AISciK 2026

Deadlines
Machine Learning/CORE Unranked

AISciK 2026

AI & Science: Evolution or Extinction?

1797076800000Atlanta, Georgia, USAOfficial conference site Site reachable

AISciK 2026 is a NeurIPS workshop exploring how the integration of AI into scientific practice affects scientific integrity, trustworthiness, and knowledge production. It brings together researchers from AI safety, interpretability, philosophy of science, sociology, STS, and other disciplines to examine epistemic values, evaluation frameworks, and sociotechnical guardrails for human-AI collaboration in science.

Official CFP Back to deadlines Verified September 9, 2026

Paper fit

Contribution paths

A strong submission should clearly identify its contribution and evaluate it appropriately.

Research

Completed or substantially advanced investigations including empirical studies, theoretical and formal work, philosophical and conceptual analysis, historical case studies, and qualitative research. Must present a result with supporting work.

Datasets and Evaluations

Datasets, evaluation frameworks, observational studies, and critiques of existing measurement instruments. Includes benchmarks targeting epistemic properties, observational datasets, and meta-evaluations.

Perspectives

Arguments about what should be done, what is at stake, or how a question should be framed. Includes position papers, disciplinary interventions, and contestable claims. Must include an 'Alternative Views' section.

Research areas in scope

01

Epistemic Values and Scientific Integrity

What makes scientific knowledge trustworthy, and which properties are at stake when AI systems participate in producing itAccounts of scientific integrity from philosophy of science, STS, sociology, statistics, and the science of science, brought to bear on AI-integrated practiceWhether the values that constitute good science are shared across disciplines or specific to themReproducibility, robustness, and error control as epistemic rather than procedural propertiesWhat understanding, as distinct from prediction, requires of a scientific practiceValues that have no current technical operationalization, and what it would take to give them one
02

Automation, Judgment, and Division of Labor

Which parts of scientific work can be delegated, which cannot, and how to tell the differenceWhat scientific judgment consists in, and where it resists substitutionEffects of automation on training pipelines, apprenticeship, and early-career trajectoriesTacit knowledge, craft skill, and forms of expertise that do not survive formalizationGradual disempowerment and the long-run consequences of incremental delegationHistorical cases of instrumentation and automation reshaping a discipline, and what they predict here
03

Validity and Evaluation

Construct validity in scientific AI evaluation: what benchmarks and task-completion metrics actually measureMeta-evaluations and reproducible critiques of existing scientific benchmarks and agent evaluationsEvaluation designs that target epistemic properties rather than task successMeasuring properties that admit no ground truth, and what substitutes for itExpert disagreement in evaluating scientific work: when it signals invalid measurement and when it signals genuine pluralism
04

Safety and Alignment Failures

Failure modes documented in general AI safety research, examined for what they do to knowledge production specificallyReward hacking and specification gaming in scientific tasks, including optimization against proxies for scientific qualitySycophancy and the degradation of criticism, disagreement, and negative resultsDeceptive and situationally aware behavior where the objective is a scientific claimHomogenization of research questions, methods, and hypotheses across a fieldWhat scientific alignment would consist of, and whether science offers a tractable testbed for alignment more broadly
05

Explanation, Interpretability, and Understanding

What counts as an explanation, and what an explanation licenses a scientist to believeExplanatory virtues and standards of adequacy imported from philosophy of science into interpretability practiceWhether interpretability methods deliver understanding or the appearance of itUncertainty quantification and calibration as conditions on scientific useWhen a system’s outputs can enter a scientific argument as evidence rather than as a lead to follow up
06

Scientific Practice Under AI

Empirical study of what scientists are actually doing, as distinct from what systems are capable ofObservational, ethnographic, and longitudinal studies of AI use in research settingsWhen scientists defer to AI systems, when they override them, and what governs the choiceTrust calibration, automation bias, and deskilling in scientific workflowsHow AI integration is changing collaboration, group composition, and credit within research teamsDisciplinary variation in adoption, resistance, and the reasons given for each
07

Institutions, Infrastructure, and Sociotechnical Guardrails

Disclosure norms, red lines, and institutional policy on AI use in researchResearch infrastructure and capacity-building required to integrate these systems responsiblyFunding structures, incentives, and the political economy of AI adoption in scienceGovernance mechanisms and how existing responses have fared in practiceAccess, concentration, and who is positioned to do AI-integrated science at all

Policies worth checking twice

  • Submissions are either 4 or 8 pages of main text, excluding references and appendices; neither length is preferred.
  • References and appendices are unlimited; reviewers are only obliged to read the main text.
  • Submissions must be in English and submitted as a single PDF.
  • Authors may use the NeurIPS 2026 LaTeX style or another system, provided formatting matches.
  • Novel contributions are reviewed double-blind; authors must anonymize submissions, including self-citations.
  • Previously published work is welcome and reviewed single-blind; anonymization is not required.
  • Dual submission to other venues is allowed, provided it complies with the other venue’s policy.
  • Works substantially generated by AI systems are not eligible; AI systems cannot be authors.

Official sources

Compiled from the official call for papers. The organizers’ pages remain authoritative.

Last verified September 9, 2026