arXiv:2606. 29630v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We present SFBench, a benchmark dataset for evaluating systems that assess the feasibility of scientific claims.
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:2604. 13201v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models are emerging as scientific assistants, but evaluating their ability to reason from empirical data remains challenging.
arXiv:2607. 20926v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources.
arXiv:2606. 13020v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Three paradigmatic forms of inference recur across scientific reasoning: deduction, induction, and causal abduction.
arXiv:2607. 28631v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: AI Scientist systems capable of autonomous research have the potential to significantly accelerate scientific discovery.
SCICONVBENCH is a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on multi‑turn clarification tasks in computational science. It focuses on two key abilities: eliciting missing information (disambiguation) and resolving contradictory requests (inconsistency resolution) across four domains—fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, materials science, and partial differential equations. The benchmark pairs a structured task ontology with a rubric‑based evaluation framework, measuring LLM performance in clarification behavior, conversational grounding, and final‑specification fidelity, and reveals that even top models only resolve about 52.7% of disambiguation cases in fluid mechanics while often making ungrounded assumptions.
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.