arxiv: 2604.05557 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 💻 cs.CL

Recognition: no theorem link

EpiBench: Benchmarking Multi-turn Research Workflows for Multimodal Agents

Bofei Liu, Guancheng Li, Huanyang Zheng, Pengzhan Li, Qingfu Zhu, Tianhao Niu, Wanxiang Che, Xuan Dong, Zhe Han, Zhengyang Liu

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 18:26 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CL

keywords multimodal agentsmulti-turn benchmarkresearch workflowsevidence integrationscientific agentsepisodic tasksprocess-level evaluation

0 comments

The pith

EpiBench reveals that even top multimodal agents score only 29.23 percent on hard multi-turn research tasks requiring cross-paper evidence integration.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Scientific research follows multi-turn workflows that demand proactive literature searches, consultation of figures and tables, and integration of evidence across papers to support reproducible conclusions. Existing benchmarks largely overlook proactive search, multi-evidence integration, and sustained evidence use over time. The paper introduces EpiBench as an episodic multi-turn multimodal benchmark that creates short research workflows for agents to navigate papers, align evidence, and answer questions needing cross-paper comparisons using accumulated memory. A process-level evaluation framework allows fine-grained diagnosis of agent performance. Experiments show the leading model reaches only 29.23 percent accuracy on the hard split.

Core claim

EpiBench instantiates short research workflows where agents must navigate across papers over multiple turns, align evidence from figures and tables, and apply accumulated evidence in memory to answer objective questions that require cross-paper comparisons and multi-figure integration. It supplies a process-level evaluation framework for detailed testing and diagnosis. Results establish that even the leading model achieves only 29.23 percent accuracy on the hard split.

What carries the argument

EpiBench, an episodic multi-turn multimodal benchmark that instantiates short research workflows and supplies process-level evaluation.

If this is right

Agents must develop better mechanisms for maintaining and reusing evidence across successive turns rather than resetting context each time.
Process-level evaluation can isolate failures in proactive search versus failures in evidence alignment or memory use.
Benchmarks focused on verifiable, objective outputs can support development of agents for reproducible research assistance.
Current multimodal models require substantial advances to handle sustained, multi-evidence research workflows effectively.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Success on EpiBench could serve as a stepping stone toward agents that reliably assist with literature synthesis in live scientific projects.
The emphasis on figures and tables suggests that vision-language capabilities will become a bottleneck for research agents as tasks grow more complex.
Extending EpiBench to longer episodes or open-ended hypothesis generation would test whether the observed gaps persist beyond short workflows.

Load-bearing premise

The constructed tasks and questions in EpiBench faithfully capture the multi-turn, proactive search and cross-paper evidence integration that occur in actual scientific research workflows.

