# Can AI agents conduct open-ended AI research? Early evidence from two case studies

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.27191 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.27191/

## Key facts

- Cited by 10 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 30 of its 47 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 29 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 30)

- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [AlphaEvolve: A coding agent for scientific and algorithmic discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.13131/) (2025)
- [MLE-bench: Evaluating Machine Learning Agents on Machine Learning Engineering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.07095/) (2024)
- [Agent Laboratory: Using LLM Agents as Research Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.04227/) (2025)
- [The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08066/) (2025)
- [Automated Design of Agentic Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.08435/) (2024)
- [MLAgentBench: Evaluating Language Agents on Machine Learning Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.03302/) (2023)
- [Darwin Godel Machine: Open-Ended Evolution of Self-Improving Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22954/) (2025)
- [PaperBench: Evaluating AI's Ability to Replicate AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.01848/) (2025)
- [RE-Bench: Evaluating frontier AI R&D capabilities of language model agents against human experts](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2411.15114/) (2024)
- [Self-Taught Optimizer (STOP): Recursively Self-Improving Code Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.02304/) (2023)
- [MLGym: A New Framework and Benchmark for Advancing AI Research Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14499/) (2025)
- [CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.11363/) (2024)
- [AI-Researcher: Autonomous Scientific Innovation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.18705/) (2025)
- [MLR-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on Open-Ended Machine Learning Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.19955/) (2025)
- [PostTrainBench: Can LLM Agents Automate LLM Post-Training?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.08640/) (2026)
- [CodeScientist: End-to-End Semi-Automated Scientific Discovery with Code-based Experimentation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.22708/) (2025)
- [Inconsistency in Conference Peer Review: Revisiting the 2014 NeurIPS Experiment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.09774/) (2021)
- [AIRS-Bench: a Suite of Tasks for Frontier AI Research Science Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.06855/) (2026)
- [EXP-Bench: Can AI Conduct AI Research Experiments?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.24785/) (2025)
- [Has the Machine Learning Review Process Become More Arbitrary as the Field Has Grown? The NeurIPS 2021 Consistency Experiment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.03262/) (2023)
- [MLRC-Bench: Can Language Agents Solve Machine Learning Research Challenges?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.09702/) (2025)
- [ResearchGym: Evaluating Language Model Agents on Real-World AI Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.15112/) (2026)
- [The Red Queen G"odel Machine: Co-Evolving Agents and Their Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.26294/) (2026)
- [RExBench: Can coding agents autonomously implement AI research extensions?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.22598/) (2025)
- [Tempest: Autonomous Multi-Turn Jailbreaking of Large Language Models with Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.10619/) (2025)
- [Neural Architecture Discovery via Autonomous Evolution](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2507.18074/) (2025)
- [Open-World Evaluations for Measuring Frontier AI Capabilities](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2605.20520/) (2026)
- [Life After Benchmark Saturation: A Case Study of CORE-Bench](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.26158/) (2026)
- [Persona Cartography: Charting Language Model Personality Traits in Weight Space](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.07916/) (2026)

## Built on by (most cited first, 10 of 10)

- [Training AI Scientists to Replicate Research](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.13331/) (2026)
- [How Do Agents Fail on AutoResearch: End-to-End Diagnostic Evaluation on 100 Real-World Frontier Research Tasks](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14905/) (2026)
- [Aspire: Can Models Self-Evolve from Vague Goals?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.31111/) (2026)
- [The Emerging AI Paper-Review Arms Race: Adversarial Co-Evolution in Scholarly Publishing](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.07713/) (2026)
- [The Evolutionary Origin of Values: implications for AI alignment, sentience and existential risk](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.03361/) (2026)
- [A Pathway to General-Purpose Scientific AI: Multimodal Comprehension of Scientific Images](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.14075/) (2026)
- [Agents Are Systems, Not Models: Rethinking Agentic Evaluation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.01618/) (2026)
- [Transect: Retaining Observability for Long-Horizon LLM Agent Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.08364/) (2026)
- [Can AI Agents Make Open-Ended Scientific Discovery? Evidence from Station](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.08927/) (2026)
- [Triage-PiEvo: Evidence Admission for Principle-Evolving Scientific Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2610.14683/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.