arXiv:2411.00816cs.CLcs.AI2024-11ICLR综述被引 152

用开源大模型实现科研全流程自动化,从写作到评审闭环迭代。

CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review

论文配图:CycleResearcher: Improving Automated Research via Automated Review
图 1 · 摘自论文原文
  • 构建循环反馈系统:研究代理与评审代理交替工作,通过强化学习持续优化。
  • 评审模型误差降低26.89%,生成论文模拟评分达5.36,接近人类预印本水平。
  • 开源数据集与代码,适合对自动化科研、AI辅助写作感兴趣的学者使用。

科学发现的自动化是研究界长期目标,虽已有商用大语言模型作为研究助手或创意生成工具取得进展,但利用开源后训练大模型实现完整科研流程自动化仍鲜有探索。本文探讨了使用开源后训练大语言模型作为自主智能体,完成从文献综述、论文撰写到同行评审与修改的全周期自动化研究的可行性。提出基于迭代偏好训练的框架:CycleResearcher执行研究任务,CycleReviewer模拟同行评审过程,通过强化学习提供迭代反馈。为训练模型,构建两个新数据集——Review-5k 和 Research-14k,反映真实机器学习研究与评审动态。结果显示,CycleReviewer在预测论文评分上相比单个真人评审降低26.89%的均方绝对误差(MAE),表明大模型具备辅助专家级评估的潜力。在研究端,由CycleResearcher生成的论文在模拟同行评审中获得5.36分,略高于人类预印本平均分5.24,但仍低于已接受论文的5.69分。该工作推动了完全自动化科学探究的发展,并提供了伦理保障与人工智能驱动研究能力的探索。代码、数据集与模型权重已公开于 https://wengsyx.github.io/Researcher/。

原文摘要 · Abstract (English)

The automation of scientific discovery has been a long-standing goal within the research community, driven by the potential to accelerate knowledge creation. While significant progress has been made using commercial large language models (LLMs) as research assistants or idea generators, the possibility of automating the entire research process with open-source LLMs remains largely unexplored. This paper explores the feasibility of using open-source post-trained LLMs as autonomous agents capable of performing the full cycle of automated research and review, from literature review and manuscript preparation to peer review and paper refinement. Our iterative preference training framework consists of CycleResearcher, which conducts research tasks, and CycleReviewer, which simulates the peer review process, providing iterative feedback via reinforcement learning. To train these models, we develop two new datasets, Review-5k and Research-14k, reflecting real-world machine learning research and peer review dynamics. Our results demonstrate that CycleReviewer achieves promising performance with a 26.89\% reduction in mean absolute error (MAE) compared to individual human reviewers in predicting paper scores, indicating the potential of LLMs to effectively assist expert-level research evaluation. In research, the papers generated by the CycleResearcher model achieved a score of 5.36 in simulated peer reviews, showing some competitiveness in terms of simulated review scores compared to the preprint level of 5.24 from human experts, while still having room for improvement compared to the accepted paper level of 5.69. This work represents a significant step toward fully automated scientific inquiry, providing ethical safeguards and exploring AI-driven research capabilities. The code, dataset and model weight are released at https://wengsyx.github.io/Researcher/.

自动化科研大模型同行评审强化学习

Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品;中文卡片由大模型生成,请以原文为准。