Explore/benchmark/Are We Measuring Scientific Intelligence? Rethinking the Evaluation of AI Scientists
A

Kate Zhang, Yuante Li/Are We Measuring Scientific Intelligence? Rethinking the Evaluation of AI ScientistsUnknown

AI agents can now carry out data-driven scientific analyses end to end, and benchmarks assess them by giving an agent a question and a dataset and scoring its final answer against a fixed key. These benchmarks assume that a correct answer was derived from the supplied data, a property we call evidence grounding. However, an agent can also reach the key from prior knowledge or by ruling out the other options, and a score based on a single run cannot tell these cases apart. We show how to test this assumption and find that it often fails. For each question, we build versions of its data files in which the evidence for the answer is left intact, withdrawn or reversed, check each edit with a pre-registered reference statistic, and run the same agent on every version. We then measure evidence-grounded accuracy, which credits a correct answer only if the agent also responds when the evidence is withdrawn and follows it when it is reversed. We evaluate three agent scaffolds and five models on 18 single-cell questions from BAISBench and four synthetic problems from GeneBench-Pro. On the single-cell questions, the Claude agents are 95% accurate and answer 83% correctly without any data, but their evidence-grounded accuracy is only 41%. Hiding gene names raises the share of runs that follow reversed evidence from 58% to 93% on ten gene tasks, suggesting that prior knowledge competes with the supplied data. The benchmark score and LLM judges can also reward answers that ignore the changed evidence. Measuring scientific intelligence rather than recall therefore requires checking whether answers follow the evidence and whether scores reward them for it.

benchmark
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 11h ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed11h ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
55 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
55Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 0 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
not enough history
Repository activity · 0 days observednot enough history from pushed_at
inactivepushed
not enough history
not enough history
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language—
License—
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use—
Docs—
Demo—

AgentHub Score

55
Score 55/100
Below average

Alternatives

R
RIFT-Bench: Dynamic Red-teaming For Agentic AI Systems
0 · benchmark
55
C
Commitment To Cooperation With Self-Negotiated Contracts
0 · benchmark
55
E
Exploring Structures in Physics Problems: Can AI Agents Discover Statistical Mechanical Mappings?
0 · benchmark
55
C
Coercion and Deception in AI-to-AI Management: An Agentic Benchmark of Unprompted Escalation
0 · benchmark
55Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler11h ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing