Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@chunhualiao

chunhualiao/AI-Powered Automation of Research Proposal Writing and Review in STEM.md

Created April 5, 2025 18:35
Show Gist options
  • Save chunhualiao/ea8e9100e90f1e58812e6a7b1db8c492 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save chunhualiao/ea8e9100e90f1e58812e6a7b1db8c492 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Download ZIP
Raw
AI-Powered Automation of Research Proposal Writing and Review in STEM.md

Great. I’ll put together a deeply technical report on the latest AI-based techniques for automating research proposal writing and reviewing—focusing mainly on STEM fields, but also touching on others where relevant. I’ll include both commercial and academic tools, explore challenges and solutions, and highlight promising research directions aimed at fully autonomous proposal generation. I’ll also provide links to GitHub repositories and demos where available.

I’ll let you know as soon as the report is ready for your review.

AI-Powered Automation of Research Proposal Writing and Review in STEM

Introduction

Writing a competitive research proposal is a critical yet time-consuming task for scientists. In STEM fields (and increasingly in others), researchers are turning to AI-based tools to streamline everything from brainstorming ideas to polishing final drafts. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) like GPT-4 have sparked a proliferation of systems that can generate text, search literature, and even simulate a reviewer's perspective. In fact, a 2023 Nature survey of 1,600 researchers found that one in six scientists already use generative AI to help write grant proposals, and nearly one-third use it to brainstorm ideas (European Research Council issues warning on AI’s use in grant applications | EURAXESS). Funding agencies are aware of this trend: some encourage disclosure of AI use, while warning about potential issues like plagiarism or fabrication (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). This report provides a technical overview of the latest AI techniques for automating research proposal writing and reviewing. We focus primarily on STEM applications, noting that many of these tools and methods are also expanding into social sciences and humanities. We will: (1) list and describe existing commercial and academic tools for proposal generation, refinement, and review; (2) analyze key technical challenges in automating proposal writing; (3) present emerging solutions to those challenges; and (4) highlight promising research directions toward autonomous high-quality proposal generation. Throughout, we include references to research papers, demos, and GitHub projects illustrating these developments.

1. AI Tools for Research Proposal Generation and Review

A growing ecosystem of AI-powered tools is now available to assist researchers at different stages of proposal development. These include both general-purpose large language model services and specialized applications tailored for grant writing. We categorize the tools by the aspect of the proposal process they support: (a) ideation and hypothesis generation, (b) literature search and context building, (c) drafting of proposal sections, (d) review and feedback for revision, and (e) quality evaluation and scoring. Below, we describe representative tools in each category, noting whether they are commercial products or research prototypes.

1.1 Ideation and Hypothesis Generation Assistants

Formulating a novel research idea or hypothesis is the first step in proposal writing. AI text generators can serve as brainstorming partners, helping researchers explore creative directions or refine their questions. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (Google) are widely used conversational LLMs that can suggest research topics, potential hypotheses, or experimental approaches based on a brief prompt. For example, ChatGPT has been used to generate outlines or lists of possible research ideas given a problem statement ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training

](https://www.grantcentralusa.com/ai-grant-writing-classes\#:\~:text=1.%20%23%23%23%23%23%20ChatGPT%C2%A0)). Early studies indicate that LLM-generated ideas can be surprisingly novel – in one experiment with 100+ NLP researchers, **LLM-generated research ideas were rated *more novel* on average than those from human experts, though slightly less feasible** ([[2409.04109] Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers](https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04109\#:\~:text=we%20obtain%20the%20first%20statistically,whether%20these%20novelty%20and%20feasibility)). This suggests AI can help spark unconventional ideas, provided a human evaluates their practicality. Several projects are specifically aimed at idea generation for scientists:

  • Elicit by Ought – an AI research assistant focused on answering research questions and suggesting directions. Elicit uses language models to propose hypotheses or next experiments and is integrated with literature search. It has gained popularity, with over 2 million users reported (AI tools for literature Review : r/PhD - Reddit).

  • ResearchRabbit and Connected Papers – while not text generators per se, these tools use network algorithms and AI to visualize related work and could inspire new connections. Researchers often use them alongside generative tools to identify unexplored gaps in literature.

  • GPT-Researcher (GitHub) – an open-source autonomous agent that combines web search and text generation to produce detailed research outputs (assafelovic/gpt-researcher: LLM based autonomous agent ... - GitHub). It can iteratively refine a research question, gather information, and draft a report or proposal. Such agents can serve as an "AI collaborator" during ideation, though they require careful oversight to ensure factuality.

It's worth noting that in non-STEM disciplines, idea generation tools are also emerging. For instance, humanities scholars have begun using generative AI to brainstorm project themes or archival research angles, albeit with caution to maintain originality and scholarly rigor. In all fields, AI is best used to augment the researcher's creativity rather than replace it, offering suggestions that the human expert then critiques and develops further.

1.2 Literature Search and Contextualization Tools

A strong proposal must be grounded in existing literature, showing awareness of prior work. AI-based literature search tools help researchers quickly find and digest relevant papers to inform their proposals:

  • Semantic Scholar and Scholarcy – platforms like Semantic Scholar use AI to recommend papers and even generate TL;DR summaries of scientific articles. These can help proposal writers identify key prior findings to cite. Scholarcy is another tool that summarizes PDFs and extracts key contributions automatically.

  • Elicit (mentioned above) – beyond idea generation, Elicit can retrieve papers to answer specific questions (using its paper database) and summarize evidence. For example, a researcher can ask "What do papers say about method X in context Y?" and get a collated summary with references, which is invaluable for writing a Related Work section.

  • Consensus – an AI-powered academic search engine that finds direct answers from papers. It allows users to query a claim (e.g., "does intervention X improve outcome Y?") and uses language models to extract conclusions from the literature (Consensus: AI-powered Academic Search Engine). This helps ensure factual grounding by directly linking to published results.

  • Galactica (Meta AI) – an ambitious (now offline) model that was trained on 48 million scientific articles, textbooks, and knowledge bases (Why Meta Took Down its ‘Hallucinating’ AI Model Galactica?). Galactica was intended to generate scientific text with built-in knowledge, potentially serving as a combined literature browser and text generator. However, it suffered from confident hallucinations and inaccuracies (Why Meta Took Down its ‘Hallucinating’ AI Model Galactica?), highlighting the difficulty of relying on a model’s internal knowledge alone for factual precision. The Galactica experience underlines why retrieval-based approaches (bringing in external documents) are often preferred for literature grounding.

In practice, many researchers use a combination of these tools. For instance, after using ChatGPT for an outline, one might use Semantic Scholar or Elicit to find specific papers for each section, then perhaps ask the AI to incorporate or summarize those papers. This retrieval-augmented generation approach – feeding the model with relevant excerpts – helps the draft stay factual (as discussed in Section 3.1). Another noteworthy tool is ResearchPal (ResearchPal | Best AI Tool For Research), which integrates literature search with writing: it can read PDFs, suggest references, and even interface with reference managers like Zotero. By automating the tedious parts of literature review and citation gathering, these AI tools allow proposal writers to focus on analysis and synthesis of ideas.

