Scientific names increasingly connect papers from different research topics, leaving readers to recover a paper's identity from context. We study this convergence in 564,861 AI-related arXiv records. Cross-topic name collision grows 4.33-fold from a pooled 2020-2022 reference to 2026, compared with 1.12-fold within topics. A second sentence encoder reproduces the pattern, and name-group resampling quantifies its uncertainty. Fixed word-frequency bands locate the main increase in an intermediate-frequency vocabulary shared by many research areas. We then measure the ambiguity that remains after supplying research clues. With the same three-term query construction, shared-name targets retain matched identification deficits of 25.7 percentage points under title-based BM25 and 6.9 points under title-plus-abstract E5. Within fixed same-name candidates, listwise language-model ranking reaches 89.2% using the query and candidate titles. Topic-specific comparisons show that context resolves more cross-topic ambiguity. The evaluation separates candidate competition, document fields, and contextual ranking through lexical, dense, and language-model baselines. Source-linked cases and a portable evaluation collection make the phenomenon inspectable and reusable for scientific retrieval and research assistants.
AI agents must decide when another search is worth its cost. Answer-success probabilities capture question difficulty, while this decision requires estimating the additional benefit of search. We introduce SearchHorizonBench, a benchmark for learning and evaluating search value from execution experience. Paired continuations and repeated executions separate expected search gain from generation noise and connect prediction quality to decision utility. The resource contains 45,632 executions across 3,168 questions. On 1,632 held-out questions, historical calibration reduces Brier error by 16.2%, with the improvement concentrated in success-level information. Search gains have a standard deviation of 21.4 percentage points, and tested historical estimators explain less than 2% of this variance in point estimates. Matched-configuration learning curves probe this distinction across training scales. At the reference token price, free selection observations yield a 2.49-point utility opportunity over the best constant action, driven primarily by gain information. Reusable histories, frozen splits, strong baselines and scoring tools provide a common foundation for developing and evaluating value-aware search agents.
Reusable Web-agent verification requires a rule to follow changing requirements and support subsequent execution. We introduce AgentProofBench, which connects paired tests of a frozen acceptance rule to execution from identical saved openings. The resource spans 97 tasks, 79 families, and four Web services. Experiments with DeepSeek Flash/Pro establish two linked measurements. Across 48 families, complete-panel and decision-replay tests retain 82/96 Flash and 79/96 Pro source programs; paired reuse-rebuild BA intervals are [-5.47, 1.57] and [-10.16, 0.00] percentage points. Across 22 execution families, deployment-state panel correctness separates program assignments whose two saved openings are both delivered correctly: 32/33 assignments with error-free panels, versus 1/11 with panel errors. All reference-defined program-gate regressions and withheld deliveries occur in the latter group. Neutral continuation attains the highest correct delivery under the tested generic feedback, providing a concrete baseline for measuring the value added by a gate. Released instructions, states, programs, reference rules, and trajectories connect each test failure to its execution consequences. AgentProofBench makes reusable verification assessable at both the requirement and policy levels.