When Algorithmic Exploration Becomes Cheap: A Case Study of Agentic Research in EDA

Forecasts of explosive AI progress hinge on AI agents automating AI research. But evidence on whether agents can carry out open-ended AI research is thin. Current evaluations either test agents on narrow, verifiable tasks, which excludes open-ended research, or submit AI-generated papers to blind peer review, which is overstretched, stochastic, and suffers from poor review quality. We introduce a third way to measure progress towards AI R&D automation. An agent takes on the central, open-ended research question of a high-quality unpublished paper, and the paper's original authors grade its output. We call these shadow evaluations. We ran shadow evaluations on two unpublished NeurIPS 2026 submissions, giving frontier agents six days and thousands of dollars of compute. The agents completed all of the engineering without human help, yet could not make substantial progress towards answering the research questions. As a result, both papers were unambiguously rejected by the authors. We identify five recurring failure modes: poor judgment about the bar for publishable research, uncreative responses to shortcomings in the research design, ineffective backtracking from dead ends, poor resource awareness, and instruction drift. A robustness check with a second model and scaffold reproduced these failures. We release the expert reviews, survey responses, agent repositories, and logs. Our results provide early evidence that today's agents can do the engineering of AI research, but struggle with critical parts of the research lifecycle.

Frameworks that use large language models for scientific discovery typically rely on a fixed, human-designed algorithm that decides what the model sees at each step, leaving the model only the role of proposer. The model knows nothing of the search beyond what it is shown. As models grow more capable, a question arises: does a search strategy chosen by a human before the run scale better than promoting the model from proposer to planner and letting it own the search? The Bitter Lesson suggests that choosing the strategy in advance is the kind of hand-designed structure that general methods eventually outscale. We introduce AgentDiscover, in which a coding agent plans the search using its context as working memory, runs experiments, and records every attempt in a database of ideas, candidates, and their relations. This database serves as the agent's long-term memory and is structured so that the selection rules of classical algorithms such as MAP-Elites and Monte Carlo tree search each reduce to a single query, which the agent is free to use, combine, or replace. A server maintains the database and steers the agent after every submission, keeping it on course over long runs. In our experiments, AgentDiscover is more cost-efficient than existing frameworks, reaching better scores at lower cost. On tasks in kernel engineering, biology, algorithm design, and mathematics, AgentDiscover outperforms prior discovery frameworks. Its programs would have placed first among human competitors in seven past AtCoder heuristic contests, and on eleven mathematical and systems optimization tasks it matches or exceeds every baseline that uses the same model. Our code is available at https://github.com/mhdfb/AgentDiscover.

Modern chip design relies on electronic design automation (EDA) tools that generate large, heterogeneous artifacts, including source files, scripts, logs, netlists, and reports. Analyzing these artifacts is critical for debugging, optimization, and design-flow understanding, but remains difficult because relevant evidence is often distributed across many artifact types and design stages. Although LLM agents show promise for EDA assistance, existing approaches lack public benchmarks for large-scale cross-artifact analysis and often struggle to ground reasoning in tool-generated evidence. We present EDATracer, an agentic framework for evidence-grounded EDA artifact analysis. EDATracer organizes design artifacts into a knowledge graph paired with a semantic vector index, enabling LLM agents to retrieve evidence across source files, logs, netlists, and reports. We curate an 18.9 GB dataset of 2,787 synthesizable open-source chip designs and introduce a 90-question benchmark spanning factual, statistical, and reasoning tasks. Across evaluated agents, EDATracer achieves the best pass@1 accuracy, outperforming Cursor and Claude Code by 6.4 and 7.2 percentage points on average, while using 2.0-3.2x fewer tokens.