AAAR-1.0: Assessing AI's Potential to Assist Research
Open accessAbstract
Numerous studies have assessed the proficiency of AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), in facilitating everyday tasks such as email writing, question answering, and creative content generation. However, researchers face unique challenges and opportunities in leveraging LLMs for their own work, such as brainstorming research ideas, designing experiments, and writing or reviewing papers. In this study, we introduce AAAR-1.0, a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate LLM performance in three fundamental, expertise-intensive research tasks: (i) EquationInference, assessing the correctness of equations based on the contextual information in paper submissions; (ii) ExperimentDesign, designing experiments to validate research ideas and solutions; (iii) PaperWeakness, identifying weaknesses in paper submissions; and (iv) REVIEWCRITIQUE, identifying each segment in human reviews is deficient or not. AAAR-1.0 differs from prior benchmarks in two key ways: first, it is explicitly research-oriented, with tasks requiring deep domain expertise; second, it is researcher-oriented, mirroring the primary activities that researchers engage in on a daily basis. An evaluation of both open-source and proprietary LLMs reveals their potential as well as limitations in conducting sophisticated research tasks. We will keep iterating AAAR-1.0 to new versions.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
Datasets such as AAAR-1.0, ScienceAgentBench, and TaskBench provide structured, expert-labeled benchmarks for assessing research reasoning, scientific workflows, and multi-tool planning.
“For instance, datasets such as AAAR-1.0 [61], ScienceAgentBench [11], and TaskBench [83] provide structured, expert-labeled benchmarks for assessing research reasoning, scientific workflows, and multi-tool planning.”
From Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey (2025) · cites this paper as [61]
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
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Clark, C. and Divvala, S. Pdffigures 2.0: Mining fig- ures from research papers. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM/IEEE-CS on Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 143-152, 2016.
- Groeneveld, D., Beltagy, I., Walsh, P., Bhagia, A., Kinney, R., Tafjord, O., Jha, A. H., Ivison, H., Magnusson, I., Wang, Y., Arora, S., Atkinson, D., Authur, R., Chandu, K., Cohan, A., Dumas, J., Elazar, Y., Gu, Y., Hessel, J., Khot, T., Merrill, W., Morrison, J., Muennighoff, N., Naik, A., Nam, C., Peters, M. E., Pyatkin, V., Ravichan- der, A., Schwenk, D., Shah, S., Smith, W., Subramani, N., Wortsman, M., Dasigi, P., Lambert, N., Richardson, K., Dodge, J., Lo, K., Soldaini, L., Smith, N. A., and Ha- jishirzi, H. Olmo: Accelerating the science of language models. Preprint, 2024.
- Gu, J., Ye, J., Yin, W., and Wang, G. Adaptive and ex- plainable margin trading via large language models on portfolio management. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on AI in Finance (ICAIF'24), 2024.
- Huang, Q., Vora, J., Liang, P., and Leskovec, J. Mlagent- bench: Evaluating language agents on machine learning experimentation. In Forty-first International Conference on Machine Learning, 2024.
- Lin, C.-Y. Rouge: A Package for Automatic Evaluation of Summaries. In Text summarization branches out, pp. 74-81, 2004.
- Liu, N. F., Lin, K., Hewitt, J., Paranjape, A., Bevilacqua, M., Petroni, F., and Liang, P. Lost in the middle: How language models use long contexts. Transactions of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 12:157-173, 2024.
- Lo, K., Shen, Z., Newman, B., Chang, J. Z., Authur, R., Bransom, E., Candra, S., Chandrasekhar, Y., Huff, R., Kuehl, B., et al. Papermage: A unified toolkit for process- ing, representing, and manipulating visually-rich scien- tific documents. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing: System Demonstrations, pp. 495-507, 2023.
- Praskievicz, S. River classification as a geographic tool in the age of big data and global change. Geographical Review, 108(1):120-137, 2018.
- Rakhimov, M., Akhmadjonov, R., and Javliev, S. Artificial intelligence in medicine for chronic disease classification using machine learning. In 2022 IEEE 16th International Conference on Application of Information and Communi- cation Technologies (AICT), pp. 1-6. IEEE, 2022.
