e-ISSN: Pending
Negative / Null Result ReportOpen accessComputer Science

Dead Science Walking: Publication Bias and the AI Scientist Pipeline

Kargi Chauhan · 2026 · arXiv

WASTE classifies this as Negative / Null Result Report · AI classification, approximate

The study found no significant effect — useful as a negative control or null benchmark for your own design.

The finding, in one line

We formalise this distortion as the null result gap, estimate it across three domains (drug discovery ~0.

Abstract (excerpt)

AI scientist systems are beginning to automate the production, evaluation, and iteration of scientific hypotheses. Their promise is speed; their risk is that speed also scales errors embedded in the scientific record. We argue that a near-term risk is corpus failure: AI scientist systems are trained on and grounded in a literature that over-represents positive results and under-represents null findings. We formalise this distortion as the null result gap, estimate it across three domains (drug discovery ~0.60, psychology ~0.56, cancer biology ~0.35), and introduce an amplification index for re

Excerpt shown for reference under fair use — read the full paper at the publisher.

About to run something similar?

Run an AI Precheck on your own design to catch failure modes like this one before you spend the time. Your first desk check is free.

WASTE indexes this work — it does not host or republish it. Failure-type classification is automated and approximate.

Metadata source: arXiv