← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.15831 · v1
NIBench: benchmarking autonomous AI agents for execution, skill evolution and scientific judgment in neuroimaging
首次提交 2026-11-12 02:44
版本更新 2026-11-12 02:44
雷达观测 2026-11-13 14:16
摘要
Autonomous AI agents are increasingly used to automate biomedical research, creating a growing need to benchmark their capabilities on real scientific data and workflows. Their reliability in neuroimaging remains insufficiently characterized, where plausible analytical outputs can conceal errors that affect scientific conclusions. Existing studies have advanced scientific question answering and tool-based automation, but provide limited evidence on workflow reconstruction, acquisition of procedural expertise and evidence-based scientific judgment. Here we present NIBench, a neuroimaging benchmark comprising three complementary evaluations of autonomous agents. First, we benchmark execution and workflow reconstruction using 56 tasks across seven tool ecosystems, covering structural, diffusion and functional magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography and multimodal analyses. Second, we examine whether agents can evolve their procedural skills through distillation of execution trajectories, evaluating the resulting skills on previously encountered tasks, unseen tasks and other models. Third, we assess scientific judgment using 36 claims from published Alzheimer's disease studies, requiring agents to analyse raw cohort data and provide reproducible evidence. We evaluate 19 language models within a shared agent framework, with selected models undergoing skill distillation and claim evaluation. Leading agents execute supplied analysis protocols nearly perfectly, whereas withholding procedural guidance widens performance differences. Distilled skills improve performance on acquisition tasks and transfer between models, but benefits on unseen tasks are inconsistent. Agents reproduce their reported results yet sometimes reach conclusions inconsistent with expert-derived answers, and access to data does not always improve judgment.
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v1 · 2026-11-12 02:44 · 最新观测版本
NIBench: benchmarking autonomous AI agents for execution, skill evolution and scientific judgment in neuroimaging
Autonomous AI agents are increasingly used to automate biomedical research, creating a growing need to benchmark their capabilities on real scientific data and workflows. Their reliability in neuroimaging remains insufficiently characterized, where plausible analytical outputs can conceal errors that affect scientific conclusions. Existing studies have advanced scientific question answering and tool-based automation, but provide limited evidence on workflow reconstruction, acquisition of procedural expertise and evidence-based scientific judgment. Here we present NIBench, a neuroimaging benchmark comprising three complementary evaluations of autonomous agents. First, we benchmark execution and workflow reconstruction using 56 tasks across seven tool ecosystems, covering structural, diffusion and functional magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography and multimodal analyses. Second, we examine whether agents can evolve their procedural skills through distillation of execution trajectories, evaluating the resulting skills on previously encountered tasks, unseen tasks and other models. Third, we assess scientific judgment using 36 claims from published Alzheimer's disease studies, requiring agents to analyse raw cohort data and provide reproducible evidence. We evaluate 19 language models within a shared agent framework, with selected models undergoing skill distillation and claim evaluation. Leading agents execute supplied analysis protocols nearly perfectly, whereas withholding procedural guidance widens performance differences. Distilled skills improve performance on acquisition tasks and transfer between models, but benefits on unseen tasks are inconsistent. Agents reproduce their reported results yet sometimes reach conclusions inconsistent with expert-derived answers, and access to data does not always improve judgment.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