arXiv:2603. 29139v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled agentic systems to translate natural-language intent into executable scientific visualization (SciVis) tasks.
By Kuangshi Ai, Haichao Miao, Kaiyuan Tang, Nathaniel Gorski, Jianxin Sun, Guoxi Liu, Helgi I. Ingolfsson, David Lenz, Hanqi Guo, Hongfeng Yu, Teja Leburu, Michael Molash, Bei Wang, Tom Peterka, Chaoli Wang, Shusen Liu
arXiv:2609.33357v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Reliable automated research requires agents to vet data, verify analyses, and generate hypotheses grounded in trustworthy evidence, potentially red...
By Nan Huang, Mario Tapia-Pacheco, Kun Zhou, Yiming Huang, Kevin Jos\'e Barrientos D\'iaz, Tiffany Amariuta, Jingbo Shang
arXiv:2608.00711v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly deployed in scientific research, where reliability is critical and the underlying knowledge is d...
By Xinshun Feng, Ziqi Miao, Lijun Li, Jing Shao
TruthInsightBench is a new benchmark designed to evaluate automated scientific discovery agents by presenting them with 40 blind tasks drawn from peer‑reviewed studies across ten domains. Each task provides only a neutral objective and frozen data, withholding source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths, forcing agents to determine which claim the data support. A fixed LLM‑based judge scores agents on evidentiary maturity across six dimensions, using 29 artifact‑grounded items, enabling fully automated, repeatable evaluation without human grading.
By Zhibo Yang, Chen Zhang, Yuewei Zhang, Hao Wang
arXiv:2606. 21005v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Scientific discovery workflows often depend on structured curation from the literature.
By Sheng Zhang, Qin Liu, Renqian Luo, Shufang Xie, Reuben Tan, Sean Hayes, Gregory Bryman, Wendong Ge, Ruilian Zhang, Oluwaseun Egbelowo, Kelly Yee, Hoifung Poon
arXiv:2606. 11337v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions.
By Hayoung Jung, Pedro Viana Diniz, Jos\'e Reinaldo Corr\^ea Roveda, Abner Fernandes da Silva, Haeun Jung, Enoch Tsai, Aleksandra Korolova, Manoel Horta Ribeiro
Sci‑MMR is a new benchmark for multi‑step evidence‑grounded scientific reasoning in multimodal agents, featuring 235 multi‑hop tasks across four disciplines and an average of nine figure panels per task. It evaluates not just final answer accuracy but also the recovery of structured evidence from scientific claims, citations, visual data, and supporting regions. Experiments on eight state‑of‑the‑art models show a gap of over 20 points between answer accuracy and complete evidence recovery, highlighting significant challenges in evidence acquisition and integration.
By Jiaqiang Li, Yajie Yang, Zhiheng Xi, Jiadong Chen, Enyu Zhou, Senjie Jin, Yang Nan, Jiazheng Zhang, Han Wang, Yanxin Li, Dingwei Zhu, Bicheng Deng, Yuhui Wang, Xiang Zheng, Qi Zhang, Lei Bai, Xingjun Ma, Tao Gui
arXiv:2608. 13558v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent advances in foundation models have enabled AI scientists to automate increasingly complete research workflows, from hypothesis generation and code execution to manuscript preparation.
By Bobo Li, Hao Fei, Tianjie Ju, Mong-Li Lee, Wynne Hsu
Tree-of-Concerns is a multi‑agent framework that uses specialized skeptic personas to conduct parallel debate trees, each focusing on a specific category of potential limitations in scientific papers. The system employs structured, evidence‑grounded argumentation and a panel review mechanism to correct drift and miscalibration, ultimately extracting unstated limitations. Experiments on the ToC‑Bench benchmark show that the approach improves precision by 79% and coverage by 11% over leading baselines, providing reviewers with specific, evidence‑based concerns for systematic evaluation.
By Sahil Mishra, Niranjan Rajeev, Tanmoy Chakraborty
The paper "Beyond Execution: Auditing Experimental Fidelity in LLM-Driven Scientific Research" argues that large language model agents must faithfully implement reference methods, design experiments that truly test claims, and provide supporting evidence. It reports that agents often hallucinate methodology—reducing datasets, substituting components, or drawing conclusions from limited resources—leading to false claims. To counter this, the authors introduce ABE‑Ralph, a reference‑anchored auditing framework that structures experimental constraints, guides implementation, and verifies results, achieving a 93% robust execution rate across 30 reproduction runs and matching or exceeding state‑of‑the‑art performance on 5 NatureBench tasks.
"whyItMatters":"The study demonstrates that evaluating AI scientists requires more than code execution; it must ensure experimental design and evidence truly support the claimed scientific outcomes."
By Lezhi Yu, Xiaogang Xu, Yuhua Zhou, Shuibing He, Aimin Pan
arXiv:2608. 05179v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly used across the scientific research lifecycle: ideation, literature search, experiment design and execution, analysis, manuscript drafting, and review.
By Tianyu Ding, Aditya Nannapaneni, Bingfan Liu, Ling Zhang
arXiv:2609.22111v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language model agents are increasingly capable of conducting research autonomously, producing research documents alongside the code and experimen...
By Qiuhong Shen, Benlong Wu, Hanjin Liu, Yuang Qi, Kejiang Chen