arXiv:2607. 02931v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI tools are accelerating scientific publication while the systems that review it struggle to keep up, and independent verification of published research has become both harder and more important.
arXiv:2602. 11354v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The literature has witnessed an emerging interest in AI agents for automated assessment of scientific papers.
arXiv:2606. 07591v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify.
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.
arXiv:2409. 11363v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research.
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: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. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.
arXiv:2606. 18237v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Reproducing research results from papers and released code is central to scientific progress.
arXiv:2606. 15497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI.
arXiv:2608. 19799v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Software increasingly functions as part of the scientific instrument itself, making failures in scientific code capable of compromising not only program behavior but also the evidence underlying scientific conclusions.
SWE‑bench Science is a benchmark for evaluating coding agents on scientific software engineering tasks, comprising 119 tasks from 98 GitHub repositories across 20 scientific domains. The tasks are grouped into Issue‑driven, Expert‑exploratory, and Engineering‑integration paradigms, and even the best agent, Claude Code with Opus‑5 (max), achieves a pass@1 below 50%. The study identifies four common failure mechanisms—lack of scientific knowledge, misguided exploration, incomplete repair coverage, and poor generalization—and shows that providing scientific guidance can both help and hinder repair depending on its alignment with the task.
arXiv:2607. 02134v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific machine learning papers typically make computational claims, e.