Mashiro Toyooka

Atsuyuki Miyai, Mashiro Toyooka, Takashi Otonari et al.

Understanding the current capabilities and risks of AI Scientist systems is essential for ensuring trustworthy and sustainable AI-driven scientific progress while preserving the integrity of the academic ecosystem. To this end, we develop Jr. AI Scientist, a state-of-the-art autonomous AI scientist system that mimics the core research workflow of a novice student researcher: Given the baseline paper from the human mentor, it analyzes its limitations, formulates novel hypotheses for improvement, and iteratively conducts experiments until improvements are realized, and writes a paper with the results. Unlike previous approaches that assume full automation or operate on small-scale code, Jr. AI Scientist follows a well-defined research workflow and leverages modern coding agents to handle complex, multi-file implementations, leading to scientifically valuable contributions. Through our experiments, the Jr. AI Scientist successfully generated new research papers that build upon real NeurIPS, IJCV, and ICLR works by proposing and implementing novel methods. For evaluation, we conducted automated assessments using AI Reviewers, author-led evaluations, and submissions to Agents4Science, a venue dedicated to AI-driven scientific contributions. The findings demonstrate that Jr. AI Scientist generates papers receiving higher review scores than existing fully automated systems. Nevertheless, we identify important limitations from both the author evaluation and the Agents4Science reviews, indicating the potential risks of directly applying current AI Scientist systems and key challenges for future research. Finally, we comprehensively report various risks identified during development. We believe this study clarifies the current role and limitations of AI Scientist systems, offering insights into the areas that still require human expertise and the risks that may emerge as these systems evolve.

Mashiro Toyooka, Kiyoharu Aizawa, Yoko Yamakata

Large Language Models (LLMs) are trained on a vast amount of procedural texts, but they do not directly observe real-world phenomena. In the context of cooking recipes, this poses a challenge, as intermediate states of ingredients are often omitted, making it difficult for models to track ingredient states and understand recipes accurately. In this paper, we apply state probing, a method for evaluating a language model's understanding of the world, to the domain of cooking. We propose a new task and dataset for evaluating how well LLMs can recognize intermediate ingredient states during cooking procedures. We first construct a new Japanese recipe dataset with clear and accurate annotations of ingredient state changes, collected from well-structured and controlled recipe texts. Using this dataset, we design three novel tasks to evaluate whether LLMs can track ingredient state transitions and identify ingredients present at intermediate steps. Our experiments with widely used LLMs, such as Llama3.1-70B and Qwen2.5-72B, show that learning ingredient state knowledge improves their understanding of cooking processes, achieving performance comparable to commercial LLMs. The dataset are publicly available at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/mashi6n/nhkrecipe-100-anno-1

Atsuyuki Miyai, Zaiying Zhao, Kazuki Egashira et al.

Powered by a large language model (LLM), a web browsing agent operates web browsers in a human-like manner and offers a highly transparent path toward automating a wide range of everyday tasks. As web agents become increasingly capable and demonstrate proficiency in general browsing tasks, a critical question emerges: Can they go beyond general browsing to robustly handle tasks that are tedious and complex, or chores that humans often avoid doing themselves? In this paper, we introduce WebChoreArena, a new fully reproducible benchmark comprising 532 carefully curated tasks designed to extend the scope of WebArena beyond general browsing to more labor-intensive and tedious tasks. WebChoreArena systematically integrates three key challenges: (i) Massive Memory tasks requiring accurate retrieval of large amounts of information in the observations, (ii) Calculation tasks demanding precise mathematical reasoning, and (iii) Long-Term Memory tasks necessitating long-term memory across multiple webpages. Built on top of the fully reproducible and widely adopted four WebArena simulation environments, WebChoreArena ensures strict reproducibility and enables fair, direct comparisons with the established WebArena benchmark, offering key insights into agent progress. Our experimental results demonstrate that as LLMs evolve, represented by GPT-4o, Claude 3.7 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.5 Pro, significant improvements in performance are observed on WebChoreArena. These findings suggest that WebChoreArena is well-suited to measure the advancement of state-of-the-art LLMs with greater clarity. Nevertheless, the results also indicate that even with Gemini 2.5 Pro, there remains substantial room for improvement compared to WebArena, highlighting the increased challenges posed by WebChoreArena.

Atsuyuki Miyai, Mashiro Toyooka, Zaiying Zhao et al.

This paper introduces the first systematic evaluation framework for quantifying the quality and risks of papers written by modern coding agents. While AI-driven paper writing has become a growing concern, rigorous evaluation of the quality and potential risks of AI-written papers remains limited, and a unified understanding of their reliability is still lacking. We introduce Paper Reconstruction Evaluation (PaperRecon), an evaluation framework in which an overview (overview.md) is created from an existing paper, after which an agent generates a full paper based on the overview and minimal additional resources, and the result is subsequently compared against the original paper. PaperRecon disentangles the evaluation of the AI-written papers into two orthogonal dimensions, Presentation and Hallucination, where Presentation is evaluated using a rubric and Hallucination is assessed via agentic evaluation grounded in the original paper source. For evaluation, we introduce PaperWrite-Bench, a benchmark of 51 papers from top-tier venues across diverse domains published after 2025. Our experiments reveal a clear trade-off: while both ClaudeCode and Codex improve with model advances, ClaudeCode achieves higher presentation quality at the cost of more than 10 hallucinations per paper on average, whereas Codex produces fewer hallucinations but lower presentation quality. This work takes a first step toward establishing evaluation frameworks for AI-driven paper writing and improving the understanding of its risks within the research community.