our results show that while current search and Quality-Diversity strategies enable us to steer where the generated ideas land on the quality, diversity, and novelty axes, they do not expand the quality-novelty frontier. Bridging this gap is the open challenge towards the ultimate goal of perpetual, autonomous scientific progress. Code is available at github.com/a-antoniades/Heuresis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
EurekAgent, Heuresis, and Xcientist are attempts to move scientific judgment out of the model and into auditable structure.
“All three are, in different vocabularies, attempts to move scientific judgment out of the model and into auditable structure - the constructive response to the critique literature below.”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [178]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“…systematically compares search strategies over ideas, treating quality, diversity, and novelty as separate objectives rather than a single score [173]; and Xcientist externalizes research synthesis and validation into inspectable, contract-governed artifacts — literature evidence, idea states,…”
- Authors
- Antoniades, A., Nathani, D., Saha, R., Amayuelas, A., Bercovich, I., Weng, Z., Baskaran, V., Bhatia, K., & Wang, W. Y.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- ORCID
- Antoniades, Antonis
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2606.25198
- OpenAlex
- W7165885460
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Licence
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Evolutionary Algorithms and Applications
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › AI-based Problem Solving and Planning
- Keywords
- LLM agents, search strategies, novelty, MAP-Elites, evolutionary search, curiosity-driven exploration, on-policy learning
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