CORTEXA
← Browse
arxivcs.AI2026-07-23

SciExplore: Evaluating Autonomous Agents from Scientific Navigation to Information Integration

Yinhao Tang, Youqing Fang, Yanan Sun, Wenran Liu, Weiming Zhang, Bin Liu, Kuikun Liu, Wenwei Zhang, Kai Chen

Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources. However, existing benchmarks primarily emphasize general-domain retrieval or static scientific question answering, and therefore fail to assess key capabilities required in realistic scientific research workflows. We introduce SciExplore, a benchmark designed to evaluate scientific information-seeking and reasoning capabilities of LLMs and agents. SciExplore comprises four task types covering 103 expert-curated tasks across more than ten scientific disciplines: scientific database navigation, ambiguous literature retrieval, missing reference completion, and cross-source structured knowledge synthesis, which probe progressively higher-level abilities from entity-level reasoning and document-level identification to evidence-level grounding and domain-level synthesis. We evaluate over ten state-of-the-art LLMs and autonomous agents on SciExplore, revealing substantial performance gaps with performance degrading sharply as task complexity increases and extremely low accuracy on the most challenging structured synthesis tasks. These results highlight significant limitations of current models and agents in realistic scientific information-seeking scenarios.

View free PDFSource page

Related papers

arxivcs.AIcs.CYcs.MA2026-06-29

Clarus: Coordinating Autonomous Research Agents toward Web-Scale Scientific Collaboration

Zihan Guo, Zeyi Chen, Zhiyu Chen, Zicai Cui, Shuai Shao, Bo Huang, et al.

Existing autonomous research agents can support parts of the research process, but most systems still treat research as either an isolated assistant task or a closed workflow. Therefore, autonomous science needs a collaboration infrastructure that coordinates projects, agents, an…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.CRcs.AI2026-07-13

Baselines Before Architecture: Evaluating Coding Agents for Autonomous Penetration Testing

Ananda Dhakal, Krish Neupane, Aarjan Chaudhary

Recent autonomous penetration testing papers report high benchmark scores while adding multi-component security harnesses around frontier LLMs. Because these systems often change both architecture and backbone model, it is difficult to tell how much performance comes from the har…

View free PDFSource page
arxivstat.MEcs.AI2026-07-07

An Experimental Design Approach to Evaluating Agentic AI's Autonomous Model Discovery

Hao He, Xueying Liu, Chris J. Kuhlman, Xinwei Deng

Large language model coding agents increasingly perform open-ended data modeling and analysis. These agents are stochastic and adaptive, and therefore their autonomous model discovery behavior cannot be adequately characterized by a single benchmark run. In this work, we propose…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AI2026-06-30

Agentic-Ideation: Sample Efficient Agentic Trajectories Synthesis for Scientific Ideation Agents

Keyu Zhao, Lingyan Kong, Fengli Xu, Yong Li

Ideation plays a pivotal role in scientific discovery. Recent LLM, especially AI Scientist systems, show promising potential for automated ideation. However, existing approaches predominantly rely on pre-defined agentic workflows. This constraint severely limits the flexibility r…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AI2026-07-10

Evaluating and Guarding Citation Faithfulness in Agentic Scientific Synthesis

Taewan Goo, Junsik Kim, Kyulhee Han, GwonYul Jo, Jong-Soo Kim, Tae-Hyung Kim

Agentic LLM systems such as OpenScholar and PaperQA2 read the scientific literature and return cited answers, and both they and their benchmarks already check whether those citations hold, with a fixed attribution model or human graders. Neither audits the reliability of that che…

View free PDFSource page
arxivcs.AIcs.CL2026-07-02

PACE: A Proxy for Agentic Capability Evaluation

Yueqi Song, Lintang Sutawika, Jiarui Liu, Lindia Tjuatja, Jiayi Geng, Yunze Xiao, et al.

Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure. A single evaluation can cost thousands of dollars and take days to complete. In contrast, non-agentic LLM benchmarks that test individual capabilitie…

View free PDFSource page