What would settle it

A controlled comparison in which models that score highly on EpiBench are tested on real, unscripted literature-review tasks involving novel papers and see whether their success rates align with benchmark performance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05557 by Bofei Liu, Guancheng Li, Huanyang Zheng, Pengzhan Li, Qingfu Zhu, Tianhao Niu, Wanxiang Che, Xuan Dong, Zhe Han, Zhengyang Liu.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Example episode and tool-use workflow in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Dataset overview of EpiBench. Left: Statistics of the EpiBench dataset by difficulty level. Middle: Data distribution across categories. Right: Episode counts across subject areas stratified by difficulty. split into Easy (39) and Hard (63). Difficulty is assigned based on the required number of turns, the amount of cross-paper and multimodal evidence integration, and the extent of evidence reuse required… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Failure-type distribution (%) across models. Retrieve errors arise when the agent fails to locate the intended papers. Perception errors occur when the agent accesses the relevant evidence but misreads or misinterprets figures or tables. Reasoning errors refer to incorrect integration or constraint satisfaction despite having accessed the necessary evidence. Reading Memory errors capture cases where … view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Ablations on memory-centric constraints. (a) Allowing tool use in the final turn yields a large recovery in ESR and Accfinal, indicating that multimodal evidence cached across turns is often insufficient for reliable final fusion under the memoryonly protocol. (b) Removing PDF text RAG has mixed effects and generally smaller impact, suggesting that the primary bottleneck lies in multimodal evidence select… view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Effect of step budget Smax on episodic performance. (a) ESR increases from 5 to 10 steps but saturates from 10 to 15. (b) Max-steps error rate drops sharply from 5 to 10, indicating fewer budget-induced terminations, while additional budget yields diminishing returns. gration remain a primary bottleneck. Figure 5b shows that removing text RAG has smaller and model-dependent effects, suggesting that text re… view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Human revision intensity from GPT-5.2 drafts to the final benchmark release. We group episodes into five categories, ranging from minimal intervention (Kept, Light Edit) to substantial restructuring (Final-Q Rewrite, Full-Q Rewrite, Episode Rebuild). Most episodes, especially in the hard split, undergo major expert revision before inclusion in EpiBench. A Benchmark Construction and Composition A.1 Human C… view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Statistics of benchmark composition. Left: distribution of episode turn lengths. Middle: distribution of task categories, including constraint-style identification, crosspaper comparison, and evidence aggregation. Right: distribution of proactive search initiation types, including direct-title search, citation-based search, and indirect-hintdriven search. Left, we report the distribution of episode turn … view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Representative failed questions grouped by error type. Each row shows a compressed execution trace from a real failed episode. The highlighted red module marks the first error under our trace-based attribution rule, while later incorrect outputs are shown only as downstream consequences. From top to bottom, the examples illustrate retrieval failure, reasoning failure, perception failure, and reading-memor… view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Scientific research follows multi-turn, multi-step workflows that require proactively searching the literature, consulting figures and tables, and integrating evidence across papers to align experimental settings and support reproducible conclusions. This joint capability is not systematically assessed in existing benchmarks, which largely under-evaluate proactive search, multi-evidence integration and sustained evidence use over time. In this work, we introduce EpiBench, an episodic multi-turn multimodal benchmark that instantiates short research workflows. Given a research task, agents must navigate across papers over multiple turns, align evidence from figures and tables, and use the accumulated evidence in the memory to answer objective questions that require cross paper comparisons and multi-figure integration. EpiBench introduces a process-level evaluation framework for fine-grained testing and diagnosis of research agents. Our experiments show that even the leading model achieves an accuracy of only 29.23% on the hard split, indicating substantial room for improvement in multi-turn, multi-evidence research workflows, providing an evaluation platform for verifiable and reproducible research agents.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

EpiBench gives a practical new test for multi-turn multimodal agents on literature workflows, with the 29% hard-split result showing clear limits in current systems.

read the letter

EpiBench sets up episodic tasks where agents must search papers over multiple turns, pull evidence from figures and tables, and integrate it across documents to answer objective questions. The process-level scoring breaks down failures on search, alignment, and memory use, which is more diagnostic than end-to-end accuracy alone. The main result—that even the strongest model reaches only 29.23% on the hard split—follows directly from that setup and highlights the gap without exaggeration. The episodic memory requirement and cross-paper comparisons are the parts that actually feel new compared with existing single-turn or text-only benchmarks. The construction details in the full text look consistent and avoid obvious circularity or hidden fitting. One soft spot is that the tasks are all hand-crafted, so the performance numbers rest on how well the questions match the variability of real research; the paper describes validation steps but does not report external checks against practicing scientists. Dataset scale and split criteria are spelled out enough to reproduce the evaluation, though more on question difficulty distribution would help. This is mainly for groups building or benchmarking agents for scientific discovery. Anyone working on long-horizon multimodal reasoning or literature agents will get concrete numbers and failure modes to compare against. I would send it to peer review—the benchmark and evaluation framework are grounded enough to be worth referee feedback even if the model results are preliminary.

Referee Report

0 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper introduces EpiBench, an episodic multi-turn multimodal benchmark for evaluating agents on short scientific research workflows. Given a research task, agents must proactively navigate across papers, align evidence from figures and tables, accumulate evidence in memory, and answer objective questions requiring cross-paper comparisons and multi-figure integration. The central result is that even the leading model reaches only 29.23% accuracy on the hard split; the work also contributes a process-level evaluation framework for fine-grained diagnosis of agent capabilities.

Significance. If the benchmark tasks are faithful to real research workflows, EpiBench supplies a much-needed platform for measuring and improving multi-turn, multi-evidence capabilities that existing benchmarks largely omit. The process-level evaluation framework is a clear strength, enabling diagnosis beyond final-answer accuracy and supporting reproducible development of research agents. The reported performance gap supplies a concrete, falsifiable target for future work.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract] Abstract: the 29.23% figure is presented without any accompanying information on benchmark scale (number of episodes, papers, or questions); adding one sentence on dataset size would improve immediate readability.
The process-level metrics are introduced but their exact aggregation into the reported accuracy is not shown in a single equation or table; a small clarifying diagram or pseudocode block would reduce ambiguity.
Figure captions should explicitly state which process-level dimensions (e.g., navigation, evidence alignment, memory use) are visualized in each panel.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of EpiBench, its significance for evaluating multi-turn multimodal research agents, and the recommendation of minor revision. The referee's summary correctly reflects the benchmark's focus on episodic workflows, cross-paper evidence integration, and the process-level evaluation framework. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical benchmark with independent evaluation

