LLM-based agents excel at writing articles, coding and information retrieval. However, they fail to form strong collaborations within the scientific community due to the bidirectional, dynamic nature of the problem and a high demand of decision interpretability. We proposed COWEAVER, a bidirectional, learnable and explainable algorithm to match scientists and form strong collaborations within a human-agent network. COWEAVER matches candidates and requesters through filling capability gaps and filters candidates through a two-stage ranking step. Finally, the model explores newcomers by maintaining uncertainty-aware capability estimates and updating them through requester's feedback. We show that the selection mechanism of combining both exploration (UCB) and greedy of COWEAVER exceeds the greedy-only mechanism - the analytical best solution - on 6 out of the 20 tasks and performed on par with the greedy-only mechanism in terms of selecting the best candidate. We compared COWEAVER baselines in terms of matching quality and efficiency. COWEAVER outperforms baselines on all metrics.
Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources. However, existing benchmarks primarily emphasize general-domain retrieval or static scientific question answering, and therefore fail to assess key capabilities required in realistic scientific research workflows. We introduce SciExplore, a benchmark designed to evaluate scientific information-seeking and reasoning capabilities of LLMs and agents. SciExplore comprises four task types covering 103 expert-curated tasks across more than ten scientific disciplines: scientific database navigation, ambiguous literature retrieval, missing reference completion, and cross-source structured knowledge synthesis, which probe progressively higher-level abilities from entity-level reasoning and document-level identification to evidence-level grounding and domain-level synthesis. We evaluate over ten state-of-the-art LLMs and autonomous agents on SciExplore, revealing substantial performance gaps with performance degrading sharply as task complexity increases and extremely low accuracy on the most challenging structured synthesis tasks. These results highlight significant limitations of current models and agents in realistic scientific information-seeking scenarios.
Identifying promising scientific ideas remains an important challenge in research practice. Researchers commonly rely on small-group discussions or one-to-one interactions with a single large language model, yet these approaches often expose them to only a limited range of perspectives and directions. We present AgentPanel, a multi-agent forum for human--AI collaboration in scientific exploration. Heterogeneous agents asynchronously discuss scientific questions in a forum-style environment, while researchers can submit questions, browse and organize candidate ideas, engage agents in follow-up interactions, and optionally generate post-hoc summary reports. We evaluate AgentPanel in terms of idea quality, exploration breadth, interaction effectiveness, candidate-selection efficiency, and practical utility. Offline experiments show that AgentPanel outperforms a centralized multi-agent debate baseline. A human study with 20 participants further shows that users value AgentPanel for perspective diversity and exploration support. In experience-based comparisons with commonly used LLM tools, 65% of participants favored AgentPanel for both breadth of research directions and overall suitability for early-stage exploration. The platform is publicly available at https://agentpanel.cc/.
Large language models (LLMs), have shown strong potential in scientific discovery, yet existing methods still face substantial challenges in the design of research workflows and multi-role collaboration mechanisms. To mitigate these issues, we propose EvoSci, a multi-agent scientific collaboration framework, which integrates bio-inspired evolution with knowledge graph modeling. To iteratively generate, evaluate, and refine research ideas, EvoSci incorporates multiple role-based agents, including mentor, researcher, and reviewer. By combining collaborative reasoning, shared memory, and evolutionary feedback, EvoSci significantly enhances the coherence and creativity of scientific exploration. Experiments on real-world research topics demonstrate that EvoSci significantly outperforms strong baselines in LLM-based structured peer-review and comparative ranking evaluations, achieving the highest overall peer-review score (ICLR 4.90) and top ranking (Top-10 = 54). These results suggest its superiority in both scientific idea generation and continuous discovery.