Training AI Co-Scientists Using Rubric Rewards
AI co-scientists are emerging as a tool to assist human researchers in achieving their research goals. A crucial feature of these AI co-scientists is the ability to generate a research plan given a set of aims and constraints. The plan may be used by researchers for brainstorming, or may even be implemented after further refinement. However, language models currently struggle to generate research plans that follow all constraints and implicit requirements. In this work, we study how to leverage the vast corpus of existing research papers to train language models that generate better research plans. We build a scalable, diverse training corpus by automatically extracting research goals and goal-specific grading rubrics from papers across several domains. We then train models for research plan generation via reinforcement learning with self-grading. A frozen copy of the initial policy acts as the grader during training, with the rubrics creating a generator-verifier gap that enables improvements without external human supervision. To validate this approach, we conduct a study with human experts for machine learning research goals, spanning 225 hours. The experts prefer plans generated by our finetuned Qwen3-30B-A3B model over the initial model for 70% of research goals, and approve 84% of the automatically extracted goal-specific grading rubrics. To assess generality, we also extend our approach to research goals from medical papers, and new arXiv preprints, evaluating with a jury of frontier models. Our finetuning yields 12-22% relative improvements and significant cross-domain generalization, proving effective even in problem settings like medical research where execution feedback is infeasible. Together, these findings demonstrate the potential of a scalable, automated training recipe as a step towards improving general AI co-scientists.
6953527889916ff627aa3ff0
Shashwat Goel
6953527889916ff627aa3ff1
Rishi Hazra
6953527889916ff627aa3ff2
Dulhan Jayalath
claimed_verified
2025-12-31T20:56:38.153Z
672b79e99380700b60cd5c71
/avatars/46f79c736a49b2d6ab4339871eea698d.svg
Dulhan Jayalath
latentdulhan
user
latentdulhan
6953527889916ff627aa3ff3
Timon Willi
6953527889916ff627aa3ff4
Parag Jain
6953527889916ff627aa3ff5
William F. Shen
6953527889916ff627aa3ff6
Ilias Leontiadis
6953527889916ff627aa3ff7
Francesco Barbieri
6953527889916ff627aa3ff8
Yoram Bachrach
6953527889916ff627aa3ff9
Jonas Geiping
6953527889916ff627aa3ffa
Chenxi Whitehouse
Training AI Co-Scientists Using Rubric Rewards
AI co-scientists are emerging as a tool to assist human researchers in achieving their research goals. A crucial feature of these AI co-scientists is the ability to generate a research plan given a set of aims and constraints. The plan may be used by researchers for brainstorming, or may even be implemented after further refinement. However, language models currently struggle to generate research plans that follow all constraints and implicit requirements. In this work, we study how to leverage the vast corpus of existing research papers to train language models that generate better research plans. We build a scalable, diverse training corpus by automatically extracting research goals and goal-specific grading rubrics from papers across several domains. We then train models for research plan generation via reinforcement learning with self-grading. A frozen copy of the initial policy acts as the grader during training, with the rubrics creating a generator-verifier gap that enables improvements without external human supervision. To validate this approach, we conduct a study with human experts for machine learning research goals, spanning 225 hours. The experts prefer plans generated by our finetuned Qwen3-30B-A3B model over the initial model for 70% of research goals, and approve 84% of the automatically extracted goal-specific grading rubrics. To assess generality, we also extend our approach to research goals from medical papers, and new arXiv preprints, evaluating with a jury of frontier models. Our finetuning yields 12-22% relative improvements and significant cross-domain generalization, proving effective even in problem settings like medical research where execution feedback is infeasible. Together, these findings demonstrate the potential of a scalable, automated training recipe as a step towards improving general AI co-scientists.