arXiv:2606. 29630v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present SFBench, a benchmark dataset for evaluating systems that assess the feasibility of scientific claims.
arXiv:2604. 13201v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models are emerging as scientific assistants, but evaluating their ability to reason from empirical data remains challenging.
arXiv:2607. 20926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources.
arXiv:2606. 13020v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Three paradigmatic forms of inference recur across scientific reasoning: deduction, induction, and causal abduction.
arXiv:2607. 28631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist systems capable of autonomous research have the potential to significantly accelerate scientific discovery.
SCICONVBENCH is a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on multi‑turn clarification tasks in computational science. It focuses on two key abilities: eliciting missing information (disambiguation) and resolving contradictory requests (inconsistency resolution) across four domains—fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, materials science, and partial differential equations. The benchmark pairs a structured task ontology with a rubric‑based evaluation framework, measuring LLM performance in clarification behavior, conversational grounding, and final‑specification fidelity, and reveals that even top models only resolve about 52.7% of disambiguation cases in fluid mechanics while often making ungrounded assumptions.
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.
arXiv:2608.30214v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific reasoning remains challenging for open-source models, largely due to the lack of high-quality scientific reasoning data. Existing datasets a...
arXiv:2602. 02905v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Autonomous agents powered by large language models (LLMs) promise to accelerate scientific discovery end-to-end, but rigorously evaluating their capacity for verifiable discovery remains a central challenge.
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.
arXiv:2510. 12171v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models have shown strong scientific reasoning ability, but their performance on materials science problems remains less studied.
arXiv:2608. 20106v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We introduce OenoBench, a wine-domain knowledge benchmark of 3,266 multiple-choice questions across six pillars (regions, grape varieties, viticulture, winemaking, producers, business) and four difficulty tiers.
The paper evaluates the robustness of automated fact‑checking systems by cross‑benchmarking nine models—including random baselines, fine‑tuned transformers, zero‑shot LLMs, and top AVeriTeC 2025 systems—across four datasets from scientific, open‑web, and climate domains. It finds that fine‑tuned models outperform zero‑shot LLMs on ClimateCheck, that system rankings vary strongly with domain and metric, and that replacing retrieved evidence with gold annotations boosts veracity accuracy by 14–22 points, underscoring retrieval as the main bottleneck. The authors provide code, pre‑processed datasets, and results to enable reproducible research.