William Walden

Ziyang Huang, Yi Cao, Ali K. Shargh et al.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous coding agents and have achieved remarkably strong performance on software engineering benchmarks. However, it is unclear whether such success transfers to computational scientific workflows, where tasks require not only strong coding ability, but also the ability to navigate complex, domain-specific procedures and to interpret results in the context of scientific claims. To address this question, we present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents' ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat poses three interrelated challenges: recovering underspecified computational procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and determining whether the resulting evidence supports a claim. By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow needed to support (or undermine) such claims. We then evaluate multiple representative coding agent settings across several foundation models. Our results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 54.1%. Error analysis further reveals that agents perform worst when workflows must be reconstructed from paper text alone and that they fail primarily due to incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility. Taken together, these findings position AutoMat as both a benchmark for computational scientific reproducibility and a tool for diagnosing the current limitations of agentic systems in AI-for-science settings.

Bryan Li, William Walden, Yu Hou et al.

Evaluation of long-form, citation-backed reports has lately received significant attention due to the wide-scale adoption of retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) systems. Core to many evaluation frameworks is the use of atomic facts, or nuggets, to assess a report's coverage of query-relevant information attested in the underlying collection. While nuggets have traditionally been represented as short statements, recent work has used question-answer (QA) representations, enabling fine-grained evaluations that decouple the information need (i.e. the question) from the potentially diverse content that satisfies it (i.e. its answers). A persistent challenge for nugget-based evaluation is the need to manually curate sets of nuggets for each topic in a test collection -- a laborious process that scales poorly to novel information needs. This challenge is acute in cross-lingual settings, where information is found in multilingual source documents. Accordingly, we introduce DoGMaTiQ, a pipeline for generating high-quality QA-based nugget sets in three stages: (1) document-grounded nugget generation, (2) paraphrase clustering, and (3) nugget subselection based on principled quality criteria. We integrate DoGMaTiQ nuggets with AutoArgue -- a recent nugget-based evaluation framework -- to enable fully automatic evaluation of generated reports. We conduct extensive experiments on two cross-lingual TREC shared tasks, NeuCLIR and RAGTIME, showing strong rank correlations with both human-in-the-loop and fully manual judgments. Finally, detailed analysis of our pipeline reveals that a strong LLM nugget generator is key, and that the system rankings induced by DoGMaTiQ are robust to outlier systems. We facilitate future research in report evaluation by publicly releasing our code and artifacts at https://github.com/manestay/dogmatiq.

Miriam Wanner, Hannah Collison, William Jurayj et al.

Weird generalization is a phenomenon in which models fine-tuned on data from a narrow domain (e.g. insecure code) develop surprising traits that manifest even outside that domain (e.g. broad misalignment)-a phenomenon that prior work has highlighted as a critical safety concern. Here, we present an extended replication study of key weird generalization results across an expanded suite of models and datasets. We confirm that surprising (and dangerous) traits can emerge under certain circumstances, but we find that weird generalization is exceptionally brittle: it emerges only for specific models on specific datasets, and it vanishes under simple training-time, prompt-based interventions. We find that the most effective interventions provide prompt context that makes the generalized behavior the expected behavior. However, we show that even very generic interventions that do not anticipate specific generalized traits can still be effective in mitigating weird generalization's effects. Our findings thus help clarify the nature of the safety threat that weird generalization poses and point toward an easily implemented set of solutions.

Sathvik Napa, Utkarsh Singh, Chengyuan Xue et al.

There are many reasons one may want to edit a model's chain of thought (CoT) -- e.g., to prefill it with reasoning from a stronger model or to remove steps that may yield unsafe outputs. The success of these interventions plausibly depends on a model's inability to notice them, as the model may alter its behavior if it suspects tampering. In this work, we study whether recent reasoning models are able to detect such interventions on their CoTs under a variety of conditions: both during reasoning and after it, and when prefilled both with their own CoTs and with those of other models. Broadly, we find that (i) models exhibit only very modest detection accuracy; (ii) models struggle to identify *how* their CoT was modified; and (iii) models are about as good at detecting changes to their own CoTs as to those of other models.