Pith. sign in

hub Canonical reference

Scienceagentbench: Toward rigorous assessment of language agents for data-driven scientific discovery

Canonical reference. 100% of citing Pith papers cite this work as background.

32 Pith papers citing it
Background 100% of classified citations
abstract

The advancements of large language models (LLMs) have piqued growing interest in developing LLM-based language agents to automate scientific discovery end-to-end, which has sparked both excitement and skepticism about their true capabilities. In this work, we call for rigorous assessment of agents on individual tasks in a scientific workflow before making bold claims on end-to-end automation. To this end, we present ScienceAgentBench, a new benchmark for evaluating language agents for data-driven scientific discovery. To ensure the scientific authenticity and real-world relevance of our benchmark, we extract 102 tasks from 44 peer-reviewed publications in four disciplines and engage nine subject matter experts to validate them. We unify the target output for every task to a self-contained Python program file and employ an array of evaluation metrics to examine the generated programs, execution results, and costs. Each task goes through multiple rounds of manual validation by annotators and subject matter experts to ensure its annotation quality and scientific plausibility. We also propose two effective strategies to mitigate data contamination concerns. Using ScienceAgentBench, we evaluate five open-weight and proprietary LLMs, each with three frameworks: direct prompting, OpenHands CodeAct, and self-debug. Given three attempts for each task, the best-performing agent can only solve 32.4% of the tasks independently and 34.3% with expert-provided knowledge. In addition, we evaluate OpenAI o1-preview with direct prompting and self-debug, which can boost the performance to 42.2%, demonstrating the effectiveness of increasing inference-time compute but with more than 10 times the cost of other LLMs. Still, our results underscore the limitations of current language agents in generating code for data-driven discovery, let alone end-to-end automation for scientific research.

hub tools

citation-role summary

background 5 dataset 2

citation-polarity summary

years

2026 25 2025 7

polarities

background 6

representative citing papers

Neurodata Without Boredom: Benchmarking Agentic AI for Data Reuse

cs.LG · 2026-05-12 · unverdicted · novelty 7.0 · 2 refs

AI agents handle individual data-loading and reformatting steps on neuroscience datasets but rarely complete fully error-free end-to-end pipelines, and AI judges are unreliable without ground-truth references.

Toward Generalist Autonomous Research via Hypothesis-Tree Refinement

cs.CL · 2026-06-10 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

Arbor combines a coordinator, executors, and a hypothesis tree to enable cumulative autonomous research, outperforming Codex and Claude Code by over 2.5x on six real tasks and reaching 86.36% Any Medal on MLE-Bench Lite.

How Far Are We From True Auto-Research?

cs.AI · 2026-05-18 · unverdicted · novelty 6.0

ResearchArena shows that agent-generated papers fail top-tier acceptance standards primarily due to fabricated results, underpowered experiments, and plan-execution mismatches that vary sharply by agent.

citing papers explorer

Showing 32 of 32 citing papers.