1.3 Draft Writing and Composition Aids

Several AI writing assistants now offer to generate or improve large portions of the proposal text itself – from introductions to methodology descriptions – given prompts or outlines. They range from general academic writing aids to grant-specific drafting tools:

HyperWrite's Proposal Generator – HyperWrite (a commercial AI writing platform) offers a specialized Grant Proposal Generator. It can take a brief description of the project idea and expand it into a detailed proposal draft, covering sections like problem statement, objectives, and methodology ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training
](https://www.grantcentralusa.com/ai-grant-writing-classes#:~:text=5.%20,Generator)). It essentially “transforms project ideas and specific goals into detailed and persuasive grant proposals” ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training

Other Grant Generators – There are numerous other tools in this space: FundWriter.ai which auto-fills proposal templates from fielded inputs, Grant.io (an AI platform for effective grant writing) ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training
](https://www.grantcentralusa.com/ai-grant-writing-classes#:~:text=match%20at%20L183%204.%20,io)), Granted AI which is “specifically trained for grant proposal writing” ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training
](https://www.grantcentralusa.com/ai-grant-writing-classes#:~:text=match%20at%20L192%206.%20,Granted%20AI)), and even one called LogicBalls Research Proposal Generator. These vary in sophistication; some simply wrap a GPT-4 API with a prompt template, while others incorporate training on successful proposals. Texta.ai, a general AI writing assistant, is also advertised for grants, claiming to generate “ready-made documents with accurate information” to speed up writing ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training

While these drafting tools can produce content quickly, users must critically review the AI-written text. There is a risk of bland or boilerplate proposals if one relies too heavily on generated text that “sounds” good but lacks insight. Savvy researchers use these tools to overcome writer's block or generate a first draft, then heavily edit to inject their own ideas and ensure the proposal has a unique voice. As one article put it, “AI can aid in efficiency of the grant writing process, yet they are not substitutes for the scientific process of asking important questions and testing hypotheses” (AI for Grant Writing: Use with Caution | Department of Medicine News | Stanford Medicine). In other words, content generation is easy for AI; ensuring substance and innovation remains the researcher’s job.

1.4 AI-Based Review and Feedback Tools

After a draft is written, iterative refinement through reviews is crucial. AI tools are now being used as “mock reviewers” to critique and provide feedback on proposal drafts. This can help authors improve clarity, address weaknesses, and preempt reviewer comments before submission:

  • ChatGPT as a Reviewer – By prompting an LLM to “act as an NSF review panelist” or “act as a critical reviewer”, users can get surprisingly detailed feedback on a draft proposal. The AI can highlight unclear assumptions, missing citations, or sections that need more detail, emulating the perspective of a peer reviewer. Researchers have found this useful as a form of automated peer review that is available on-demand. For instance, one ResearchGate tool called “Review My Paper” was built on GPT-4 to provide feedback on manuscripts across various parameters (Review My Paper - An AI tool - ResearchGate). Similar prompts can be used for proposals, essentially giving you a ruthless but fast reviewer. While not infallible, this approach can catch many issues in logic or presentation.

  • Enago's AI Reviewer Tools – Enago (a scientific editing company) has developed AI tools to assist journal peer reviewers, which are also applicable to proposals. These tools can automatically screen for common problems: e.g., missing sections, lack of clarity in aims, grammatical issues, even ethical issues or possible plagiarism (6 Assisted AI Tools for Peer Reviewers - Enago). A reviewer pressed for time might use such a tool to get a quick initial assessment. For proposal writers, running their draft through similar checks can ensure they haven't overlooked a key requirement or inadvertently copied text.

Automated Score Predictors – Experimental systems have been researched that attempt to score or evaluate proposal quality using machine learning. For example, studies have tried to predict grant success based on text features or bibliometric indicators (Machine learning in scientific grant review: algorithmically predicting ...). One approach trained models on past proposals with known outcomes to see if AI can learn what a successful proposal looks like (Machine learning in scientific grant review: algorithmically predicting ...). Results so far indicate this is a hard problem – success depends on many intangible factors – and models trained only on past text have difficulty outperforming trivial baselines ([2106.10700] On predicting research grants productivity - arXiv). However, simpler proxy metrics can be automated: readability scores, checking alignment of the proposal with the funder's stated criteria, coverage of required sections, etc. Some tools (like Grantable mentioned above) incorporate a checklist that the AI uses to flag if any criterion isn’t adequately addressed ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training

  • ](https://www.grantcentralusa.com/ai-grant-writing-classes#:~:text=3)). In the future, we might see AI giving an “impact score” or “innovation score” estimate for drafts, but such features are mostly experimental now.

  • Plagiarism and Similarity Checkers – Ensuring the proposal is original is paramount. AI-based plagiarism detectors (e.g., Turnitin) can be run on drafts to catch unintentional overlaps with existing text. Interestingly, as more proposals might be AI-generated, there’s concern about many containing similar phrasings. Funding agencies like the ERC note they have processes “able to detect text similarities” across submissions (European Research Council issues warning on AI’s use in grant applications | EURAXESS). Therefore, using an AI to review one’s own draft for any such issues (and then rephrasing) could become a standard step.

In practice, AI review tools are often used in a feedback loop: the researcher writes a draft, the AI provides critique or improvements, the researcher revises, and this may repeat for a few cycles. This human-AI iterative editing can significantly improve a proposal. A simple example is using ChatGPT's refinement capabilities: one can paste a section and ask, “Identify weaknesses or unclear points in the above text and suggest improvements.” The AI might respond with a list of issues and even propose rewritten sentences. The writer then implements the useful suggestions. As long as the writer retains control (verifying that changes are accurate and acceptable), this can mimic having a colleague review your work. In fields outside STEM, such AI feedback is also being tried – e.g., an AI might review a humanities grant for narrative coherence or a social science proposal for methodological soundness – though domain-specific insight is harder for the AI if it lacks training in those fields’ nuances.

1.5 Proposal Evaluation and Scoring Systems

On the flip side of writing, AI is also being applied to the reviewing process itself by funders and institutions. The idea is to leverage AI to pre-screen or even partly score incoming proposals, to assist human review panels:

  • Classifier for Triage – The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) reportedly experimented with automated tools to classify proposals and select reviewers (Artificial intelligence is selecting grant reviewers in China), aiming to reduce the workload of assigning proposals to the right experts. While this is about routing rather than scoring, it is a step toward automating parts of the review. By analyzing the text, AI can predict which discipline or program a proposal fits best, or flag if it should go to an ethics review etc.

  • Grantalent (Hypothetical) – We mention this to illustrate potential functionality: imagine a system that evaluates a proposal against an agency’s review criteria (intellectual merit, broader impacts, etc.) and gives preliminary scores or comments. Some grant management software companies are exploring AI modules that score narratives for relevance and completeness (How to Use Data Analytics to Predict Grant Success - fundsforNGOs). These use NLP to detect if required topics are discussed and may assign a risk level (e.g., if a proposal doesn’t mention certain critical content). At present, we did not find evidence of any funding agency fully relying on an AI score for decisions – humans remain firmly in charge of evaluations. However, internal use of AI to identify likely high-quality submissions (or to flag low-quality ones for possible rejection without full review) is a possibility on the horizon, raising ethical questions (see Section 2.5).

  • Mock Panel Simulation – An intriguing concept is using multiple AI agents to simulate a review panel discussion on a proposal. Each agent could be prompted to take on a persona (e.g., Reviewer A who loves theory, Reviewer B who is a stickler for methodology) and then have them critique a proposal and even debate each other’s points. While largely experimental, such simulations could uncover different perspectives on the proposal’s strengths and weaknesses, akin to a real panel. This falls more under research than any commercial tool currently available.

In summary, there is an end-to-end spectrum of AI assistance now: from idea generation to literature gathering, to drafting text, to reviewing and scoring. Table 1 (not shown here) could summarize example tools in each category. The key trend is integration – e.g., a single platform in the future might let a researcher brainstorm aims, pull up relevant papers, write each section with AI help, and get a final “review” score, all in one interface. Several early movers (ResearchPal, Grantable, etc.) are heading in this direction by combining functionalities. As we deploy these tools, however, we encounter significant technical and ethical challenges, which we examine next.

2. Key Technical Challenges in Automated Proposal Writing

Automating the creation of a full research proposal is far more complex than typical AI writing tasks (like composing an email or summarizing an article). Proposals are long, highly structured documents that must be original, well-grounded in facts, and persuasive about future work. This section analyzes the major technical challenges faced when using AI for proposal writing and reviewing:

2.1 Knowledge Grounding and Factuality

Ensuring factual accuracy and proper grounding in domain knowledge is a fundamental challenge. LLMs like GPT-4 generate text based on patterns in training data, and they do not inherently know whether a statement is true or false (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). This can lead to hallucinations – the model may fabricate a reference, misstate a scientific fact, or propose an experiment that is theoretically unsound. In the context of a research proposal, such errors can be fatal to its credibility. For example, an AI might confidently assert that a certain method yields high accuracy (pulling this claim from its training distribution rather than a specific source) when in fact no such evidence exists. Or it might invent a citation to support an approach. As the PLOS “Ten Simple Rules” article notes, *LLMs generate grammatically correct text but are “unable to estimate the truth of their predictions — resulting in hallucinations”, even fabricating references at times (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). A notorious case was Meta’s Galactica model: despite being trained on millions of scientific documents, it produced authoritative-sounding text that was often wrong or biased, to the point that scientists deemed it “dangerous” and it was taken offline (Why Meta Took Down its ‘Hallucinating’ AI Model Galactica?).

