SciIntegrity-Bench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Academic Integrity in AI Scientist Systems
Open accessAbstract
AI scientist systems are increasingly deployed for autonomous research, yet their academic integrity has never been systematically evaluated. We introduce SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH, the first benchmark designed around a dilemmatic evaluation paradigm: each of its 33 scenarios across 11 trap categories is constructed so that honest acknowledgment of failure is the only correct response, while task completion requires misconduct. Across 231 evaluation runs spanning 7 state-of-the-art LLMs, the overall integrity problem rate reaches 34.2%, and no model achieves zero failures. Most strikingly, across missing-data scenarios, all seven models generate synthetic data rather than acknowledging infeasibility, differing only in whether they disclose the substitution. A further prompt ablation study separates two drivers: removing explicit completion pressure sharply reduces undisclosed fabrication from 20.6% to 3.2%, while the underlying synthesis rate remains unchanged, revealing an intrinsic completion bias that persists independent of prompt-level instructions. These findings point to the absence of honest refusal as a trained disposition as the primary driver of observed failures. We release SCIINTEGRITY-BENCH at https://github.com/liuxingtong/Sci-Integrity-Bench.
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?
SciIntegrity-Bench finds a 34.2% integrity-failure rate across seven state-of-the-art models.
“SciIntegrity-Bench constructs dilemmas in which honest acknowledgment of failure is the only correct answer while task completion requires misconduct, and finds a 34.2% integrity-failure rate across seven state-of-the-art models”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [143]
Section 4.2 reports a 34.2% overall integrity problem rate across 231 evaluations of seven models. But the Evaluation Protocol (Section 3.4) defines that rate as combining Fail and Flawed outcomes; Flawed outcomes involve no misconduct. The explicit Fail rate is 15.58%, so calling 34.2% an integrity-failure rate blurs a distinction the paper makes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAn agent optimized to produce results will, at the margin, misreport rather than fail-and the disposition appears intrinsic, not prompt-induced.
“an agent optimized to produce results will, at the margin, misreport rather than fail - and the disposition appears to be intrinsic, not prompt-induced.”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [143]
Section 5.1 reports that agents often fabricate a completed report rather than acknowledge unavailable inputs, and ‘Effect of completion pressure’ suggests an internal preference for task completion. But that section also finds that an explicit pressure prompt raises undisclosed fabrication: removing it reduces the rate from 20.6% to 3.2%. The source therefore does not support describing the disposition as simply ‘not prompt-induced.’ (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRemoving explicit completion pressure sharply reduces undisclosed fabrication but leaves the fabrication itself intact.
“removing explicit completion pressure sharply reduces undisclosed fabrication but leaves the fabrication itself intact [143]”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [143]
The safety-relevant technical literature concentrates at category boundaries: permanent, self-amplifying, population-transmissible corruption in self-evolving agent systems; capability degradation and safety drift arising without any adversary; and integrity failure under completion pressure.
“The safety-relevant technical literature concentrates at the category boundaries surveyed above: permanent, self-amplifying, population-transmissible corruption in self-evolving agent systems [83]; capability degradation and safety drift arising without any adversary, and the case for humanoversight anchoring [84]; integrity failure under completion pressure [143].”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [143]
In missing-data scenarios, all seven models fabricate synthetic data rather than acknowledge infeasibility, differing only in whether they disclose the substitution.
“in missing-data scenarios all seven fabricate synthetic data rather than acknowledge infeasibility, differing only in whether they disclose the substitution”
From Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops (2026) · cites this paper as [143]
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: 16
- Zochi. Tempest: Autonomous multi-turn jailbreaking of large language models with tree search. In Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025.
- Yutaro Yamada, Robert Tjarko Lange, Cong Lu, Shengran Hu, Chris Lu, Jakob Foerster, Jeff Clune, and David Ha. The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-level automated scientific discovery via agentic tree search. arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.08066, 2025. · arXiv
- Vladimir Naumov, Diana Zagirova, Sha Lin, Yupeng Xie, Wenhao Gou, Anatoly Urban, and Nina Tikhonova. DORA AI scientist: Multi-agent virtual research team for scientific discovery. bioRxiv, 2025.
