The paper introduces SAEScientist-Bench, a benchmark that tests whether AI agents can autonomously conduct mechanistic interpretability research using Sparse Autoencoders (SAEs). Agents are tasked with designing contrastive probes and navigating a large feature dictionary in Gemma-2-9B-IT to identify optimal features for a target concept, with performance measured against expert-curated references on activation rank, concept selectivity, and causal steering. Results show that while frontier agents can discover features and outperform controls, they still lag behind expert baselines, especially in causal steering, highlighting both the potential and current limitations of closed-loop autonomous AI research.
arXiv:2609.15064v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Reinforcement learning (RL) is widely utilized in large language model training to improve targeted capabilities, yet how RL reshapes a model remains p...
arXiv:2602. 02905v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Autonomous agents powered by large language models (LLMs) promise to accelerate scientific discovery end-to-end, but rigorously evaluating their capacity for verifiable discovery remains a central challenge.
ASI‑Bench is a new benchmark that evaluates AI systems on their ability to conduct innovative exploration and autonomous scientific research across 11 domains, using 60 project‑level tasks. It progressively removes human methodological guidance to test whether AI can independently select methods, execute research, and produce verifiable results. Results from 18 state‑of‑the‑art agent–model configurations show a sharp performance drop when guidance is reduced, indicating current systems still rely heavily on human input.
arXiv:2607. 16448v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Interpretability methods for neural network activations span a wide cost spectrum, from cheap, training-free techniques (such as linear probes, PCA, SVD) to more expensive training-based ones (such as SAEs and activation oracles).
arXiv:2609.07611v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific ideation is the capacity to formulate novel and testable hypotheses from scientific evidence, and autonomous AI scientists depend on it. Exi...
Agentick is a unified benchmark for sequential decision‑making agents that evaluates RL, LLM, VLM, hybrid, and human agents on 37 procedurally generated tasks across six capability categories, four difficulty levels, and five observation modalities via a single Gymnasium‑compatible interface. It includes a Coding API, oracle reference policies, pre‑built SFT datasets, a composable agent harness, and a live leaderboard. An evaluation of 27 configurations and over 90,000 episodes shows no single approach dominates, with GPT‑5 mini leading overall, PPO excelling in planning and multi‑agent tasks, and the reasoning harness boosting LLM performance by 3‑10×, while ASCII observations outperform natural language.
arXiv:2606. 04455v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Current AI benchmarks evaluate agents on task execution within human-designed workflows.
arXiv:2609.33357v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Reliable automated research requires agents to vet data, verify analyses, and generate hypotheses grounded in trustworthy evidence, potentially red...
arXiv:2605. 06890v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: AI agents are promising for high-stakes enterprise workflows, but dependable deployment remains limited because tool-use failures are difficult to diagnose and control.
arXiv:2606. 04261v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Curating training data is among the most consequential yet labor-intensive parts of modern AI development: practitioners iteratively propose, implement, evaluate, and revise data policies against noisy benchmark feedback.
The paper introduces ASPIRE, a benchmark that challenges language model agents to self‑evolve from vague, natural‑language goals without explicit evaluation metrics. In ASPIRE, agents must interpret the goal, select data and update strategies, and decide when to evaluate, all while the downstream tasks remain hidden. Experiments show that while agents can complete training loops, weight‑level improvements are sparse and unstable, and the best evolved harness still falls short of a strong engineered baseline.
arXiv:2610.14381v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used as scientific assistants, yet we still lack reliable ways to evaluate whether they can investigate a system...