The challenge is thus how to have AI-generated proposals that are grounded in actual scientific knowledge. Ideally, every claim in the proposal should be traceable to either the literature or the investigator’s preliminary data. Achieving this with AI alone is hard; models must be augmented with retrieval or explicit evidence (see Section 3.1 on RAG). Another aspect is that proposals often require numeric accuracy (e.g., citing statistics from prior studies, or calculating resource estimates). Language models can easily flub numbers or units. Without proper tools, they might state an incorrect value or fail to maintain consistency of units throughout the proposal. Keeping track of numerous factual details over a long document is something current LLMs struggle with.

2.2 Balancing Innovation vs. Repetition

A compelling proposal needs to present an innovative idea that is not just a rehash of existing work. AI faces a paradox here. On one hand, a generative model trained on a large corpus might tend to produce “safe” content that resembles the average of what it has seen – potentially leading to derivative or overly generic proposals that lack novelty. On the other hand, if prompted for creative output, the AI might generate something novel but unmoored from reality (as noted, often novel ideas can be infeasible). Researchers have raised concerns that because LLMs operate by mimicking patterns in data, they could have a bias toward the conventional. There is a risk of convergence of ideas – if many people use the same AI to brainstorm, will proposals start to look the same, gravitating toward certain fashionable topics or phrasings? Ensuring diversity and true creativity in AI-generated ideas is an open challenge ([2409.04109] Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers).

That said, studies like the one by Si et al. (2024) have shown that LLMs can generate ideas rated as more novel than human-generated ones, though these were judged slightly lower in feasibility ([2409.04109] Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers). The lack of feasibility indicates the AI might propose something innovative but not practical, like an experiment requiring impossible conditions. This highlights a challenge of refining AI creativity: How do we get AI to propose bold but achievable ideas? One issue is that AI has no intrinsic concept of scientific validity – it might propose testing a hypothesis that is already well-refuted in literature or suggest an approach that violates physical laws, simply because it doesn't truly understand. Human scientists apply intuition and deep knowledge to filter out bad ideas, whereas an AI would need explicit constraints or feedback loops to do the same.

In summary, maintaining the right balance between novelty and relevance is hard for AI. If we fine-tune a model heavily on past successful proposals (to improve style and factual grounding), we risk making it too conservative, merely remixing known ideas. If we allow it free rein for novelty, we get imaginative but possibly outlandish proposals. This challenge touches on the very nature of creative thinking and is an area of active research (see Section 3.2 and 4 on how human-AI collaboration can inject the needed judgment).

2.3 Domain-Specific Language and Jargon

Research proposals are highly domain-specific documents, often filled with technical jargon, formulas, and shorthand understood only by experts in that field. A generic language model might not generate the appropriate terminology or tone expected by reviewers in, say, a quantum physics proposal or an NIH biomedical grant. Domain adaptation is a challenge: the AI needs to sound like an insider in the field. Off-the-shelf LLMs trained on general internet text may produce writing that is either too colloquial or uses terms incorrectly in a technical sense. For example, in a chemistry proposal, misusing the name of a compound or failing to use standard abbreviations would immediately signal lack of credibility. Conversely, in a computer science proposal, describing well-known algorithms in a verbose way (because the AI doesn’t realize the audience is familiar with them) could waste space and irritate reviewers.

To address this, one approach has been creating domain-specific LLMs or fine-tuning existing models on subject-specific corpora. For instance, BioGPT is a generative transformer model pre-trained on 15 million PubMed abstracts to specialize in biomedical text (BioGPT: Generative Pre-trained Transformer for Biomedical Text ...). This domain-specific training imbues it with the vocabulary and style of biomedical research, allowing it to generate fluent field-specific text (BioGPT: generative pre-trained transformer for biomedical text generation and mining | Briefings in Bioinformatics | Oxford Academic). Such a model would be much better at writing a microbiology proposal than a generic GPT. Similar models exist for chemistry (e.g., ChemBERTa for chemical language, though mostly for understanding rather than generation) and other fields. The challenge is that training or fine-tuning a large model for each domain requires a lot of data and computing resources. Additionally, within STEM there are micro-domains – an AI fluent in general biomedical terms might still falter with the niche terminology of, say, gene editing in plants versus neuroscience.

Another aspect is style and conventions: Each community has unwritten rules about how proposals should be phrased. For example, NIH R01 proposals often have a very structured style (Significance, Innovation, Approach sections) and a certain formal tone, whereas an AI that injects marketing language or unsupportable hype would be frowned upon. Ensuring the model respects these conventions is challenging. It requires either prompt engineering (providing exemplars of the style) or fine-tuning on a collection of well-written proposals in that style (which are often scarce due to confidentiality). If the model isn’t properly adapted, the generated text may stick out as “AI-ish” or simply not discipline-appropriate.

In short, domain expertise for language models is both a data and training challenge. Without it, the output might be too generic or even inaccurate in terminology; with it, the output is more credible but then we face the prior challenge of potential overfitting to old ideas. Balancing these is an important technical hurdle.

2.4 Planning and Coherence Across Long Documents

Research proposals are typically long documents (e.g., 10-15 pages single-spaced for a federal grant) with many sections that must all cohere into a single narrative. There is a need for high-level document planning: the aims stated in the introduction must align with the experiments described later; the literature gaps identified must be addressed by the approach; the conclusion must tie back to the objectives, etc. Large language models, however, have limitations when generating long texts. Even with a large context window, generating a lengthy document in one go often leads to drift or incoherence – the model might forget details from earlier, introduce inconsistencies, or meander off-topic.

Ensuring global coherence is a major challenge. AI tends to be better at local coherence (sentence-to-sentence flow) than maintaining a consistent storyline over many pages. For example, the AI might describe three Specific Aims in the introduction, but by the time it generates the methodology, it might inadvertently add a fourth experiment or drop one of the aims. Or it might change naming conventions halfway (e.g., using an acronym initially, then forgetting what that stands for later). These problems arise because LLMs do not truly understand the text; they generate based on probability and have to juggle a lot in their “memory”. Even models that can technically handle 30k tokens may not utilize that capacity effectively for logical planning.

Researchers are actively looking at ways to imbue models with better planning ability. One approach is hierarchical generation: first have the AI (or human) create a detailed outline or section-by-section plan, and then generate each part conditioned on that outline. If done well, this can greatly improve coherence (DOC: Improving Long Story Coherence With Detailed Outline Control). For instance, Wu et al. (2021) proposed a Detailed Outline Control (DOC) framework that guides long story generation by forcing the model to adhere to a pre-written plot outline (DOC: Improving Long Story Coherence With Detailed Outline Control). A similar concept can be applied to proposals – an outline might specify what each paragraph should cover; the AI then fills in text for each. The challenge is that the model may still deviate, so mechanisms to enforce the outline (through prompt constraints or iterative checking) are needed. Another approach is chunking: generate the proposal in smaller chunks (e.g., one section at a time), perhaps with overlap and a summarization step in between to carry context over. However, chunking can cause loss of context or repetitive wording if not handled carefully.

Long-range coreference and consistency is another issue. If the proposal mentions a figure or appendix, the AI might not remember to reference it properly elsewhere. Keeping track of references (like "as shown in Fig. 2") is something humans do with ease in writing, but AI can slip up because it doesn’t have an actual figure, it's just mimicking the pattern of referencing. If it hallucinates references or figure numbers that don't exist, that's a problem. Tools that integrate with LaTeX or citation managers could in principle update these references, but that's outside the LLM's own capability.

