Yilun Zhao

Hang Ding, Yilun Zhao, Tiansheng Hu et al.

The accelerating growth of scientific publications has intensified the need for scalable, trustworthy systems to synthesize knowledge across diverse literature. While recent retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) methods have improved access to scientific information, they often overlook citation graph structure, adapt poorly to complex queries, and yield fragmented, hard-to-verify syntheses. We introduce SciRAG, an open-source framework for scientific literature exploration that addresses these gaps through three key innovations: (1) adaptive retrieval that flexibly alternates between sequential and parallel evidence gathering; (2) citation-aware symbolic reasoning that leverages citation graphs to organize and filter supporting documents; and (3) outline-guided synthesis that plans, critiques, and refines answers to ensure coherence and transparent attribution. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks such as QASA and ScholarQA demonstrate that SciRAG outperforms prior systems in factual accuracy and synthesis quality, establishing a new foundation for reliable, large-scale scientific knowledge aggregation.

Asaf Yehudai, Lilach Eden, Alan Li et al.

The emergence of LLM-based agents represents a paradigm shift in AI, enabling autonomous systems to plan, reason, use tools, and maintain memory while interacting with dynamic environments. This paper provides the first comprehensive survey of evaluation methodologies for these increasingly capable agents. We systematically analyze evaluation benchmarks and frameworks across four critical dimensions: (1) fundamental agent capabilities, including planning, tool use, self-reflection, and memory; (2) application-specific benchmarks for web, software engineering, scientific, and conversational agents; (3) benchmarks for generalist agents; and (4) frameworks for evaluating agents. Our analysis reveals emerging trends, including a shift toward more realistic, challenging evaluations with continuously updated benchmarks. We also identify critical gaps that future research must address-particularly in assessing cost-efficiency, safety, and robustness, and in developing fine-grained, and scalable evaluation methods. This survey maps the rapidly evolving landscape of agent evaluation, reveals the emerging trends in the field, identifies current limitations, and proposes directions for future research.

Xiangru Tang, Qiao Jin, Kunlun Zhu et al.

AI scientists powered by large language models have demonstrated substantial promise in autonomously conducting experiments and facilitating scientific discoveries across various disciplines. While their capabilities are promising, these agents also introduce novel vulnerabilities that require careful consideration for safety. However, there has been limited comprehensive exploration of these vulnerabilities. This perspective examines vulnerabilities in AI scientists, shedding light on potential risks associated with their misuse, and emphasizing the need for safety measures. We begin by providing an overview of the potential risks inherent to AI scientists, taking into account user intent, the specific scientific domain, and their potential impact on the external environment. Then, we explore the underlying causes of these vulnerabilities and provide a scoping review of the limited existing works. Based on our analysis, we propose a triadic framework involving human regulation, agent alignment, and an understanding of environmental feedback (agent regulation) to mitigate these identified risks. Furthermore, we highlight the limitations and challenges associated with safeguarding AI scientists and advocate for the development of improved models, robust benchmarks, and comprehensive regulations.

Yilun Zhao, Weiyuan Chen, Zhijian Xu et al.

We introduce AbGen, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in designing ablation studies for scientific research. AbGen consists of 1,500 expert-annotated examples derived from 807 NLP papers. In this benchmark, LLMs are tasked with generating detailed ablation study designs for a specified module or process based on the given research context. Our evaluation of leading LLMs, such as DeepSeek-R1-0528 and o4-mini, highlights a significant performance gap between these models and human experts in terms of the importance, faithfulness, and soundness of the ablation study designs. Moreover, we demonstrate that current automated evaluation methods are not reliable for our task, as they show a significant discrepancy when compared to human assessment. To better investigate this, we develop AbGen-Eval, a meta-evaluation benchmark designed to assess the reliability of commonly used automated evaluation systems in measuring LLM performance on our task. We investigate various LLM-as-Judge systems on AbGen-Eval, providing insights for future research on developing more effective and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for complex scientific tasks.