A new benchmark with cognitive traps shows frontier deep research agents achieve only 13-16% acceptance on expert consulting tasks under combined verifier and rubric criteria.
Researcherbench: Evaluating deep ai research systems on the frontiers of scientific inquiry
7 Pith papers cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.
7
Pith papers citing it
citation-role summary
background 3
citation-polarity summary
years
2026 7roles
background 3polarities
background 3representative citing papers
LLMs predict outcomes of real scientific experiments at 14-26% accuracy, comparable to human experts, but lack calibration on prediction reliability while humans demonstrate strong calibration.
ScientistOne introduces Chain-of-Evidence and an audit system that achieves zero hallucinated references, perfect score verification, and top method-code alignment while matching or beating human experts on five frontier tasks and generalizing to six more.
Clarification-seeking in LLM agents amplifies prompt injection attack success from ~2% to over 30% across ten frontier models in a new 728-scenario benchmark.
AgencyBench is a new benchmark with 138 tasks in 32 scenarios that measures autonomous agent performance on extended real-world problems using simulated feedback and sandboxed assessment.
PDR is a user-context-aware framework for LLM research agents that improves report relevance over static baselines, supported by a new dataset and hybrid evaluation.
A survey organizing AI-powered research automation into five workflow stages, defining AutoResearch and Vibe Research, and proposing five evaluation dimensions while noting domain-conditioned limits on autonomy.
citing papers explorer
-
Evaluating Deep Research Agents on Expert Consulting Work: A Benchmark with Verifiers, Rubrics, and Cognitive Traps
A new benchmark with cognitive traps shows frontier deep research agents achieve only 13-16% acceptance on expert consulting tasks under combined verifier and rubric criteria.
-
SciPredict: Can LLMs Predict the Outcomes of Scientific Experiments in Natural Sciences?
LLMs predict outcomes of real scientific experiments at 14-26% accuracy, comparable to human experts, but lack calibration on prediction reliability while humans demonstrate strong calibration.
-
ScientistOne: Towards Human-Level Autonomous Research via Chain-of-Evidence
ScientistOne introduces Chain-of-Evidence and an audit system that achieves zero hallucinated references, perfect score verification, and top method-code alignment while matching or beating human experts on five frontier tasks and generalizing to six more.
-
ASPI: Seeking Ambiguity Clarification Amplifies Prompt Injection Vulnerability in LLM Agents
Clarification-seeking in LLM agents amplifies prompt injection attack success from ~2% to over 30% across ten frontier models in a new 728-scenario benchmark.
-
AgencyBench: Benchmarking the Frontiers of Autonomous Agents in 1M-Token Real-World Contexts
AgencyBench is a new benchmark with 138 tasks in 32 scenarios that measures autonomous agent performance on extended real-world problems using simulated feedback and sandboxed assessment.
-
Personalized Deep Research: A User-Centric Framework, Dataset, and Hybrid Evaluation for Knowledge Discovery
PDR is a user-context-aware framework for LLM research agents that improves report relevance over static baselines, supported by a new dataset and hybrid evaluation.
-
AutoResearch AI: Towards AI-Powered Research Automation for Scientific Discovery
A survey organizing AI-powered research automation into five workflow stages, defining AutoResearch and Vibe Research, and proposing five evaluation dimensions while noting domain-conditioned limits on autonomy.