Finally, computational limits: Even if an AI could conceptually plan a whole proposal, the more constraints and length we impose, the more memory and processing it needs. Not all users have access to GPT-4 32k context or beyond, and even those that do might find it expensive to generate multiple drafts. Coherence often comes at the cost of multiple iterations (e.g., write, then let AI summarize and critique, then rewrite), which can be computationally heavy. This makes efficient planning methods important.

2.5 Ethical and Trustworthiness Issues

The use of AI in proposal writing raises significant ethical concerns and questions of trust:

  • Plagiarism and Originality: If an AI is trained on a vast corpus that includes existing proposals or papers, there is a risk that it might regurgitate passages verbatim or with minor rephrasing. This could lead to inadvertent plagiarism. In grant applications, plagiarism is taken very seriously and can lead to disqualification. As noted earlier, some publishers equated uncredited AI use to plagiarism (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). While policies are evolving, the safest course is full disclosure and ensuring originality. The ERC Scientific Council explicitly warned that using AI “does not relieve the author from responsibility with regard to plagiarism” (European Research Council issues warning on AI’s use in grant applications | EURAXESS). AI tools themselves might reuse phrasing seen in training data. For example, many NSF proposals start with similar boilerplate about broad impacts – an AI might output nearly identical sentences to something in another proposal. Writers must be vigilant to check and rephrase such overlaps. Tools like plagiarism checkers can help identify any sections that are too close to existing text before submission.

  • Intellectual Property and Idea Leakage: A unique concern with using cloud-based AI (like ChatGPT or Bard) is data privacy. Prompts and generated content sent to these services may be stored and used to improve the model (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). This means if you feed your novel proposal idea into ChatGPT, there is a non-zero chance that aspects of that idea could appear in another user’s output down the line. As Seckel et al. caution, “your grant application is extremely sensitive information that you would not want to share... Your ideas and approach could be suggested to another user – a competitor! – in a future iteration of the chatbot” (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). This is a profound trust issue: researchers could lose ownership of their ideas. Some instances have already been noted where similar ideas showed up in multiple proposals, potentially due to AI usage (The Rise of AI-generated Research Grant Funding Applications | Professor Sarah Hainsworth). To mitigate this, many institutions recommend not using public AI tools with confidential proposal text (The Rise of AI-generated Research Grant Funding Applications | Professor Sarah Hainsworth). Alternatively, using self-hosted models that do not log data (but those might be less capable) or waiting for enterprise solutions with strict privacy.

  • Bias and Fairness: AI models can inherit biases from their training data. In proposal writing, this might manifest subtly. For instance, if past successful proposals in the training set are predominantly from well-resourced institutions or certain demographics, the AI might unconsciously favor language or topics aligned with those, potentially disadvantaging those who propose unconventional approaches or come from less-represented groups. Also, an AI might produce text that inadvertently reflects gender or cultural biases (e.g., always using male pronouns for a principal investigator in examples). Ensuring the AI-generated content is equitable and inclusive is important for trust. Furthermore, if funding agencies ever used AI to screen proposals, any bias in the model could translate to unfair selection. So the models used must be carefully audited for biases.

  • Loss of Skill and Authenticity: There is an ethical consideration about the erosion of writing skills and the authentic voice of researchers. Proposal writing is a skill that scientists develop; if AI does most of the work, future scientists may not cultivate the ability to articulate ideas well on their own (AI for Grant Writing: Use with Caution | Department of Medicine News | Stanford Medicine). Some argue that over-reliance on AI could make proposals more homogeneous and less passionate, as they miss the “personal touch” of the researcher (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). Indeed, the “Ten Simple Rules” authors emphasize that proposal writing is personal and helps develop one’s thinking (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology), so outsourcing it to AI could hamper a researcher’s growth. Balancing efficiency vs skill development is a challenge institutions will need to address.

  • Transparency and Disclosure: Many funding bodies are starting to require or encourage disclosure of AI assistance. For example, the NSF encourages submitters to indicate if and how generative AI was used, while warning that improper use can lead to “fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism” which is considered misconduct (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). The NIH said it “does not know or ask who wrote an application” but cautions that those using AI “do so at their own risk” regarding plagiarism checks (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). The American Heart Association explicitly allows AI-generated text as long as it is disclosed at submission (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). These varied stances mean researchers have to be careful to follow the latest guidelines. Ethically, transparency is important: reviewers might feel deceived if they find out a beautifully written proposal was mostly authored by AI. On the other hand, there is also the question of whether proposals should be judged on content quality alone or on who/what wrote them. As AI use becomes widespread, the line of authorship may blur, but trust requires honesty about the process.

In summary, the ethical landscape is still evolving, but maintaining integrity and trust is paramount. The goal of using AI should be to enhance the researcher’s capability, not to mislead or cut corners. Guidelines from institutions typically boil down to: use AI as a helper, ensure the ideas and final decisions are your own, verify everything, and disclose use if required (European Research Council issues warning on AI’s use in grant applications | EURAXESS) (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology). The next section discusses technical solutions being developed to address some of the above challenges (especially factuality, planning, and maintaining human oversight).

3. Emerging Solutions and Techniques

To overcome the challenges outlined, researchers and developers are exploring a variety of techniques. These approaches aim to make AI-assisted proposal writing more reliable, coherent, and aligned with human expertise and ethical norms. Here we discuss several key solution strategies: (a) retrieval-augmented generation for grounding, (b) expert-in-the-loop and human feedback architectures, (c) prompt engineering and fine-tuning methods to guide models, (d) human-AI collaborative workflows for iterative refinement, and (e) AI agents with tool use and planning capabilities.

3.1 Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) for Knowledge Grounding

One of the most promising solutions for improving factual accuracy is Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). In a RAG system, the language model is not left to rely solely on its internal memory; instead, it actively retrieves relevant information from external sources (documents, databases, the web) and uses that to formulate its output (What Is Retrieval-Augmented Generation aka RAG | NVIDIA Blogs). In practice, this might mean that when writing a related work section, the AI will pull in snippets from actual papers and weave them (with proper citation) into the text, rather than hallucinating a summary.

RAG helps address hallucinations by grounding the generation in real data. As an NVIDIA explainer succinctly puts it: “Retrieval-augmented generation gives models sources they can cite, like footnotes in a research paper, so users can check any claims. That builds trust.” (What Is Retrieval-Augmented Generation aka RAG | NVIDIA Blogs). By having the model present verifiable sources, the proposal writer (and eventually the reviewer) can trace statements back to evidence, much like we are doing in this report with citations. It also reduces the chance of the model making something up, since it is constrained to use retrieved passages. RAG has become quite feasible with existing tech stacks: for instance, using a vector database of papers (say, all relevant publications for your field) and employing embeddings, one can have a pipeline where the query (prompt) fetches the top-k relevant paragraphs which are then given to the LLM to condition its answer. OpenAI’s and Cohere’s APIs, as well as open frameworks like LangChain, provide recipes to implement RAG with just a few lines of code (What Is Retrieval-Augmented Generation aka RAG | NVIDIA Blogs).

In the context of proposal writing, we are seeing tools incorporate RAG. For example, an AI assistant might be connected to Semantic Scholar or an internal repository of past proposals. If asked to write about the state of the art in a certain area, it will fetch key points from actual papers. This ensures that citations in the proposal are real (no fake references) and that specific factual claims (like "technology X reduces energy consumption by 20%") are supported by sources. The AcaWiki or other academic summary datasets could also be used for retrieval. Another benefit is currency: models have a knowledge cutoff (for GPT-4 it's late 2021, for example), but with retrieval, they can access up-to-date information such as very recent papers or current funding calls. This prevents the model from missing recent developments or, worse, proposing an idea that has already been done last year.

