ai research teams

Abstract: Rubric-based tasks are increasingly addressed through reinforcement learning (RL), with rubric scores used as training rewards. However, these rewards typically supervise final answers without distinguishing the contributions of intermediate decisions. Many existing credit assignment methods rely on ground-truth answers to define process rewards, limiting their applicability to open-ended tasks without canonical solutions. To address this limitation, the proposed rubric-grounded credit uses task requirements as a shared reference for final answer evaluation and process supervision. The information returned by tools is assessed for the additional support it provides toward satisfying each rubric relative to that rubric's history of accepted support. By referencing these histories, credit distinguishes new support from evidence already present in the trajectory while recognizing partial support for each rubric. Dr.Credit uses rubric-grounded credit to supervise intermediate tool turns in an RL framework for deep research agents. The resulting process advantages are combined with GRPO outcome advantages to guide research decisions while retaining supervision of final-report quality. Evaluations on four in-domain and out-of-domain benchmarks show that Dr.Credit outperforms the evaluated open deep research baselines on every primary metric and submetric. Meanwhile, with an 8B-parameter backbone, the trained agent achieves average performance competitive with the evaluated frontier proprietary models. Further analyses suggest more efficient evidence acquisition and higher-quality reports under limited research-turn budgets, motivating the extension of rubric-grounded process supervision to a broader range of rubric-based tasks.

Abstract: Scientific ideation is increasingly mediated by large language models, but current ideation systems are usually trained and evaluated on immediately judgeable proxies such as novelty, clarity, and feasibility. This leaves open whether delayed signals of scientific uptake can be used as feedback for steering models toward research directions with higher expected \emph{impact}. We study this question using citation-normalized impact as a noisy but scalable proxy for scholarly uptake. We construct a large-scale dataset from over 100K computer science papers by extracting goal-conditioned idea descriptions and assigning each paper an ordinal, year-normalized citation label. We then train a goal-conditioned reward model to predict citation-impact labels from research goal and idea pairs, and use this reward to align an idea generator through supervised fine-tuning followed by reinforcement learning. To reduce circularity, we evaluate generated ideas with a held-out, reference-grounded protocol that compares model outputs against historical ideas under the same research goal and weights judgments by the reference idea's citation-impact label. Experiments show that our RL-tuned model consistently produces ideas with higher estimated impact than both the base model and supervised fine-tuning baselines. Our findings position scientific impact as a practical, outcome-grounded feedback signal for aligning LLMs in open-ended scientific discovery.