跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

YOUR RESEARCH, IN SIGHT

让下一篇重要论文,不再错过。

覆盖计算机全学科,以 AI 为快捷入口。关注方向、作者和关键词,把发现变成持续的研究积累。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+1164新增论文
+869其中 AI 相关
+88已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-06 05:59 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-05 12:13各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-05 06:07 — 2026-11-06 06:07(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-06 05:59最近发现新增版本:2026-11-05 12:13库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-05 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

15,949 已收录论文13,765 AI 相关3,571 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 1 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-06 05:57(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2609.33357

DISCERN: Can AI Agents Work Like Scientists and Guide Discovery?

Nan Huang, Mario Tapia-Pacheco, Kun Zhou, Yiming Huang, Kevin José Barrientos Díaz, Tiffany Amariuta, Jingbo Shang

Reliable automated research requires agents to vet data, verify analyses, and generate hypotheses grounded in trustworthy evidence, potentially reducing routine scientific workload while allowing scientists to focus on interpretation and discovery. Existing benchmarks often only assess analytical task completion or hypothesis generation separately rather than testing whether reliable evidence supports valid and novel claims. We introduce DISCERN (Data Integrity and Scientific Capability: Evidence, Reasoning, and Novelty), a controlled benchmark on real, publicly available datasets that evaluates three key levels of an automated research workflow. The first two levels test data integrity and analysis verification under confounds and tool traps, while the third tests hypothesis generation and revision under adversarial review, including counterfactual cases in which evidence consistent with real data and documented scientific phenomena conflicts with established expectations, motivating alternative explanations and testable hypotheses. Across 203 tasks, eight life-science tracks, and eight models, DISCERN shows that strong aggregate performance can mask level-specific weaknesses. Agents earn perfect scores in only 60.8% of Level 1, 34.2% of Level 2, and 0.6% of Level 3 evaluations, with penalties attributed to rejection of sound data, failure to carry recognized limitations into conclusions, and wide variation in hypothesis production. Cross-track rankings by token and code use are substantially more stable than rankings by evidence judgment, suggesting greater consistency in computational effort than in evidence-based reasoning. These profiles identify opportunities for supervised scientific assistance, but current agents do not yet demonstrate reliable autonomous analysis or discovery. Code and data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/discern-bench-anon/discern-benchmark

尚无 AI 解读,展示原文摘要

cs.AI
arXiv ↗PDF ↗