A concrete emerging example is the use of RAG in literature reviews. A 2023 paper by Aytar et al. introduced a RAG-based system for academic literature navigation that significantly improved relevance of retrieved info for data science research (A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Academic Literature Navigation in Data Science) (A Retrieval-Augmented Generation Framework for Academic Literature Navigation in Data Science). They integrated tools for parsing papers and fine-tuned embedding models to better fetch context. This kind of system could be directly applied when an AI is tasked with writing the background section of a proposal – it would retrieve the most relevant prior work and only then generate the background text, citing those works.

Challenges in RAG: While powerful, RAG is not without challenges. The retrieval component needs to be precise; irrelevant or low-quality sources can mislead the generation. There’s also the issue of integrating the retrieved text smoothly – models sometimes copy large chunks verbatim (raising plagiarism concerns) or misrepresent the source if they don’t adequately understand it. Ongoing research, however, is making strides: improved relevance scoring for retrieved passages, and using training or prompting strategies that encourage faithful summary of sources. Another interesting development is RAG with citation: training the model or designing the prompt such that it outputs not just text but also the reference keys or URLs for each fact (much as we are doing manually here). Some AI writing tools now automatically produce citations, which is a direct application of RAG. NVIDIA’s overview suggests that RAG may become a standard component of generative AI services because it’s often easier and cheaper than trying to train a truly all-knowing giant model (What Is Retrieval-Augmented Generation aka RAG | NVIDIA Blogs).

In summary, retrieval-augmented generation is a key technique to make AI-written proposals trustworthy and well-grounded. It addresses the factuality challenge by bridging LLMs with the vast repositories of scientific knowledge in real time. As these systems mature, we expect proposal drafting AIs to routinely come with a built-in literature retrieval module, effectively serving as an AI librarian + writer combined.

3.2 Expert-in-the-Loop Architectures

To tackle the issues of innovation and quality control, many approaches involve keeping a human “expert in the loop” or designing an AI system with multiple expert components. Rather than a single monolithic AI that goes from idea to final text, the process is segmented and guided by expert interventions (human or machine). There are a few patterns emerging:

  • Human Steering and Oversight: One simple architecture is where the human user strategically guides the AI at key junctures. For example, the human might generate the initial research idea (ensuring novelty and feasibility) and only then ask the AI to elaborate it. Or the human might outline the proposal’s structure (as recommended by Seckel et al.’s Rule 3: the first draft of any section should come from the researcher (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology)) and then use AI to refine. In each iteration, the human expert reviews what the AI produced, corrects factual errors, and adjusts direction. This way the AI never operates blindly; it’s always under expert supervision. The trade-off is time – this is not fully automatic – but it dramatically reduces the risk of nonsense or unoriginal output. Essentially, the human is like a project manager and quality assurance, with the AI as the tireless assistant. Many current users implicitly adopt this model: AI is a collaborator, not an autonomous writer.

  • Multi-LLM or Agent Teams: Instead of a single model, one can deploy multiple specialized models/agents that play different roles. For instance, one agent (the “Idea Generator”) proposes hypotheses. Another agent (the “Critic” or “Reviewer”) evaluates those ideas for novelty and feasibility. This is analogous to having an internal peer review before even writing the proposal. These agents can talk to each other – an approach explored in some research called multi-agent debate or self-reflection. If the generator proposes something too outlandish, the critic flags it and maybe suggests a tweak. Only when an idea passes the critic’s bar do they move on to drafting. Similarly, one can have a “Domain Expert” model that focuses on technical accuracy and a separate “Writing Expert” model that ensures the text is well-written. By dividing the problem, each model can be smaller or fine-tuned for its specific task, and their outputs combined. An emerging idea is using one model to do a task and another to verify it. For example, after an AI writes a section, a second AI could be tasked with checking each statement against a knowledge base (combining RAG here too). This division of labor mimics the way complex documents are often written – one person drafts, another edits.

  • Iterative Refinement with Human Feedback (RLHF): On the machine learning side, techniques like Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) have been very successful in aligning LLMs with human preferences (it’s a big part of how ChatGPT was refined). For proposal writing, one could imagine fine-tuning a model with a reward signal for producing content that human experts rated highly. For example, an AI generates a bunch of short research proposals; experienced grant writers or reviewers label them as good or bad; this feedback is used to train the model to prefer the style/content of good proposals. Over time, the model learns from the “expert policy”. While doing RLHF at the full document level is complex, even doing it for smaller tasks (like writing an aim or an abstract) could imbue the model with more expert-like judgment. The trick is getting enough training data – which might involve generating synthetic proposals and having humans critique them (something that could be partially automated by heuristic metrics as well).

  • Involving Domain Experts in Development: Beyond the real-time loop, having domain experts involved in crafting the AI system itself is key. For instance, if designing an AI to help with biomedical proposals, involve biomedical scientists to define what the model should check for (e.g., appropriate use of controls, or considering safety issues). They can provide exemplar texts and feedback on outputs during development. This kind of expert-in-the-loop is more about the training phase than the usage phase, but it results in a more domain-aligned tool. The Curie system by SpringerNature, for example, was developed specifically to assist in scientific writing with in-house editors providing guidance (Springer Nature Publishes an AI-Produced Book and Rolls Out an AI ...). Similarly, the makers of Grantable consulted with grant writing professionals to tailor the AI’s behavior (for example, focusing on meeting funder criteria) (Grantable: The world's best grant writing tools).

The net effect of expert-in-the-loop architectures is that AI doesn’t operate in isolation. This greatly increases reliability. A human or a specialized check can intercept a mistake before it propagates. From a technical perspective, it transforms a one-shot generation problem into a multi-step process with validation. There’s a connection here to how complex software is built: you have unit tests, integration tests, code review – analogously, for an AI-generated proposal you have idea tests, fact checks, review passes. Indeed, one could formalize something like a verification checklist that an AI or human goes through (e.g., “Does the proposal address all review criteria? Does it have any unsupported claims? Is the timeline realistic?”) and use that in the loop.

Looking forward, the line between “human-in-loop” and “AI-in-loop” might blur. We may see systems where an AI handles most of the text generation, but a human expert is pinged at critical decision points – for example, to approve an experimental plan or to input a key piece of domain knowledge the AI lacks. Conversely, a human might do most writing but call an AI in the loop for micro-tasks like “suggest a better wording for this sentence” or “generate a table of possible experiments”. This flexible orchestration is a promising direction for safe and effective use (further discussed in Section 4 on human-AI collaboration models).

3.3 Prompt Engineering, Fine-Tuning, and Model Specialization

Another line of defense against the challenges is making the AI model itself more aware and controllable with respect to proposal writing tasks. This includes prompt engineering techniques, fine-tuning or training models on relevant data, and even distilling large models into specialized smaller ones for efficiency.

Prompt Engineering: Crafting the right prompts can significantly improve the quality of AI outputs. As one rule in the PLOS article states, “use custom prompts for specific feedback” (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology) – the more specific the instructions, the more focused the model’s response. For proposal writing, rather than a generic prompt like “Write a research proposal about X”, we can use a structured prompt: “You are a senior scientist reviewing a grant proposal. Draft a concise and compelling Specific Aims section for a project about X, ensuring it addresses why the research is important (significance), what gap it fills, and what hypothesis will be tested.” Such prompts that set a role and outline clear points can guide the model to produce more relevant and well-structured text. There are also prompt patterns for different sections: e.g., for related work, “List the three main limitations in past work that this project will overcome, with one sentence each.” By breaking the task, we help the model plan content. Prompting can also be used to handle style: “Use an objective, formal tone and avoid exaggeration.” With the introduction of GPT-4’s System and User messages, users can establish an overall directive (system prompt) like “The output should be formatted as a research proposal with the following sections…” and then do stepwise prompting for each section. Effective prompt engineering acts like programming the model with high-level instructions without changing its weights.

Community-shared prompt collections for academic writing are emerging (GitHub - eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing: A curated list of resources for using LLMs to develop more competitive grant applications.), providing templates for tasks like brainstorming, rewriting, summarizing, etc. These serve as starting points that users can adapt to their specific domain. However, prompt engineering has limits – very large prompts can hit context size limits, and not all nuances can be captured in a prompt, which leads to the next approach.

