AutoResearch AI: Towards AI-Powered Research Automation for Scientific Discovery
Authors: name: Guiyao Tie, name: Jiawen Shi, name: Dingjie Song, name: Yixiao Huang, name: Ziji Sheng, name: Xueyang Zhou, name: Daizong Liu, name: Pan Zhou, name: Yongchao Chen, name: Ran Xu, name: Lifang He, name: Qingsong Wen, name: Manling Li, name: Cong Lu, name: Shuai Li, name: Pengtao Xie, name: Yixuan Yuan, name: Rui Meng, name: Lei Xing, name: Lichao Sun, name: Caiming Xiong, name: Philip S. Yu, name: Jianfeng Gao

Scientific research is being reshaped by AI systems that move beyond isolated assistance toward longer-horizon workflows spanning literature grounding, hypothesis generation, experimentation, validation, reporting, and revision. This shift marks a transition from task-level AI for science to workflow-level research automation. Yet current systems remain fragmented, differing in autonomy, domain scope, execution environment, validation mechanism, and human oversight, while still struggling with evidence preservation, reproducibility, weak-direction rejection, provenance tracking, cross-domain robustness, and accountable scientific closure. This survey examines these developments through AutoResearch, defined as the developmental spectrum of AI-powered scientific workflow automation. Within it, Vibe Research denotes the human-steered region of prompt-based assistance and human-verified execution, whereas emerging AI-led systems coordinate larger portions of the discovery loop without achieving robust autonomy. We analyze how research systems redistribute control, evidence, execution, validation, and accountability across workflows and organize the field around five workflow conditions: literature and research grounding; hypothesis formation and planning; experimentation and tool use; feedback, validation, and review; and reporting and knowledge communication. We further synthesize AI scientist systems, mixed-initiative co-research frameworks, benchmarks, domain deployments, and open-source infrastructures. Finally, we propose five evaluation dimensions--novelty, validity, impact, reliability, and provenance--and show that AutoResearch autonomy is domain-conditioned, being more credible in structured, executable, and rapidly verifiable settings but limited in embodied, delayed, heterogeneous, ethical, or institutionally accountable contexts.