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.
By Ziyang Huang, Yi Cao, Ali K. Shargh, Jing Luo, Ruidong Mei, Mohd Zaki, Zhan Liu, Wyatt Bunstine, William Jurayj, Somdatta Goswami, Tyrel McQueen, Michael Shields, Jaafar El-Awady, Paulette Clancy, Benjamin Van Durme, Nicholas Andrews, William Walden, Daniel Khashabi
arXiv:2607. 27191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research.
By Peter Kirgis, Sayash Kapoor, Andrew Schwartz, Stephan Rabanser, David Africa, Konstantinos Voudouris, Viet Nguyen, Toby Pilditch, Magda Dubois, Harry Coppock, Cozmin Ududec, Nitya Nadgir, Matilda Orona, Tilman Bayer, Derrick Chan-Sew, Yue Ling, Abhishek Shetty, Helen Toner, Gillian Hadfield, Seth Lazar, Steve Newman, Shoshannah Tekofsky, Rishi Bommasani, Arvind Narayanan
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.
By Ramsha Kamran, Maheera Amjad, Zartasha Mustansar, Arsalan Shaukat, Salma Sherbaz, Muhammad U. S. Khan
arXiv:2602. 11354v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The literature has witnessed an emerging interest in AI agents for automated assessment of scientific papers.
By Bang Nguyen, Dominik So\'os, Qian Ma, Rochana R. Obadage, Zack Ranjan, Sai Koneru, Timothy M. Errington, Shakhlo Nematova, Sarah Rajtmajer, Jian Wu, Meng Jiang
arXiv:2605. 18661v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI-assisted research is crossing a threshold: fully automated systems can now generate research papers for as little as $15, while long-horizon agents can execute experiments, draft manuscripts, and simulate critique with minimal human input.
By Lingdong Kong, Xian Sun, Wei Chow, Linfeng Li, Kevin Qinghong Lin, Xuan Billy Zhang, Song Wang, Rong Li, Qing Wu, Wei Gao, Yingshuo Wang, Shaoyuan Xie, Jiachen Liu, Leigang Qu, Shijie Li, Lai Xing Ng, Benoit R. Cottereau, Ziwei Liu, Tat-Seng Chua, Wei Tsang Ooi
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.
By Zachary S. Siegel, Sayash Kapoor, Nitya Nadgir, Benedikt Stroebl, Arvind Narayanan
arXiv:2606. 31651v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Recent automated research systems show that language-model agents can generate hypotheses, run experiments, and write complete manuscripts, but most evidence still comes from selected examples, human-framed topics, or a few pre-defined research tasks.
By Qiong Tang, Xiangkun Hu, Xiangyang Liu, Yiran Chen, Yunfan Shao
Turning a research idea into a complete paper requires more than text generation: the system must retrieve literature, design and execute experiments, revise claims according to evidence, produce publication-ready figures, and maintain consistency across a long generation process. We present Spark-to-Paper, an end-to-end research paper generation system implemented as thirteen composable skills inside an existing coding assistant, without requiring a separate agent platform or orchestration service.
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
PaperDoctor is an agent framework that provides evidence‑grounded, actionable feedback for scientific papers before submission. It evaluates writing, layout, references, code, theory, prior work, and experiments through a three‑layer hierarchical system, linking each critique to specific evidence and revision suggestions. The system selectively rebuilds and reruns experiments to uncover reproducibility gaps, and an interactive interface lets authors explore findings tied to their manuscript.
By Kevin Qinghong Lin, Siyuan Hu, Pan Lu, Yu Chen, Yanzhe Chen, Owen Queen, Yupeng Chen, Jialin Yu, Junchi Yu, Zifeng Ding, Yuanfeng Ji, Sheng Liu, Jindong Gu, Linjie Li, Mike Zheng Shou, Philip Torr, James Zou
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
arXiv:2606. 15497v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: The automation of science is a long-standing ambition in the field of AI.
By Yutaro Yamada, Robert Tjarko Lange, Cong Lu, Chris Lu, Shengran Hu, Jakob Foerster, David Ha, Jeff Clune