Fine-Tuning and Domain Adaptation: To really specialize an AI for proposals, fine-tuning on a relevant corpus is powerful. If one had a dataset of successful research proposals (especially with reviewer comments or scores), one could fine-tune an LLM on that. Even without explicit labels, just learning the language of proposals could make the model generate more appropriate text. Fine-tuning was used, for example, in the BioGPT model on biomedical literature which led to state-of-the-art results in biomedical text tasks (BioGPT: generative pre-trained transformer for biomedical text generation and mining | Briefings in Bioinformatics | Oxford Academic), and one could envision a “GrantGPT” fine-tuned on grant text. There are challenges: proposal texts are not usually public domain, so data gathering is an issue. Some work has been done to fine-tune on adjacent data – e.g., one project fine-tuned GPT-2 on research paper abstracts to see if it could generate plausible abstracts given a title (Fine-tuning GPT-2 to generate research paper abstracts - GitHub). The result was that it learned to speak the “language of research” better than the base model. Similarly, fine-tuning on academic writing from arXiv or on public parts of proposals (like abstracts from funded grants which are sometimes published) could help.

One must be cautious to not overfit or bake in bias from past data. If all proposals in the fine-tuning set were, say, NIH biomedical R01s, the model might not generalize well to an AI research proposal. A possible direction is few-shot fine-tuning (sometimes called adapter training) where you train lightly on examples of the target domain to steer the style without overwriting the base model's general knowledge.

Distillation into Tools: Because large models (like GPT-4) are often used via API, there’s interest in distilling some of their capabilities into local, smaller models for specific tasks, both for cost and privacy reasons. For example, one could use GPT-4 to generate many examples of “good vs bad” proposal paragraphs, then train a smaller model to discern them (creating an AI proposal critique tool that runs locally). Or use GPT-4 to generate a bunch of fleshed-out proposals from outlines, and train a model to do that transformation. This is essentially knowledge distillation – using a powerful model to teach a weaker model. The GitHub project “ai-for-grant-writing” (GitHub - eseckel/ai-for-grant-writing: A curated list of resources for using LLMs to develop more competitive grant applications.) hints at building community datasets and possibly models for grant writing. Over time, this might lead to open-source models tuned for academic writing assistance, reducing reliance on closed APIs.

Rule-based enhancements: Alongside model training, some solutions incorporate rule-based modules for specific issues. For instance, after generating text, a simple program could check for common errors (like undefined acronyms or missing a section heading) and either fix them or prompt the model to fix them. A hybrid system of rules + AI can sometimes achieve better reliability than AI alone. Tools like Curie likely have some deterministic editing logic combined with the generative model (Springer Nature Publishes an AI-Produced Book and Rolls Out an AI ...). For planning coherence, one can enforce structure by template: e.g., have fixed section headers and ask the model to fill each – this is a form of prompt engineering combined with a user-defined structure.

In conclusion, tuning the AI to the task – whether through prompting or training – greatly enhances output quality. It’s like giving the AI a bit of “education” in grant-writing. As these techniques improve, we expect future AI systems to come pre-specialized: you might choose a model or prompt-pack for “NIH-style proposals” vs “NSF-style proposals” vs “EU Horizon proposals”, each tailored to the norms and criteria of those funding streams. This specialization will help address the jargon and style challenges (Section 2.3) and make the AI a more effective assistant.

3.4 Human-AI Collaboration and Iterative Feedback Loops

Rather than a one-shot generation, a very effective approach is designing a collaborative workflow where human and AI iteratively build the proposal. This draws on the concept that writing is rewriting, and AI can be involved in each rewrite cycle as a tireless editor or idea generator. Some emerging patterns and tools exemplify this:

  • Draft-Review-Revise Cycles: The user might start with a rough draft of the proposal or even just bullet points. They then ask the AI to review and suggest improvements. The AI might respond with, for example, a list of “five suggestions to strengthen the research design” or an edited version of a given paragraph for clarity. The human accepts or rejects these suggestions and updates the draft. This can repeat multiple times. With each iteration, the proposal hopefully gets clearer and more compelling. Importantly, the human is in control, making judgments on the AI’s feedback. This is essentially emulating an advisor or senior colleague giving feedback. Some systems allow an AI to continuously read a Google Doc or Word document as you write and offer inline suggestions (Grammarly does this for grammar; future tools might do this for content coherence, e.g., “hey, you mentioned three aims earlier but now only discuss two – consider aligning this”).

  • Multi-turn Prompting: If the model is integrated in a chat interface (like ChatGPT), the user can have a conversation to refine the text. For instance, User: “Here is my research question and rationale... [text]. Can you suggest a more concise version?” AI: [provides concise version]. User: “Good. Now given this question, what specific aim would be high-impact yet feasible?” AI: [suggests aim]. User: “Okay, draft a paragraph elaborating that aim with expected outcomes.” – and so on. In this collaborative mode, the user steers the AI at each step, and the AI helps flesh things out. The final result is a proposal that the human feels ownership of, as they guided its creation. Many researchers are finding this interactive use of ChatGPT or similar models to be the sweet spot – you benefit from AI’s speed in generating text and ideas, but you inject knowledge and decision-making at each step.

  • Tool Feedback (Grading and Rubrics): An interesting variant is using AI not just to generate text but to evaluate it according to a rubric. For example, one could prompt the AI: “Score the above proposal on a scale 1-5 for clarity, novelty, and feasibility, and explain the reasoning.” This kind of self-evaluation can highlight areas to improve. If the AI says “Clarity: 3 – the objectives are a bit vague”, the human can then clarify the objectives and ask for re-evaluation. This idea of AI-generated rubric-based feedback is being explored in educational tech for student writing, and it can apply to proposal drafts too. It essentially automates the process of checking your work against a checklist of what makes a good proposal. Some projects like an open-source “Grant Proposal Checklist Assistant” could emerge, where the AI systematically goes through criteria (significance, innovation, approach, etc.) and provides feedback.

  • Version Control and Comparison: When collaborating with AI, it’s useful to maintain versions (like commits in code). Some tools might allow storing different drafts (e.g., original text, AI-suggested text, and final merged text) and highlight changes. This way the researcher can make sure nothing important was lost and can always roll back if an AI change was not actually beneficial. While not an AI technique per se, having a workflow that systematically integrates AI suggestions while preserving history increases trust in using those suggestions. We might see word processors integrating “AI suggestion” track changes mode, which the writer can accept/reject line by line.

Underlying all this is the mindset of co-creation: the best results come when human and AI leverage each other’s strengths. Humans provide vision, critical thinking, and accountability; AI provides speed, breadth of knowledge, and endless patience in tweaking text. Early research suggests that such human-AI teaming can improve outcomes. For example, one study found that generative AI can enhance individual creativity and writing quality, particularly for those who were less skilled to begin with (Generative AI enhances individual creativity but reduces ... - Science). In the proposal context, a less experienced grant writer paired with AI guidance might produce a result on par with a more experienced writer, potentially democratizing some aspects of the process (while hopefully learning in the process).

It’s important to design interfaces that facilitate this back-and-forth. A simple chat might suffice, but domain-specific UIs could help, e.g., a panel showing “AI Reviewer comments” alongside the text. Perhaps an “AI Grant Coach” mode could exist where the AI gives motivational and structural help, not just text output (e.g., “Your related work section is a bit long-winded – remember reviewers have limited time; try focusing on 2-3 key references and move on.”). These kinds of high-level pointers are typically given by mentors; scaling that via AI could be quite impactful.

In summary, iterative human-AI collaboration is more of a process solution than a technical fix, but it's enabled by the AI’s flexibility and speed. It directly addresses challenges like factuality (human checks each iteration), coherence (human ensures alignment), and ethical concerns (human is final arbiter, reducing blind spots). It does require the human to be engaged and not just hit “auto-complete”, but when used properly, it can significantly amplify a researcher's ability to craft a well-thought-out proposal.

