Cited by 79Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsNatural Language Processing Techniques

SciAgent: Tool-augmented Language Models for Scientific Reasoning

Open access
Ma, Yubo, Gou, Zhibin, Hao, Junheng, Xu, Ruochen, Wang, Shuohang, Pan, Liangming, Yang, Yujiu, Cao, Yixin +1 more·2024·Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing

Abstract

Yubo Ma, Zhibin Gou, Junheng Hao, Ruochen Xu, Shuohang Wang, Liangming Pan, Yujiu Yang, Yixin Cao, Aixin Sun. Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. 2024.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.emnlp-main.880

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • AI Agents benefit significantly from function calling, which extends their ability to interact with real-world systems.

    “AI Agents benefit significantly from function calling, which extends their ability to interact with real-world systems [171,217].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual taxonomy, applications and challenges (2026) · cites this paper as [217]

    Section 6.5 reports a substantial 25% absolute accuracy improvement on scientific questions where SciAgent calls functions, compared with models without access to them. Sections 1 and 4.1 describe retrieving Python functions and executing code, but do not establish that this extends agents’ ability to interact with real-world systems. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhen- guo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. 2023. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical ques- tions for large language models. ArXiv preprint, abs/2309.12284. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ma, Y., Gou, Z., Hao, J., Xu, R., Wang, S., Pan, L., Yang, Y., Cao, Y., & Sun, A.
Affiliations
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Fudan University (CN)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2024 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing
Published
2024
Pages
15701-15736
OpenAlex
W4404782877
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 10
FWCI
4.04
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
Keywords
scientific reasoning, large language models, tool use, scientific question answering

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review