arXiv Machine Learning
Into the Unknown: Benchmarking AI agents on open scientific research problems
Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Machine Learning.
Related stories
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 30
Can AI agents conduct open-ended AI research? Early evidence from two case studies
arXiv:2607. 27191v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research.
arXiv AI
Jun 11
Can AI Agents Synthesize Scientific Conclusions?
arXiv:2606. 11337v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific AI agents increasingly retrieve evidence, reason across sources, and synthesize conclusions used in consequential decisions.
arXiv AI
Jun 9
ResearchClawBench: A Benchmark for End-to-End Autonomous Scientific Research
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.
arXiv AI
Jul 14
FIRE-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on the Rediscovery of Scientific Insights
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 AI
Jun 24
CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark
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.
arXiv AI
Jul 8
Prompt-to-Paper: Agentic AI System for Bioinformatics
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.