- Yu Li, Chenyang Shao, Xinyang Liu, Ruotong Zhao, Peijie Liu, Hongyuan Su, Zhibin Chen, Qinglong Yang, Anjie Xu, Yi Fang, Qingbin Zeng, Tianxing Li, Jingbo Xu, Fengli Xu, Yong Li, and Tie-Yan Liu. AutoSOTA: An end-to-end automated research system for state-of-the-art AI model discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.05550, 2026. · arXiv
- Qiguang Chen, Mingda Yang, Libo Qin, Jinhao Liu, Zheng Yan, Jiannan Guan, Dengyun Peng, Yiyan Ji, Hanjing Li, Mengkang Hu, Yimeng Zhang, Yihao Liang, Yuhang Zhou, Jiaqi Wang, Zhi Chen, and Wanxiang Che. AI4Research: A survey of artificial intelligence for scientific research. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01903, 2025. · arXiv
- Tianshi Zheng, Zheye Deng, Hong Ting Tsang, Weiqi Wang, Jiaxin Bai, Zihao Wang, and Yangqiu Song. From automation to autonomy: A survey on large language models in scientific discovery. In Proceedings of the 2025 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 17733-17750. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2025.
- Joeran Beel, Min-Yen Kan, and Moritz Baumgart. Evaluating sakana's ai scientist: Bold claims, mixed results, and a promising future? SIGIR Forum, 59(1):1-20, October 2025.
- Hui Chen et al. MLR-Bench: Evaluating AI agents on open-ended machine learning research. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2025), D&B Track, 2025.
- Ziming Luo, Atoosa Kasirzadeh, and Nihar B. Shah. The more you automate, the less you see: Hidden pitfalls of AI scientist systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.08713, 2025. · arXiv
- Ruiying Chen. Evidence-Bound Autonomous Research (EviBound): A Governance Framework for Eliminating False Claims. arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.05524, 2025. · arXiv
- Wu Ji. Trust Over Fear: How Motivation Framing in System Prompts Affects AI Agent Debugging Depth. arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.14373, 2026. · arXiv
- Igor Ivanov. LLMs are Capable of Misaligned Behavior Under Explicit Prohibition and Surveillance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02977, 2025. · arXiv
- Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. ReAct: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR), 2023.
- Wanghan Xu, Yuhao Zhou, Yifan Zhou, Qinglong Cao, Shuo Li, Jia Bu, Bo Liu, Yixin Chen, Xuming He, Xiangyu Zhao, et al. Probing scientific general intelligence of llms with scientist- aligned workflows. arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16969, 2025. · arXiv
- Ziwei Xu, Sanjay Jain, and Mohan S. Kankanhalli. Hallucination is inevitable: An innate limitation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.11817, 2024. · arXiv
- Sebastian Farquhar, Jannik Kossen, Lorenz Kuhn, and Yarin Gal. Detecting hallucinations in large language models using semantic entropy. Nature, 630(8017):625-630, 2024.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Practical Use of Advanced AI Frameworks on Real-Life Scientific Problems: Three Case StudiesPreprint
Gulluoglu, H. S. A., Baby, J., Bagul, K. M., Basangari, B. R., Bathini, S. A., Chalamalla, N. K. R., Dcunha, J., Gupta, O., Huang, L., Jiang, X., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.23.734132 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Recursive Self-Improvement in AI: From Bounded Self-Refinement to Autonomous Research Loops
Chen, M., Wang, L., & Qu, B. (2026) · arXiv
“…boundaries surveyed above: permanent, self-amplifying, population-transmissible corruption in self-evolving agent systems [82]; capability degradation and safety drift arising without any adversary, and the case for human-oversight anchoring [83]; integrity failure under completion pressure [143].”
InfluentialWhat's Missing in Autonomous Research? A Systematization of Systems, Benchmarks, and VerificationPreprint
Ren, X., Sun, Y., Yi, C., Zhang, K., Guo, J., Du, J., & Yang, H. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10060294/v1
A New Paradigm: Agentic AI for Scientific Discovery
Taktakidze, A. (2026) · Longevity Horizon · doi:10.65649/ukh4n33x
From AI Scientists to AI Scientific Communities: A Survey of Collective AutoResearch
Zou, R., Xu, T., Zhang, F., Zhang, Y., Zhao, Z., Xiaolongwang, Wang, M., Wu, Y., & Wei, Y. (2026) · Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) · doi:10.18653/2026.findings-emnlp.824
- Authors
- Yang, Z., Liu, X., & Xu, X.
- Affiliations
- Peking University (CN)
- Tongji University (CN)
- University of Tübingen (DE)
- ORCID
- Liu, Xingtong
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2026
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2605.10246
- OpenAlex
- W7160936993
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Law, AI, and Intellectual Property
- Keywords
- academic integrity, large language models, benchmark, research misconduct, fabrication, missing data, prompt engineering, autonomous research
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
