Jingqi Tong, Mingzhe Li, Hangcheng Li, Yongzhuo Yang, Yurong Mou, Weijie Ma, Zhiheng Xi, Hongji Chen, Xiaoran Liu, Qinyuan Cheng, Ming Zhang, Qiguang Chen, Weifeng Ge, Qipeng Guo, Tianlei Ying, Tianxiang Sun, Yining Zheng, Xinchi Chen, Jun Zhao, Ning Ding, Xuanjing Huang, Yugang Jiang, Xipeng Qiu
Core AI workload signals detected from paper context and implementation/artifact evidence.
Great scientists have strong judgement and foresight, closely tied to what we call scientific taste. Here, we use the term to refer to the capacity to judge and propose research ideas with high potential impact. However, most relative research focuses on improving an AI scientist's executive capability, while enhancing an AI's scientific taste remains underexplored. In this work, we propose Reinforcement Learning fro ...
m Community Feedback (RLCF), a training paradigm that uses large-scale community signals as supervision, and formulate scientific taste learning as a preference modeling and alignment problem. For preference modeling, we train Scientific Judge on 700K field- and time-matched pairs of high- vs. low-citation papers to judge ideas. For preference alignment, using Scientific Judge as a reward model, we train a policy model, Scientific Thinker, to propose research ideas with high potential impact. Experiments show Scientific Judge outperforms SOTA LLMs (e.g., GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Pro) and generalizes to future-year test, unseen fields, and peer-review preference. Furthermore, Scientific Thinker proposes research ideas with higher potential impact than baselines. Our findings show that AI can learn scientific taste, marking a key step toward reaching human-level AI scientists.
Audit each benchmark finding before selecting an implementation path. Evidence refs map to the disclosure section below.
| Task | Dataset | Metric | Value | Source | Evidence refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reinforcement learning | MMLU-Pro | Accuracy | 58.0 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Reinforcement learning | GPQA | Accuracy | 30.3 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Reinforcement learning | MATH | Accuracy | 78.6 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
| Reinforcement learning | GSM8K | Accuracy | 93.3 | paper-derived | No explicit refs |
Great scientists have strong judgement and foresight, closely tied to what we call scientific taste.
tongjingqi/AI-Can-Learn-Scientific-Taste is the best available implementation candidate based on ranking signals, but recommendation confidence is not yet high. License is declared (Apache-2.0).
Open tongjingqi/AI-Can-Learn-Scientific-TasteHardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 3 refs, 3 links.
Utility signals: depth 100/100, grounding 85/100, status high.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
We propose Reinforcement Learning from Community Feedback (RLCF), a training paradigm that uses large-scale community signals as supervision, and formulate scientific taste learning as a preference modeling and alignment problem.
Hardware requirements
No dependency manifest — manual reconstruction required
No additional verified repositories beyond the primary recommendation.
These repositories had low-confidence matching signals and are hidden by default.
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Reinforcement learning
Methods
Reinforcement learning
Domains
None detected
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.