Training AI Co-Scientists Using Rubric Rewards
Shashwat Goel, Rishi Hazra, Dulhan Jayalath, Timon Willi, Parag Jain, Shen, Ilias Leontiadis, Francesco Barbieri, Yoram Bachrach, Jonas Geiping, Chenxi Whitehouse
Abstract
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 due to the open-ended nature of the task. Moreover, verification of research plans by executing experiments is slow and expensive to obtain. 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, accessing the rubrics as privileged information to evaluate plans generated by the training policy. This setup creates 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.
Ask about this paper
Your agent reads all of it.
Lune indexed this paper to the last equation, along with the top-tier papers that cite it. Ask a question and the answer quotes them.
Your agent calls
Luneget_paper_fulltext
Free to start. No credit card required.
Terminal
Install the CLIlune papers fulltext 02b9fced-fee7-4ff3-9c3e-3adae084e301Cited by top-tier papers4
- Agentic Rubrics as Contextual Verifiers for SWE AgentsMohit Raghavendra, Anisha Gunjal, Bing Liu, Yunzhong HeACL 2026 · 10 citations
- Conversation for Non-verifiable Learning: Self-Evolving Large Language Models through Meta-EvaluationYuan Sui, Bryan HooiICML 2026 · 3 citations
- Judging What We Cannot Solve: A Consequence-Based Approach for Oracle-Free Evaluation of Research-Level MathGuijin Son, Donghun Yang, Hitesh Patel, Hyunwoo Ko et al.ICML 2026 · 1 citation
- MOOSE-Star: Unlocking Tractable Training for Scientific Discovery by Breaking the Complexity BarrierZonglin Yang, Lidong BingICML 2026
Builds on10
- Scaling Laws for Reward Model OveroptimizationLeo Gao, John Schulman, Jacob HiltonICML 2023 · 963 citations
- Rubrics as Rewards: Reinforcement Learning Beyond Verifiable DomainsAnisha Gunjal, Anthony Wang, Elaine Lau, Vaskar Nath et al.ICLR 2026 · 340 citations
- MAmmoTH2: Scaling Instructions from the WebXiang Yue, Tianyu Zheng, Ge Zhang, Wenhu ChenNeurIPS 2024 · 176 citations
- On the Generalization of SFT: A Reinforcement Learning Perspective with Reward RectificationYongliang Wu, Yizhou Zhou, Ziheng Zhou, Yingzhe Peng et al.ICLR 2026 · 130 citations
- All Roads Lead to Likelihood: The Value of Reinforcement Learning in Fine-TuningGokul Swamy, Sanjiban Choudhury, Wen Sun, Steven Wu et al.ICLR 2026 · 66 citations
Related papers
- From Reproduction to Replication: Evaluating Research Agents with Progressive Code MaskingGyeongwon James Kim, Alex Wilf, Louis-Philippe Morency, Daniel FriedICLR 2026 · 12 citations
- The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research IdeasChenglei Si, Tatsunori Hashimoto, Diyi YangICLR 2026 · 60 citations
- XtraGPT: Context-Aware and Controllable Academic Paper Revision via Human-AI CollaborationNuo Chen, Andre Huikai Lin, Jiaying Wu, Junyi Hou et al.ACL 2026 · 3 citations
- Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI ResearchChenglei Si, Zitong Yang, Yejin Choi, Emmanuel J Candes et al.ICML 2026 · 12 citations
- ReSearch: Learning to Reason with Search for LLMs via Reinforcement LearningMingyang Chen, Linzhuang Sun, Tianpeng Li, Haoze Sun et al.NeurIPS 2025 · 125 citations
