Plato's Cave: A Human-Centered Research Verification System

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

Large language models are increasingly used to assist scientific reading, but existing evaluation methods often fail to detect whether answers are supported by verifiable citations. We introduce ResearchQA, a benchmark of 6,211 single-paper question-answer pairs from 494 open-access papers spanning eight domains and four question types: lookup, comprehension, multi-hop, and adversarial. ResearchQA is designed for citation-grounded evaluation: it permits multiple valid supporting passages for a claim and rewards grounded refusal when the source paper does not support an answer. We evaluate eight leading closed- and open-weight models in a citation-grounded chat-with-paper setting using a deterministic citation matcher and an LLM-based rubric evaluator. Citation-based metrics separate systems more clearly than LLM-evaluator scores: section coverage and citation accuracy vary substantially across models, while evaluator scores remain tightly compressed. We further find that open-weight models approach the best closed-model citation accuracy while achieving 3 to 6 times lower per-example latency. We release the benchmark, evaluation harness, and evaluator prompt.

Large language model research agents can connect literature retrieval, analysis code, and manuscript preparation, but coherent output does not establish scientific validity. We developed Plato-Bio, a biology-routed extension of the open Plato/Denario architecture that couples explicit workflow states with provenance records, citation checks, claim-to-evidence links, scoped file writes, and publication gates. A source audit identified and repaired three defects that could distort evaluation: loss of task domain in the default factory, omission of declared method signals from scoring, and evidence sidecars that lacked the drafted-claim denominator. On the current clean revision, the full Python suite completed with 931 passes, six skips, and no failures or errors; targeted biology, genomics, evidence/citation, and adversarial-safety suites likewise completed without failure. We evaluated two narrow use cases. In a frozen historical rediscovery task, independent pre-1986 literature bridges ranked the later-studied relation between fish oil and Raynaud phenomenon first; TF-IDF ranked it second and corpus frequency third. This single curated task measures retrospective ranking, not prospective discovery. In a separate comparison of AlphaFold models with experimental structures for 15 human proteins, 11 targets had high-confidence-core C-alpha RMSD below 1 Angstrom (median 0.501 Angstrom). Four targets exceeded 2 Angstrom, and confidence masking reduced the SUMO1 discrepancy from 16.61 to 2.58 Angstrom over 74 residues. The workflow emitted 27 traceable discrepancy regions, all retained as unvalidated hypotheses. Plato-Bio therefore provides reproducible software contracts and auditable screening baselines; broader claims of agent efficacy or biological novelty require preregistered evaluation, independent review, and prospective validation.