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:2608.21601v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference soluti...
By Aubrey Brueckner, Darshil Patel, Yuhuan He, Timothy Kassis
arXiv:2606. 22737v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Before letting an agent operate over real context, can you prove it used the right evidence?
By Jeffrey Flynt
OpenDiscoveryTrace is a public dataset of 558 complete AI scientific agent trajectories that records the reasoning process—thoughts, tool calls, observations, errors, revision triggers, and confidence—across 124 scientific tasks in drug discovery, materials science, genomics, and literature analysis. The dataset includes seven models (three frontier models and four open‑weight models) and 60 live‑retrieval variants, providing a balanced view of performance and error patterns. Pilot analysis shows that process traces reveal behavioral differences invisible to output‑only evaluation, such as differing error rates and types among frontier models.
By Aayam Bansal, Keertan Balaji
arXiv:2607. 09711v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Existing agent benchmarks primarily test task completion, tool use, or skill utility, but do not isolate whether a runtime can convert evidence from its own runs into reusable skills that improve fresh executions after authoring overhead.
By Zhiyuan Peng, Xin Yin, Chenhao Ying, Zhe Cui, Zixiang Ding, Zhenhua Liu, Jiang Wu, Yuan Luo
arXiv:2608. 05573v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM agents increasingly execute long-horizon tasks through tool use and environment interaction, shifting evaluation from final-response scoring to verification of complete executions.
By Zhi Han, Chenxi Zeng, Liuhaichen Yang, Zihan Guo, Ming Zhou, Yang Li
The paper introduces Traverse, a benchmark of 2,518 agent trajectories and 6,967 annotated mistakes across software engineering, computer use, and science tasks, revealing that failures often go unrecovered and can cause irreversible harm before a run is deemed successful. It shows that human judges struggle to detect the first mistake in most runs, while a 4‑billion‑parameter verifier called Scout can locate failures more effectively and improve task success when used to select among candidate runs. The study demonstrates that making failure detection inexpensive and reliable can enable long‑horizon agents to learn from their own mistakes and increase trustworthiness in autonomous AI.
By Salman Rahman, Yubin Kim, Mihir Parmar, A. Ali Heydari, Genglin Liu, Simon A. Lee, Weizhi Zhang, Arian Hosseini, Ahmed A. Metwally, Yuzhe Yang, Baharan Mirzasoleiman, Xin Liu, Pavel Izmailov, Saadia Gabriel, Mark Malhotra, Shwetak Patel, Daniel McDuff, Hamid Palangi
BekchiAI introduces a benchmark and platform for evaluating large language model agents. The benchmark comprises 13 tool‑using ReAct agents across seven task categories, totaling 2,057 deterministic test tasks with verifier‑checkable gold answers. The platform offers web‑based observability, token and latency telemetry, and remote run termination for live agents.
By Mesut Toruk
arXiv:2605. 17554v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) plan a research task, synthesize across documents, and return a structured deliverable on demand.
By Tanmay Asthana, Aman Saksena, Divyansh Sahu
arXiv:2607. 07946v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: DeepSWE is a benchmark of 113 original, long-horizon software engineering tasks for evaluating coding agents.
By Wenqi Huang, Charley Lee, Leonard Tng, Serena Ge
The paper investigates how language‑model judges can make version‑dependent errors when evaluating upgraded agents. Using 35 public coding‑agent submissions, two customer‑service agents, and over a thousand expert‑labeled trajectories, the authors show that fixed judges often reject task‑conditioned error invariance and can incorrectly approve failed patches, especially as agent capability increases. Paired audits of current outputs reduce interval width only marginally, and the study concludes that independent human patch review is still necessary.
By Jiapeng Li
arXiv:2606. 31478v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Autonomous research agents can now draft hypotheses, write code, run experiments, and produce papers, but they remain brittle when experiments fail.
By Jie Ma, Binfei Chu, Jie Gao, Jinlu Zhang, Yiwei Ma, Yi Tan, Jiayi Ji, Xiaoshuai Sun, Rongrong Ji