3.5 Tool Use and Agent-Based Planning Systems

Beyond just writing text, advanced AI agents can be designed to use external tools and plan complex sequences of actions in service of proposal preparation. This is an extension of the retrieval idea – not only retrieving documents, but possibly running analyses, simulations, or accessing databases, which can be very useful for certain proposals. It also touches on the long-document coherence issue by breaking the problem into sub-tasks handled by different tools or steps.

Recent research in AI has produced frameworks like AutoGPT, BabyAGI, and other autonomous agents that iteratively decide on actions (e.g., search for information, write a piece of text, run code) towards a goal. For scientific proposals, one could imagine an agent that, given a research idea, will: search literature, gather key points, generate an outline, for each section either generate text or call another tool, refine the text, and so on until a full draft is ready. Some prototypes like GPT-Researcher aim in this direction (assafelovic/gpt-researcher: LLM based autonomous agent ... - GitHub). The advantage of an agent is that it can maintain a working memory of the task, and it can plan (“First, let me get all relevant background; next, outline experiments; finally, compose the narrative.”) This is closer to how a human would approach writing a proposal in stages.

Integration of Analytical Tools: Many proposals, especially in STEM, involve some data or calculation. For example, a preliminary data analysis to show a trend, or a power calculation to justify sample size, or a budget spreadsheet. AI agents that can use tools like Python programming, calculators, or domain-specific software can actually perform these tasks. OpenAI’s Code Interpreter (now part of GPT-4) is a glimpse of this – it allows the AI to execute Python code. In a proposal context, one might have the AI analyze a small dataset and generate a plot to include in the proposal, or query a chemical database for properties needed to justify an experiment design. The ChemCrow agent is a concrete example: it integrates 13 specialized chemistry tools (like for molecule drawing, reaction prediction, etc.) with an LLM to solve chemistry problems (ChemCrow - LangChain agent for chemistry-related tasks - E2B). An agent like ChemCrow could, in principle, assist with writing a chemistry proposal by planning syntheses and verifying steps via its tools, ensuring the proposed methods are plausible. By augmenting LLMs with such tools, we significantly increase the trustworthiness and depth of the content – the AI isn't just guessing an experimental value; it might actually compute or retrieve it properly.

Agent Planning for Coherence: Agents can also help with the structure by explicitly having a planning phase. For example, an agent might generate a section-by-section plan, then perhaps even reorder sections if it finds a better flow, something a stateless LLM wouldn't easily do. Agents could enforce that certain things are done before moving on (like “do not start writing the Approach section until the Specific Aims are finalized”). This mirrors project management but for writing. If such an agent is well-designed, it could reduce the burden on the human to remember all the moving parts.

Challenges for Agents: However, building a fully reliable autonomous agent for proposal writing is very hard. They can get stuck in loops, make incorrect tool calls, or produce unwieldy outputs that still need human editing. There's active research into making agents more robust. For now, a semi-autonomous approach might be more practical: the agent handles well-bounded tasks (like “use MATLAB to run this simulation and report result”), and the human handles integration. But as research advances, we might see more capable scientific AI agents. The integration of knowledge graphs and ontologies (for example, an agent might incorporate an ontology of research areas or funding priorities to ensure the proposal aligns with what the funder is looking for) could be another tool. If an agent knows the NSF’s strategic priority areas, it could cross-check that the proposal touches on those if relevant – effectively a content compliance check.

Tool use also provides a form of verification. If the AI proposes an experiment design, and then it can simulate a bit of it with a tool or retrieve historical data to support it, that's strong validation. It could even catch illogical steps (if a simulation fails, maybe the experiment as described is impossible, prompting a rethink).

One interesting agent concept is an AI Reviewer agent that is separate from the writer agent. After the writer agent produces a draft, a reviewer agent could use tools like plagiarism checkers, reference checkers, etc., to audit the draft. This separation of roles (writer vs auditor) is analogous to the multi-agent idea but emphasizing tool usage for the audit.

In conclusion, the use of AI agents and tool integration is an emerging solution to make proposal automation more powerful and reliable. It extends what AI can do beyond just text generation to actually interfacing with the digital ecosystem of research (data, code, references). While still in nascent stages, this approach holds promise for the long-term vision of truly autonomous research proposal generation, as we will discuss next.

4. Future Directions and Research Opportunities

Looking ahead, the ultimate goal driving much of this work is the possibility of autonomously generating high-quality, innovative, and feasible research proposals. While current tools still require significant human guidance, rapid progress in AI suggests that more advanced capabilities are on the horizon. In this section, we highlight some promising research directions and long-term developments that could shape the future of AI-assisted (or AI-generated) proposal writing:

4.1 Autonomous Scientific Research Agents and Toolchains

We foresee the development of sophisticated autonomous scientific agents – AI systems that can carry out much of the research ideation and proposal formulation process end-to-end. These would be the successors of today's prototypes like AutoGPT or GPT-Researcher, but specialized for scientific creativity and rigor. An autonomous agent could hypothetically generate a new research idea, verify its novelty by searching literature, design experiments or theoretical frameworks to execute it, and then compose a proposal defending its importance. This starts to resemble a form of an “AI Principal Investigator”. Projects like this border on the concept of the “robot scientist” which has existed in certain domains (AI-driven experimentation in chemistry or biology). Here the focus is on the planning and justification phases rather than physically running experiments.

One necessary component will be advanced toolchains: the agent will use numerous interconnected tools (as discussed in Section 3.5). For example, a future agent might use a mathematical proof assistant to verify that a theoretical conjecture in the proposal is plausible, or use a CAD tool to design a prototype if the research is engineering-related, integrating those results into the proposal. The toolchain would effectively simulate parts of the research. This can dramatically strengthen proposals – imagine an AI that not only proposes a new material but also runs a quantum simulation to predict its properties, including that data in the proposal to show preliminary evidence. Human researchers do similar things if they have the expertise; an AI with a toolchain could lower the barrier to doing so in any field.

To achieve autonomy, agents will need better long-term planning algorithms. Current research on making LLMs plan (for example, hierarchical planning models or combining LLMs with classical planners) is very relevant. Also, meta-reasoning is a topic: agents that know when to stop or when a proposal is “good enough” to finalize. There is work to be done to avoid endless loops of improvement or the opposite (stopping too early).

Another intriguing direction is multiple agents collaborating (just as human teams do). Perhaps an “AI co-PI” agent per discipline in an interdisciplinary proposal, each writing their part and then a master agent (or human) integrating them. This distributed approach could mirror how large proposals are written by committees.

While true fully-autonomous proposal generation is still a ways off, stepping stones are being laid. For instance, IBM has been researching AI systems for automated hypothesis generation in drug discovery; combining that with automated experimental design moves toward an autonomous agent that could write its own grant for funding the experiments it wants to run. OpenAI, DeepMind, and others have also shown interest in “AI for scientific discovery” – e.g., AlphaFold solving protein structures (which was essentially an AI doing a research task). Extending such AI to propose what new experiments to do (and writing that up) is a logical next leap.

4.2 Datasets and Benchmarks for Proposal Generation and Evaluation

A key enabler for progress in this field will be the creation of datasets and benchmarks specifically geared toward research proposals. Right now, we lack public large-scale datasets of proposals because proposals are usually confidential. However, there are some workarounds and opportunities:

  • Synthetic Proposal Datasets: Researchers could generate synthetic proposals using existing scientific papers (for instance, converting the introduction and methods of a paper into a mock proposal for the “next step” of that research). These synthetic examples could be used to train or evaluate models. Or using AI itself to draft proposals that experts then rate could yield a labeled dataset.

  • Open Proposal Repositories: In some contexts like certain grant competitions or student research proposals, samples are made public. Also, successful grant proposals are sometimes shared informally or as part of grant writing workshops. Efforts could be made to collect these (with permission) into a research corpus. If privacy is a concern, even excerpting structured parts (like anonymized Specific Aims) for analysis might be helpful.

  • Benchmark Tasks: We need standardized tasks to measure how well an AI does at aspects of proposal writing. For example, a benchmark might be: given a research topic and some references, generate a one-page research plan that experts judge for clarity and novelty. Another might be: fill in the gaps in a partially written proposal. Or evaluate a given proposal text for problems. By creating such benchmark tasks and having competitions (e.g., on sites like EvalAI or part of academic conferences), the community can drive improvements and compare approaches. The NLP community might create something akin to the GLUE or SUPERGLUE benchmarks but for long-form scientific text generation.

