ROAR: Unifying Runs across Heterogeneous AI-Driven Research Systems

AI-Driven Research Systems (ADRS) -- systems coupling LLMs with automated evaluation to discover algorithms, proofs, and designs -- are being optimized and adopted across domains, but the tools to analyze them have not kept pace. ADRS performance depends on component interactions that are poorly understood, expensive to explore, and (as we show) not well captured by standard convergence guarantees. These guarantees rely on structural assumptions that do not hold under the ADRS process we formalize. We introduce GAMBLe, a framework that decomposes ADRS behavior into four parameters (generator $G$, assessor $\mathcal{A}$, discovery mechanism $\mathcal{M}$, budget $B$) and one compositional object, the effective landscape $L_{\text{eff}} = \mathcal{A} \circ G$, which reveals that distinct generator-assessor pairs induce structurally different per-problem optimization landscapes. We exercise the framework on 760+ replicated runs (>46,000 iterations) spanning generators from single LLMs to dynamically-adaptive ensembles, mechanisms from greedy selection to co-evolutionary meta-search, and three NP-hard problems whose assessors range from continuous scoring to cliff functions. The experiments reveal no total ordering of generators or mechanisms: frontier models can underperform open-source alternatives and the simplest mechanism sometimes outperforms state-of-the-art meta-search. Results show that even under limited budgets (60 iterations per run), the right component choices can improve performance by 13-67% and search efficiency by 6-39x.

AI-driven autonomous research (AR) systems are becoming increasingly effective across a broad range of tasks. Their performance, however, is still evaluated primarily by the quality of the final outcome. In this paper, we argue that the efficiency of the solution-search process is an equally important but often overlooked dimension of performance. A strong AR system should not only produce high-quality results, but also reach them with as small a budget as possible. Search efficiency will become increasingly important as AR expands from domains with inexpensive verification, such as mathematics and coding, to real-world scientific settings in which solution evaluation may require costly physical experiments. To capture this dimension, we propose evaluating AR systems using the area under the curve (AUC) of the Pareto frontier, alongside final outcome quality. We compare several families of search algorithms, including hill climbing, beam search, tree search, and evolutionary search, across twelve systems-optimization tasks. We find that no single search structure is consistently the most efficient. We also show that search efficiency and final outcome quality are distinct performance dimensions: a method that eventually achieves the best result may nevertheless improve slowly and consume substantially more evaluation budget before reaching that result. Because the most effective search policy is generally unknown in advance, we introduce an adaptive procedure called fluid search, which uses a portfolio bandit to dynamically allocate a fixed evaluation budget across a forest of search processes. Across the evaluated tasks, fluid search achieves the highest overall search efficiency, closely matching the performance of a per-task oracle that is given the best search structure for each task in advance.

The rapid advancement of Auto-Research has surfaced a fundamental evaluation challenge: how can we measure the alignment, logical coherence, and evolutionary completeness of its research trajectory with human research behavior? We propose Auto-Research's Alignment and Completeness, ARAC-Bench: a Researcher-Mimicking Evaluation framework that shifts the objective from matching final answers to reproducing high-quality human research processes. The framework operates through two synergistic components: the Academic Cognition Skills system, which is the first to transforms implicit reviewer expertise into stage-calibrated, quantifiable rubrics; and a three-stage capability diagnostic protocol, which decomposes the research process under strict modular constraints into three traceable, mutually independent dimensions: Proposal, Experiment, and Synthesis. Systematic evaluation of 11 SOTA frameworks yields a best alignment score of only 67.9 of 100, revealing a significant gap in simulating rigorous human methodology. Validation against Ph.D. Candidates rankings shows a strong correlation of 0.8141, confirming that ARAC-Bench reliably reflects the dimensions researchers truly value. ARAC-Bench provides not only a fine-grained diagnostic tool but also a scalable reward signal for training the next generation of autonomous research systems.