- Shinn, N., Cassano, F., Gopinath, A., Narasimhan, K., and Yao, S. Reflexion: Language agents with verbal rein- forcement learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36, 2024.
- Tang, X., Liu, Y., Cai, Z., Shao, Y., Lu, J., Zhang, Y., Deng, Z., Hu, H., An, K., Huang, R., et al. Ml-bench: Evaluating large language models and agents for machine learning tasks on repository-level code. arXiv e-prints, pp. arXiv- 2311, 2023.
- Wang, X., Wei, J., Schuurmans, D., Le, Q. V., Chi, E. H., Narang, S., Chowdhery, A., and Zhou, D. Self- consistency improves chain of thought reasoning in lan- guage models. In The Eleventh International Confer- ence on Learning Representations, ICLR 2023, Kigali, Rwanda, May 1-5, 2023. OpenReview.net, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/pdf?id=1PL1NIMMrw.
- Zhang, T., Kishore, V., Wu, F., Weinberger, K. Q., and Artzi, Y. Bertscore: Evaluating text generation with BERT. In 8th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2020, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, April 26-30, 2020. OpenReview.net, 2020. URL https: //openreview.net/forum?id=SkeHuCVFDr.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Evaluation and Benchmarking of LLM Agents: A Survey
Mohammadi, M., Li, Y., Lo, J., & Yip, W. (2025) · Proceedings of the 31st ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining V.2 · doi:10.1145/3711896.3736570 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Farsiu, N., Mahani, F. K., Rukerd, M. R. Z., Nezhad, N. Z., Rahimi, M., Mirtajadini, F. S., Pardeshenas, M., Nakhaie, M., & Hassandarvish, P. (2026) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2026.1755594 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
AI-Assisted Peer Review at Scale: The AAAI-26 AI Review Pilot
Biswas, J., Schoepp, S., Vasan, G., Opipari, A., Zhang, A., Hu, Z., Joseph, S., Lease, M., Li, J. J., Stone, P., et al. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2604.13940 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
FLAWS: A Benchmark for Error Identification and Localization in Scientific Papers
Xi, S., Rao, V., Payan, J., & Shah, N. B. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2511.21843
“Lou et al. (2025) target a narrow set of mistakes, focusing mostly on erroneous equations.”
Liu, Z., Wu, J., Peng, R., Ji, Y., Li, D., Jiang, R., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2608.03501
Self-citationDIAGPaper: Diagnosing Valid and Specific Weaknesses in Scientific Papers via Multi-Agent Reasoning
Zou, Z., Ansari, A., Zhang, D. C., Lee, D., & Yin, W. (2026) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2601.07611
“First, on AAAR , ReviewCritique(Valid) , and Re-viewCritique(Invalid) , DIAGPaper achieves state-of-the-art performance across semantic recall, precision, F1, and Specificity , demonstrating both strong alignment with valid human reviews and the ability to produce paper-specific weaknesses.”
InfluentialSelf-citationIntegrating Cochrane methodology into medical education: Experience and outcomes
Kovalevskaya, V., Turankova, T. A., Varganova, D. L., Teplyuk, D. A., Volel, B. A., & Pavlov, C. S. (2026) · International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine · doi:10.1177/09246479261418868
Lee, C. J. (2026) · Social Epistemology · doi:10.1080/02691728.2026.2669578
- Authors
- Lou, R., Xu, H., Wang, S., Du, J., Kamoi, R., Lu, X., Xie, J., Sun, Y., Zhang, Y., Ahn, J. J., Fang, H., Zou, Z., Ma, W., Li, X., Zhang, K., Xia, C., Huang, L., & Yin, W.
- Affiliations
- Pennsylvania State University (US)
- Netflix (United States) (US)
- University of California, Davis (US)
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- The Ohio State University (US)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2024
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2410.22394
- OpenAlex
- W4404342216
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- large language models, AI-assisted research, experimental design, LLM evaluation
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
