PAPERBENCHX：AIは分野を超えて科学を再現できるか
PAPERBENCHX: Can AI Reproduce Science Across Disciplines?
電磁気・フォトニクス・化学・材料・生物・ロボティクスなど12分野93件の論文再現タスクを構築し、AIエージェントが専門ソフトを用いて実験を再現・検証できるかを評価するベンチマークを提案した。
詳しい要約
1. どんなもの？
2. 先行研究と比べてどこがすごい？
3. 技術・手法の肝は？
4. どうやって有効だと検証した？
5. 議論はある？
6. 次に読むべき論文は？
※ AIが要旨から生成した要約です。正確性は原文をご確認ください。
著者: Ruoyu Wu, Zengji Tu, Aolong Sun, Tianyi Ma, Junren Li, Xinbo Xu, Li Fu, Ziyan Zhang, Pinrui Huang, Xiaochen Wang, Chengda Wu, Yutao Zhou, Jianjun Wu, Lin Chang, Baobao Chang, Liang Chen, Kuan Li
分類: cs.AI
原文アブストラクト
Before AI can be trusted to discover new science, it should be able to reproduce what science already knows. Reproduction provides a rigorous checkpoint for an AI scientist: the target claim is known, yet recovering it still requires translating an incomplete scientific description into an executable experiment and producing evidence that can be independently verified. Existing research-reproduction benchmarks largely focus on AI and machine learning, where experiments share relatively homogeneous software stacks. Extending this capability across scientific disciplines introduces a different challenge: agents must operate domain-specific scientific software, make physical and numerical choices, diagnose long-running computations, and distinguish valid evidence from merely plausible outputs. We introduce PAPERBENCHX, a benchmark of 93 expert-constructed paper-reproduction tasks spanning 12 research areas across electromagnetics, photonics, chemistry, materials science, biology, and robotics. Each task provides the source paper, a public task specification, and a domain-native scientific environment involving specialized scientific software. Agents must reconstruct a key experiment, execute and diagnose it, and deliver a runnable workflow that supports the target scientific claim. To evaluate scientific validity rather than surface-level agreement, we replay every submission from scratch and score only regenerated evidence against expert-validated criteria. Across 10 frontier agent configurations, the best configuration fully reproduces only 14% tasks under the 90% threshold. Meanwhile, mean rubric scores range from 27.53% to 59.08%, indicating that substantial partial progress rarely translates into complete scientific reproduction. These results reveal a large gap between paper understanding and reliably producing reproducible scientific evidence.