ToolGate is an executable acceptance pipeline designed to streamline the creation of scientific benchmarks that rely on specialist software. It evaluates each model-generated item through three gates: (1) an executable solution script must reproduce the proposed answer, (2) a randomized no‑tool screen rejects items solvable without the software, and (3) a tool‑using agent must solve the item within a time limit. In a FEniCSx instantiation, 500 generation attempts produced 128 unique, verified benchmark items after successive filtering.
arXiv:2610.32441v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of supporting scientific workflows, but their capabilities across diverse research activitie...
arXiv:2609.24165v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Synchrotron data reduction, detector calibration followed by azimuthal integration of terabyte-scale diffraction series, is a multi-step, expert-bound...
arXiv:2608.28795v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern artificial-intelligence coding agents can be equipped with tools for checking their own work e.g. a linter, a boot probe, a shell, a screensho...
arXiv:2607. 00436v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model agents are increasingly connected to scientific software, yet it remains unclear when tool access makes scientific computation more reliable rather than merely more complex.
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.
The paper introduces a coroutine-bridge harness that lets a language model emit a Python program to manage tool calls in the CAR-bench evaluation. By decoupling model invocations from tool round-trips, the approach reduces model calls to a median of two per task while maintaining seven agent turns, achieving a median latency of 1.8 s on a Cerebras gpt‑oss‑120b. The harness achieved 60.0 % Pass³ on the official hidden evaluation, outperforming the baseline by 4.5× and matching frontier-model agents on GPT‑5.5, all while keeping the prompt largely cached and minimizing input compute.
PAPERBENCHX is a new benchmark that tests whether AI can reproduce scientific experiments across 12 disciplines, including electromagnetics, photonics, chemistry, materials science, biology, and robotics. It consists of 93 expert-constructed tasks, each providing a source paper, a public specification, and a domain-native scientific environment. The benchmark evaluates AI agents by having them reconstruct, execute, and diagnose key experiments, then replay submissions from scratch to score regenerated evidence against expert-validated criteria, revealing that current AI configurations fully reproduce only 14% of tasks.
HyperLogic is a forward‑construction benchmark for Chinese logical reasoning that decouples problem authoring from answer generation. It employs a multi‑agent workflow to harden undergraduate‑authored seeds, translate items into executable finite‑domain models, and adjudicate solver‑derived answers under human oversight. The benchmark includes a Base set of 195 items (922 sub‑questions) and a Hard set of 100 items, revealing significant performance gaps among frontier models and demonstrating the challenges of faithful formalization even with tool support.
The paper introduces BRIA (BRanch-Inspect-Adopt), an agent that isolates tool‑candidate investigations into separate branches, executing each candidate independently and then inspecting the execution evidence to adopt only useful results. BRIA dynamically retrieves additional tools as new needs arise during task execution and is evaluated on PlanBench‑XL and MCP‑Atlas with a library of 1,897 tools, outperforming or matching the strongest retrieval baselines. On MCP‑Atlas, BRIA achieves an average claim score of 89.77 versus 75.40 for MCP‑Zero, and it lies on the Pareto frontier for task performance and input‑token cost.
arXiv:2610.18760v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Test-time scaling for large language models (LLMs) can involve generating multiple candidate solutions for selection or revising an earlier attempt. To...
arXiv:2605.22875v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Long-horizon mathematical reasoning fails less often because a model cannot produce a valid next step than because an agent fails to maintain and e...
arXiv:2604. 16706v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Automated evaluation of tool-using large language model (LLM) agents is widely assumed to be reliable, yet this assumption is rarely validated against human annotation.