  • Novelty and Quality Metrics: Part of the benchmark development is figuring out how to automatically measure the quality of a proposal. Traditional metrics like BLEU or ROUGE (from translation and summary) are not sufficient. We might need creativity metrics, factuality checks, coherence scores, etc. Some initial ideas involve using LLM-based evaluators (like GPT-4 used as a judge of content, similar to how they do for summarization contests) or using expert human evaluation on a small scale. The arXiv paper by Si et al. (2024) provides a method for assessing novelty with human experts ([2409.04109] Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers); such methodology can inform benchmarks for idea generation. There could also be downstream benchmarks: does an AI-written proposal get accepted by a mock review panel? There have been anecdotal tests – e.g., someone submitted an AI-written essay to a magazine to see if it gets published – doing similar for proposals in a controlled environment could yield valuable data.

By establishing these datasets and benchmarks, we also open the door for more researchers (especially in academia) to work on this problem. Right now, a lot of the development is happening in companies or behind closed doors (as they have the data and motive). If a shared resource existed, it would stimulate open research, much like ImageNet did for computer vision. Perhaps funding agencies or science foundations might even support creating a corpus of sample proposals (cleaned of sensitive info) to foster AI tools that ultimately help the agencies themselves (e.g., improving submission quality or review efficiency).

4.3 Integration with Funding Agency Ontologies and Priorities

For AI-generated proposals to be truly useful, they should not work in a vacuum – they need to align with what funding bodies are looking for. This means integrating knowledge of grant ontologies, schemas, and priorities:

Most major funding agencies have specific formats (e.g., NSF has a Project Summary, Project Description, etc., NIH has Specific Aims, Significance, Innovation, Approach), as well as review criteria (NSF’s Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, NIH’s Significance/Investigator/Innovation/Approach/Environment, etc.). They also often have strategic priority areas that change over time (for example, a big initiative on AI and climate, or on COVID-19 research, etc.). A smart proposal-writing AI should be aware of these and help the user tailor the proposal accordingly.

Future tools will likely integrate ontologies such as the NIH MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) or NSF’s taxonomy of research areas, so that the AI can explicitly tag and understand what topics are being addressed. For instance, if you’re writing an NIH proposal, an AI might prompt you: “This work falls under the NIH’s Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s mission. Do you want to emphasize relevance to heart disease?” – showing that it knows the landscape. Or it could ensure that broader impacts in an NSF proposal touch on education or diversity if appropriate, because it knows that’s often expected. This goes beyond writing and into content alignment.

Additionally, agencies publish calls for proposals (RFPs, BAAs, etc.) with detailed language about what they want. AI can be used to parse these solicitations and create a sort of blueprint for responding. For example, DARPA might have a BAA listing 5 technical areas; an AI could help ensure the proposal explicitly addresses each. In the future, you might feed the solicitation text to the AI and it would tailor the generated proposal to hit all the keywords and goals mentioned. This is partly an information extraction task (understanding the call) and partly generation (responding to it).

Another aspect is policy and priority alignment: Governments have science & technology priorities (e.g., “advancing quantum computing, ensuring energy security, etc.”). If a proposal can be linked to those, it often strengthens the justification. AI could be used to suggest connections: “Your proposal on material X could contribute to the Department of Energy’s goal of renewable energy storage – consider mentioning that angle.” There are knowledge bases of these priorities (like EU’s Horizon Europe has specific targets, UN Sustainable Development Goals could be relevant for some grants, etc.). Integrating those as a knowledge graph the AI can query is a likely development. In fact, a system could have a mode where you select the target funding agency and program, and it loads up all relevant context (previous funded project titles to avoid duplication, that agency’s buzzwords, etc.) to shape the generation.

Ethically, this raises the question: Will AI make proposals too “pandered” to what agencies want, possibly at the expense of genuine innovation? It’s a balance – good researchers already align their proposals with funder interests to some degree, but you don’t want it to become an exercise in keyword stuffing or trend-chasing devoid of real substance. Ideally, integration with agency priorities helps researchers frame their innovative ideas in terms that resonate with funders, without changing the core. It could also help newcomers who aren’t as familiar with the funding landscape to avoid missteps.

4.4 Cross-Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Support

While STEM is the focus, we should note that other disciplines will also benefit from these AI advancements. The challenges in humanities or social science proposal writing have overlap (narrative coherence, literature grounding) but also differences (e.g., fewer equations, more emphasis on theory or archival work). AI models might need additional training to handle, say, the style of an art history fellowship proposal versus a physics grant. We anticipate more customization by discipline. Possibly even different language models or prompt presets for different fields – much like how medical GPTs and legal GPTs are being developed.

Interdisciplinary research is another interesting angle: proposals that span fields might be where AI shines by connecting dots. A human might not be well-versed in all fields involved; an AI could help bridge, for example, suggesting relevant social science context to a computer science-driven education technology proposal. The AI's broad training might surface links that a domain-specialized human missed.

4.5 Ethical Frameworks and Trust Mechanisms

Future developments will also include methods to enhance trust in AI-generated content. This could involve watermarking or provenance tracking for AI-generated text to ensure transparency (e.g., a system might internally mark which sentences were AI-suggested). There might also be verification agents that accompany an AI writer, as discussed, to certify factual claims (almost like an AI fact-checker attached to the AI writer).

Funding agencies might develop guidelines or even tools on their side to detect AI-written proposals or require certain disclosures. A forward-looking approach is that instead of banning AI, agencies could provide a “safe AI assistant” for applicants – one that they vetted and that operates under certain constraints (e.g., does not retain data, is tuned to not produce boilerplate). This way everyone has equal access to AI support and it’s out in the open. For instance, an NIH-provided AI tool might help investigators refine their Specific Aims within the NIH portal.

In conclusion, the trajectory of AI in automating proposal writing is likely to transform the research enterprise. We can envision a future where generating a first draft of a proposal is as easy as having a conversation with an AI agent – freeing researchers to spend more time on the actual science and less on wordsmithing, while still producing high-quality proposals. However, reaching that future requires surmounting the technical challenges of grounding, coherence, and alignment, as well as carefully navigating the ethics of credit and responsibility. The developments in AI-based tools, from RAG to agent-based systems, are laying the groundwork for this vision. Through continued research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and perhaps new norms in the academic community, AI could become a ubiquitous part of how we brainstorm and articulate research ideas. The hope is that this will accelerate innovation – as mundane barriers fall, creative ideas flow more freely – while maintaining the rigor and integrity that good science demands.

References: This report has cited numerous sources to ground its analysis. Key references include the PLOS Comp. Bio. article on using LLMs for grant writing (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology) (Ten simple rules to leverage large language models for getting grants | PLOS Computational Biology), survey data on AI adoption in grant writing from Nature (European Research Council issues warning on AI’s use in grant applications | EURAXESS), examples of current AI tools like Grantable (Grantable: The world's best grant writing tools) and others ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training

](https://www.grantcentralusa.com/ai-grant-writing-classes\#:\~:text=5.%20,Generator)) ([

AI Grant Writing Classes ⚡️ Lightning Speed AI Grant Writing Training

](https://www.grantcentralusa.com/ai-grant-writing-classes\#:\~:text=match%20at%20L192%206.%20,Granted%20AI)), as well as research papers on creativity of LLMs ([[2409.04109] Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers](https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04109\#:\~:text=we%20obtain%20the%20first%20statistically,whether%20these%20novelty%20and%20feasibility)) and RAG techniques ([What Is Retrieval-Augmented Generation aka RAG | NVIDIA Blogs](https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/what-is-retrieval-augmented-generation/\#:\~:text=Building%20User%20Trust)). These and other cited works provide further details for interested readers (see the citation brackets throughout). As the field is evolving quickly, staying updated via recent papers and tool releases is advisable for anyone looking to implement AI in their proposal development process.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment