Wanghan Xu, Shuo Li, Tianlin Ye, Qinglong Cao, Yixin Chen, Hengjian Gao, Yiheng Wang, Qi Li, Kun Li, Sheng Xu, Shengdu Chai, Fangchen Yu, Xiangyu Zhao, Zhangrui Zhao, Weijie Ma, Zijie Guo, Haoyu Zhou, Haoxiang Yin, Lixue Cheng, Chaofan Hu, Haoxuan Li, Lu Mi, Xuxuan Xie, Yifan Zhou, Ruizhe Chen, Zhiwang Zhou, Xingjian Guo, Yuhao Zhou, Xuming He, Shengyuan Xu, Xinyu Gu, Jiamin Wu, Mianxin Liu, Chunfeng Song, Fenghua Ling, Dongzhan Zhou, Shixiang Tang, Yuqiang Li, Mao Su, Peng Ye, Siqi Sun, Bin Wang, Xue Yang, Zhenfei Yin, Tianfan Fu, Guangtao Zhai, Wanli Ouyang, Bo Zhang, Lei Bai, Wenlong Zhang
Paper appears method- or tooling-adjacent to AI workflows with partial ecosystem coverage.
AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify. We present ResearchClawBench, a benchmark for evaluating autonomous scientific research across 40 tasks from 10 scientific domains. Each task is grounded in a real published paper, provides related literature and raw data, and hides the target paper during evaluation. Expert-cur ...
ated multimodal rubrics decompose the target scientific artifacts into weighted criteria, enabling evaluation of target-paper-level re-discovery while leaving room for new discovery. We evaluate seven autonomous research (auto-research) agents under a unified protocol and seventeen native LLMs through the lightweight ResearchHarness. Current systems remain far from reliable re-discovery: the strongest autonomous agent, Claude Code, averages 21.5, and the strongest ResearchHarness LLM, Claude-Opus-4.7, averages 20.7, with an LLM frontier mean of only 26.5. Error analysis shows that failures concentrate in experimental protocol mismatch, evidence mismatch, and missing scientific core. ResearchClawBench provides a reproducible evaluation frontier for measuring progress toward autonomous scientific research.
No concrete benchmark grounding is available yet. Treat the page as context or an implementation starting point only.
AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify.
Recommendation evidence is currently too limited for a maintained-repo choice. Use Implementation Status and Reproduction Path for a practical baseline plan.
Hardware Notes
Expect multi-day setup/compute for meaningful reproduction based on current guidance.
Evidence graph: 2 refs, 1 links.
Utility signals: depth 60/100, grounding 58/100, status medium.
Compare maintenance quality, reproducibility coverage, and evidence confidence before choosing a reproduction baseline.
Matched via arXiv identifier search · Strong overlap with paper title keywords
Risk flags
There is no verified maintained implementation yet. Use this baseline plan to decide whether to prototype now or defer.
Hardware requirements
No verified implementation available
No benchmark numbers could be verified. You will not be able to validate reproduction correctness against published numbers.
No additional official repositories detected.
🦞 ResearchClawBench: Evaluating AI Agents for Automated Research from Re-Discovery to New-Discovery
No trustworthy direct or curated related Hugging Face artifacts were found yet.
Continue with targeted Hugging Face searches derived from the paper title and method context:
Tip: start with models, then check datasets/spaces if you need evaluation data or demos.
Direct artifact matches are currently sparse. Use targeted Hugging Face searches to quickly locate candidate models, datasets, and demos.
Tasks
Agentic tool use
Methods
Transformer
Domains
Large Language Models, AI Agents
Evaluation & Human Feedback Data
Open this paper in HFEPX to review benchmark signals, evaluation modes, and human-feedback protocol context.
Open in HFEPXExplore Similar Papers
Jump to Paper2Code search queries derived from this paper's research context.
Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.