AI-Scientists arrived, but a world for them to grow in did not. Human scientists take theirs for granted $-$ centuries of open problems and shared ideas, waiting in the scientific literature. To AI-Scientists, that world is readable but not runnable, so we build Scientist World for them: every research paper becomes an executable environment. Our autonomous pipeline extracts each paper's open-ended research question and reproduces its proposed method as the baseline; an AI-Scientist entering the environment is evaluated against what the human authors achieved. We release the first 1,000 verified environments. With the world as an evaluation, we found that frontier AI-Scientists can already surpass the human researchers 74% of the time. As a record of how AI does science, it contains 6,400 hours of research traces, with every idea, experiment, failure, and success. As a training ground, we are able to raise (+158%) a small model to match frontier models in research ideation. At last, AI-Scientists' own world has arrived, grown from and growing with science itself.
A model is only half of an AI agent system. The other half is the inference strategy: the reasoning procedure that turns model calls into a response. Today that second half is written by hand, and the experience of building one strategy never carries to the next. We introduce Strategist, a meta-agent that evolves inference strategies across tasks. Each strategy is written as a blueprint,executable code that other strategies can reuse, and together the blueprints form a library. Given a task and a small development set, Strategist retrieves related blueprints, writes candidate strategies, tests them on real samples, and revises them from the results. Every candidate then enters the library, so later tasks build on earlier discoveries. On 30 benchmarks, Strategist beats the strongest baseline on 24 and matches its average accuracy (74.7% vs.74.0%) at 39% lower inference cost. Its strategies also transfer to unseen tasks and other models without further search. The part of an AI system that is not improved on its own now does.
Knowledge distillation generally assumes a strong-to-weak relationship where stronger teachers yield better students. In this work, we examine this assumption about distillation in large language model pretraining. By varying architecture sizes and training token budgets, we create strong-to-weak, same-level, and weak-to-strong teacher-student relationships, and study distillation's effectiveness under each. We find that the teacher need not be strong: with proper mixing of the language modeling and knowledge distillation losses, even small and undertrained teachers improve larger students. At the same time, a stronger teacher is not always better: pushing the teacher further, through more parameters or more training tokens, can saturate or even reverse the distillation gains. We further observe that distillation improves generalization (out-of-distribution and downstream performance) more readily than in-domain fitting. Together, these results challenge the common belief that distillation pretraining always requires a strong teacher.