AwesomeLit: Towards Hypothesis Generation with Agent-Supported Literature Research

Autonomous scientific research is significantly advanced thanks to the development of AI agents. One key step in this process is finding the right scientific literature, whether to explore existing knowledge for a research problem, or to acquire evidence for verifying assumptions and supporting claims. To assess AI agents' capability in driving this process, we present AutoResearchBench, a dedicated benchmark for autonomous scientific literature discovery. AutoResearchBench consists of two complementary task types: (1) Deep Research, which requires tracking down a specific target paper through a progressive, multi-step probing process, and (2) Wide Research, which requires comprehensively collecting a set of papers satisfying given conditions. Compared to previous benchmarks on agentic web browsing, AutoResearchBench is distinguished along three dimensions: it is research-oriented, calling for in-depth comprehension of scientific concepts; literature-focused, demanding fine-grained utilization of detailed information; and open-ended, involving an unknown number of qualified papers and thus requiring deliberate reasoning and search throughout. These properties make AutoResearchBench uniquely suited for evaluating autonomous research capabilities, and extraordinarily challenging. Even the most powerful LLMs, despite having largely conquered general agentic web-browsing benchmarks such as BrowseComp, achieve only 9.39% accuracy on Deep Research and 9.31% IoU on Wide Research, while many other strong baselines fall below 5%. We publicly release the dataset and evaluation pipeline to facilitate future research in this direction. We publicly release the dataset, evaluation pipeline, and code at https://github.com/CherYou/AutoResearchBench.

Literature reviews are essential to scientific progress, but rigorously evaluating automatically generated reviews remains difficult because many aspects of research utility depend on expert judgment rather than reference-overlap metrics. We introduce LitReview Arena, a battle-style evaluation platform with a structured protocol tailored to literature review quality: domain experts with AI paper-writing experience compare anonymized drafts, are matched to topics within their expertise, and provide dimension-wise outcomes over five literature-review-specific criteria. From this protocol, we collect approximately 3k expert judgments, each containing five dimension-wise outcomes, and show that even the strongest current systems win only 23.0% of decisive matches against human drafts on overall utility, while agentic LLMs such as Sonar Deep Research substantially outperform base language models by over 60%. We further find that existing LLM-as-a-judge methods are substantially misaligned with human experts (Spearman's rho=0.467), especially on synthesis-heavy criteria such as paper structure and research suggestions. Using the collected preference data, we provide an expert-calibrated evaluator, LitJudge, which improves alignment to Spearman's rho=0.78, comparable to inter-expert consistency; code and data are publicly available at https://github.com/VanellopeAsher/LitReview-Arena.

ResearchPilot is an open-source, self-hostable multi-agent system for literature-review assistance. Given a natural-language research question, it retrieves papers from Semantic Scholar and arXiv, extracts structured findings from paper abstracts, synthesizes cross-paper patterns, and drafts a citation-aware related-work section. The system combines FastAPI, Next.js, DSPy, SQLite, and Qdrant in a local-first architecture that supports bring-your-own-key model access and remote-or-local embeddings. This paper describes the system design, typed agent interfaces, persistence and history-search mechanisms, and the engineering tradeoffs involved in building a transparent research assistant. Rather than claiming algorithmic novelty, we present ResearchPilot as a systems contribution and evaluate it through automated tests and end-to-end local runs. We discuss limitations including external API rate limits, abstract-only extraction, incomplete corpus coverage, and the lack of citation verification.