Toward Evaluation Frameworks for Multi-Agent Scientific AI Systems

AI agents are increasingly being developed to accelerate scientific discovery, yet their practical capabilities in real research settings remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks for AI agents rarely capture the complexity, heterogeneity, and extended reasoning required by scientific work, whereas benchmarks for scientific tasks often reduce research to static, direct problems and provide limited support for interactive evaluation. Here, we introduce SciAgentArena, a systematic benchmark for evaluating AI agents in real-world scientific research scenarios drawn from emerging needs across multiple domains. SciAgentArena comprises approximately 200 tasks with stepwise verification and an interactive, agent-agnostic environment for assessing diverse AI agents. Using this benchmark, we find that current agents can contribute effectively to well-specified data-analysis workflows, particularly when the task structure and evaluation criteria are clear. However, their performance remains uneven across scientific contexts: agents struggle to generate genuinely novel insights, sustain self-directed exploration, and formulate robust solutions for open-ended research questions. We further characterize common failure modes across agents and identify opportunities for improving their reliability, autonomy, and scientific reasoning. Together, SciAgentArena provides a practical framework for measuring progress in AI agents for science and for guiding the design of future agents capable of addressing complex scientific challenges. Full codes, tasks, and datasets can be accessed via this link: https://sciagentarena.github.io/.

As agents rapidly evolve, existing benchmarks can become saturated, limiting their ability to distinguish capabilities and reveal remaining failure modes. Particularly in scientific domains, constructing and updating benchmarks requires substantial time, labor, and domain expertise, making it difficult to keep evaluation aligned with advances in agent capabilities. We address this challenge by investigating whether scientific-agent benchmarks can be automatically generated and iteratively adapted as agent capabilities evolve. We introduce AutoSciBench, a framework that represents each task as a high-level concept specifying the scientific domain, data modality, and required reasoning approach, together with a low-level recipe specifying how the question, environment, and ground-truth answer are constructed and verified. Agents attempt to solve each task, producing solver trajectories and corresponding judge feedback which AutoSciBench uses to revise the recipe or concept, closing observed shortcuts and shifting tasks toward raw-data re-examination, interpretation of intermediate results, and evidence integration. Experience distilled from completed refinement trajectories further guides new concept generation, allowing lessons from earlier task refinement to inform subsequent benchmark construction. Starting from existing benchmarks, we evaluate AutoSciBench across computational biology, materials science, and clinical imaging. Generated benchmarks reduce average solver accuracy by 22.4 and 25.5 percentage points relative to the human-curated benchmarks in computational biology and materials science, respectively, while generated tasks receive higher average quality ratings across all three domains, suggesting that scientific-agent evaluation can adapt as agent capabilities advance.

AI agents can now carry out data-driven scientific analyses end to end, and benchmarks assess them by giving an agent a question and a dataset and scoring its final answer against a fixed key. These benchmarks assume that a correct answer was derived from the supplied data, a property we call evidence grounding. However, an agent can also reach the key from prior knowledge or by ruling out the other options, and a score based on a single run cannot tell these cases apart. We show how to test this assumption and find that it often fails. For each question, we build versions of its data files in which the evidence for the answer is left intact, withdrawn or reversed, check each edit with a pre-registered reference statistic, and run the same agent on every version. We then measure evidence-grounded accuracy, which credits a correct answer only if the agent also responds when the evidence is withdrawn and follows it when it is reversed. We evaluate three agent scaffolds and five models on 18 single-cell questions from BAISBench and four synthetic problems from GeneBench-Pro. On the single-cell questions, the Claude agents are 95% accurate and answer 83% correctly without any data, but their evidence-grounded accuracy is only 41%. Hiding gene names raises the share of runs that follow reversed evidence from 58% to 93% on ten gene tasks, suggesting that prior knowledge competes with the supplied data. The benchmark score and LLM judges can also reward answers that ignore the changed evidence. Measuring scientific intelligence rather than recall therefore requires checking whether answers follow the evidence and whether scores reward them for it.