From Overload to Insights: How AI Agents Can Support Scientists in Analyzing Complex Data
arXiv:2607. 16845v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientists at European XFEL conduct experiments that generate very large and complex datasets.
arXiv:2607. 02703v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In this paper, we describe LLMoxie, an institutional AI platform whose three-tiered architecture supports multi-cloud and on-premise inference, a LiteLLM/MLflow control plane for authentication, budgeting, PII masking, and observability, and an application augmentation layer for AI coding agents.
arXiv:2607. 16845v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientists at European XFEL conduct experiments that generate very large and complex datasets.
arXiv:2609.19134v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific code repositories encode decades of human knowledge in executable models, methods, and tools. Yet fragmented toolchains, implicit domain con...
arXiv:2608. 10366v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Real-world data science involves long-horizon workflows that span data wrangling, exploration, modeling, visualization, and validation, and require coordinated use of tools such as notebooks, IDEs, terminals, browsers, and databases within real operating environments.
OpenAI4S is an open‑source scientific research agent that treats code as action and science as sessions, combining a persistent computing runtime with structured session management. It uses tool calls for orchestration, executes code cells in persistent Python and R kernels, and records an append‑only Action Ledger, per‑cell execution logs, versioned artifacts, environment snapshots, and workspace checkpoints to preserve provenance and enable session recovery, branching, and extension. Evaluated on 36 research scenarios—including retrosynthesis, molecular dynamics, and protein design—OpenAI4S achieved a higher overall score (7.83) than a general‑purpose coding harness, especially on long‑horizon, computation‑intensive workflows, though reproducibility remains an open challenge. whyItMatters":"The system demonstrates that persistent execution coupled with session‑level provenance can enhance the reliability of AI‑assisted scientific workflows, as evidenced by its superior performance across diverse research scenarios."
arXiv:2606. 05608v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: For over half a century, software engineering has operated on a foundational premise: human engineers decompose problems, encode decision logic into static code, and manually adapt that code as requirements evolve.
arXiv:2606. 13662v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM-based agents have shown increasing potential in automating scientific discovery.
arXiv:2509. 23426v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI scientists are emerging computational systems that serve as collaborative partners in discovery.
arXiv:2606. 05608v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: For over half a century, software engineering has operated on a foundational premise: human engineers decompose problems, encode decision logic into static code, and manually adapt that code as requirements evolve.
arXiv:2606. 31229v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Ideation plays a pivotal role in scientific discovery.
arXiv:2606. 03907v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Agentic AI coding tools write code with increasing autonomy and in doing so decide when to import a library and when to implement functionality from scratch.
arXiv:2606. 17076v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) has generated thousands of peer-reviewed publications documenting model configurations, evaluation procedures, emergent constraints, and projection uncertainties.
The paper introduces AutoMat, a benchmark designed to test large language model (LLM) coding agents on their ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat presents three challenges: reconstructing underspecified procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and assessing whether the evidence supports a claim. Experiments show that current LLM agents achieve low success rates, with the best setting reaching only 53%, and failures stem mainly from incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility.