arXiv:2610.39744v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Before AI can be trusted to discover new science, it should be able to reproduce what science already knows. Reproduction provides a rigorous checkpoint for an AI scientist: the target claim is known, yet recovering it still requires translating an incomplete scientific description into an executable experiment and producing evidence that can be independently verified. Existing research-reproduction benchmarks largely focus on AI and machine learning, where experiments share relatively homogeneous software stacks. Extending this capability across scientific disciplines introduces a different challenge: agents must operate domain-specific scientific software, make physical and numerical choices, diagnose long-running computations, and distinguish valid evidence from merely plausible outputs. We introduce PAPERBENCHX, a benchmark of 93 expert-constructed paper-reproduction tasks spanning 12 research areas across electromagnetics, photonics, chemistry, materials science, biology, and robotics. Each task provides the source paper, a public task specification, and a domain-native scientific environment involving specialized scientific software. Agents must reconstruct a key experiment, execute and diagnose it, and deliver a runnable workflow that supports the target scientific claim. To evaluate scientific validity rather than surface-level agreement, we replay every submission from scratch and score only regenerated evidence against expert-validated criteria. Across 10 frontier agent configurations, the best configuration fully reproduces only 14% tasks under the 90% threshold. Meanwhile, mean rubric scores range from 27.53% to 59.08%, indicating that substantial partial progress rarely translates into complete scientific reproduction. These results reveal a large gap between paper understanding and reliably producing reproducible scientific evidence.
Abstract: Before AI can be trusted to discover new science, it should be able to reproduce what science already knows. Reproduction provides a rigorous checkpoint for an AI scientist: the target claim is known, yet recovering it still requires translating an incomplete scientific description into an executable experiment and producing evidence that can be independently verified. Existing research-reproduction benchmarks largely focus on AI and machine learning, where experiments share relatively homogeneous software stacks. Extending this capability across scientific disciplines introduces a different challenge: agents must operate domain-specific scientific software, make physical and numerical choices, diagnose long-running computations, and distinguish valid evidence from merely plausible outputs. We introduce PAPERBENCHX, a benchmark of 93 expert-constructed paper-reproduction tasks spanning 12 research areas across electromagnetics, photonics, chemistry, materials science, biology, and robotics. Each task provides the source paper, a public task specification, and a domain-native scientific environment involving specialized scientific software. Agents must reconstruct a key experiment, execute and diagnose it, and deliver a runnable workflow that supports the target scientific claim. To evaluate scientific validity rather than surface-level agreement, we replay every submission from scratch and score only regenerated evidence against expert-validated criteria. Across 10 frontier agent configurations, the best configuration fully reproduces only 14% tasks under the 90% threshold. Meanwhile, mean rubric scores range from 27.53% to 59.08%, indicating that substantial partial progress rarely translates into complete scientific reproduction. These results reveal a large gap between paper understanding and reliably producing reproducible scientific evidence.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org