The study evaluates how agentic AI models can autonomously complete end‑to‑end data science projects and improve through iterative feedback. A writer model generates a full project—from data acquisition to analysis and paper writing—while a grader model evaluates it; this cycle repeats for up to three rounds. Across 49 writer‑grader pairs from five developers, initial submissions improved from an average of 59 % to 76 % after feedback, with variations depending on the specific model roles.
arXiv:2610.06824v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We introduce TasteVal, a benchmark to evaluate the experimental research taste of frontier models. We define research taste as the ability to pick...
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...
arXiv:2607. 28631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist systems capable of autonomous research have the potential to significantly accelerate scientific discovery.
arXiv:2605. 10574v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As artificial intelligence advances, models are not improving uniformly.
EvalResearchBench (ERB) is a benchmark that tests whether AI agents can autonomously design evaluation tasks for recursive self‑improvement. In ERB, a researcher agent selects or synthesizes tasks, builds graders, and refines them through pilot tests before producing a final evaluator that runs within fixed time and API budgets. Experiments with nine researchers and thirteen candidate models show that the best automated evaluators achieve about 75% concordance with target benchmarks, below the 91% ceiling set by target disagreements, and that human‑designed task samples still outperform many automated approaches.
Small language models can grade open‑ended exam answers as reliably as much larger models when they use an explicit rubric. In experiments with six cost‑efficient model configurations, the rubric decouples grading from judge intelligence, with answer identity explaining 95.6% of score variance and judge identity only 0.2%. Removing rubric criteria or the official answer collapses reliability and inflates scores, showing the rubric’s essential role.
A benchmark score means nothing without knowing what a trivial method achieves and what the best possible method could achieve. We construct both bounds for a task with a rare kind of ground truth: predicting which sentences a crowd of readers -- highlighting for their own purposes, unpaid, uninstructed, and blind to each other -- marked in 120 web documents.
Sciπvot is a 248‑case benchmark that evaluates how well large language model (LLM) agents perform scientific judgment during autonomous research. The benchmark is built from six months of real‑world experiments where senior researchers ran LLM agents on 26 projects across six scientific fields and repeatedly corrected the agents’ decisions. In each case, the agent must choose between its original plan and a human‑corrected alternative using only the project record available before the correction, allowing a direct comparison of LLM and human performance under varying reasoning effort and record access.
arXiv:2606. 15887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) systems are increasingly proposed to assist peer review, yet most evaluations judge the prose of machine-generated review text, not the validity of the numeric score a system assigns.
The study investigates whether large language models (LLMs) can identify code they have generated, potentially leading to self‑favoring or collusive behavior. Experiments across 15 model‑benchmark pairs show that models can attribute authorship with balanced accuracy between 49% and 58%, but this ability largely stems from superficial cues such as solution length. Removing surface features like docstrings, comments, and type hints reduces attribution accuracy to chance, indicating that surface cues drive the effect.
arXiv:2610.18420v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We trained Agaram 2.5B, a 2.5-billion-parameter Tamil-English language model, from scratch on about 50 billion tokens (58% Tamil, the rest English, m...
arXiv:2606. 04095v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Small open-weight models struggle at long-form creative writing: their generated stories either fall far short of the requested length, or their quality significantly degrades as length increases, especially when compared to frontier models.