arXiv:2606. 00644v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI research often requires decisions before future evidence exists: which bottleneck to attack, which direction to pursue, or where a project should be positioned.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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.
arXiv:2510. 24891v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential to accelerate scientific discovery as valuable tools for analyzing data, generating hypotheses, and supporting innovative approaches in various scientific fields.
arXiv:2606. 07462v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As foundation models advance and agent scaffolding becomes increasingly sophisticated, agents have demonstrated remarkable proficiency in complex, long-horizon coding tasks and even autonomous experiment execution.
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...
arXiv:2606. 07591v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify.
Deep Research Bench II is a new benchmark designed to evaluate Deep Research Agents (DRAs) by requiring them to produce research reports for 132 grounded tasks across 22 domains. Each report is assessed using 9,430 fine‑grained binary rubrics that cover information recall, analysis, and presentation, all derived from expert‑written investigative articles through a rigorous LLM‑plus‑human pipeline. Evaluation of current state‑of‑the‑art DRAs shows that even the best models satisfy fewer than 50% of these rubrics, highlighting a significant gap between automated agents and human experts.