full rationale

The paper introduces EpiBench as a new episodic multi-turn multimodal benchmark for research agent workflows, describing task construction, evidence alignment, memory accumulation, and process-level evaluation in detail. It reports experimental accuracies (e.g., 29.23% on the hard split) without any derivation chain, fitted parameters renamed as predictions, self-definitional equations, uniqueness theorems, or ansatzes smuggled via self-citation. The central claim rests on direct measurement against the constructed benchmark, which is externally falsifiable and self-contained against external model evaluations. No load-bearing step reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that the benchmark tasks capture essential features of scientific research workflows. No free parameters or invented physical entities are described in the abstract. The benchmark itself is a constructed evaluation artifact whose validity depends on the fidelity of its task design.

axioms (1)

domain assumption Scientific research follows multi-turn, multi-step workflows that require proactively searching the literature, consulting figures and tables, and integrating evidence across papers.
Explicitly stated in the opening of the abstract as the motivation and definition of the capability being benchmarked.

invented entities (1)

EpiBench no independent evidence
purpose: An episodic multi-turn multimodal benchmark instantiating short research workflows for agent evaluation.
Newly introduced in this work; the abstract provides no external validation or independent evidence of its representativeness.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5502 in / 1416 out tokens · 63025 ms · 2026-05-10T18:26:30.781577+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

TRACER: Verifiable Generative Provenance for Multimodal Tool-Using Agents
cs.CL 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 7.0

TRACER attaches verifiable sentence-level provenance records to multimodal agent outputs using tool-turn alignment and semantic relations, yielding 78.23% answer accuracy and fewer tool calls than baselines on TRACE-Bench.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper · 6 internal anchors

[1]

arxiv.https://arxiv.org/, accessed: 2026-02-27

2026
[2]

Openreview.https://openreview.net/, accessed: 2026-02-27

2026
[3]

Qwen3-VL Technical Report

Bai, S., Cai, Y., Chen, R., et al.: Qwen3-vl technical report (2025),https://arxiv. org/abs/2511.21631

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[4]

org/abs/2601.20676

Chen, Z., Geng, X., Wang, X., Jiang, Y., Zhang, Z., Xie, P., Tu, K.: Efficient multimodal planning agent for visual question-answering (2026),https://arxiv. org/abs/2601.20676

work page arXiv 2026
[5]

Comanici, G., Bieber, E., Schaekermann, M., Pasupat, I., Sachdeva, N., Dhillon, I., Blistein, M., Ram, O., Zhang, D., Helmholz, W.: Gemini 2.5: Pushing the frontier with advanced reasoning, multimodality, long context, and next generation agentic capabilities (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.06261

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[6]

DuckDuckGo: Duckduckgo search engine.https://duckduckgo.com/(2026), ac- cessed: 2026-03-03

2026
[7]

Google for Developers: Custom search json api: Use rest to invoke the api.https: //developers.google.com/custom-search/v1/using_rest, accessed 2026-03-02

2026
[8]

Huang, P., Zhong, Z., Wan, Z., Zhou, D., Alam, S., Wang, X., Li, Z., Dou, Z., Zhu, L., Xiong, J., Tao, C., Xu, Y., Dimitriadis, D., Zhang, T., Zhang, M.: Mmdeepresearch-bench: A benchmark for multimodal deep research agents (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.12346

work page arXiv 2026
[9]

Jiang, H., Zhang, X., Garg, S., Arora, R., Kuo, S.Z., Xu, J., Bansal, A., Brossman, C., Liu, Y., Colak, A., Aly, A., Kumar, A., Dong, X.L.: Memory-qa: Answering recall questions based on multimodal memories (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2509.18436

work page arXiv 2025
[10]

Lee, Y.J., Lee, B.K., Zhang, J., Hwang, Y., Ko, B., Kim, H.G., Yao, D., Rong, X., Joo, E., Han, S.H., Ko, B., Choi, H.J.: Multiverse: A multi-turn conversa- tion benchmark for evaluating large vision and language models (2025),https: //arxiv.org/abs/2510.16641

work page arXiv 2025
[11]

Li, S., Tajbakhsh, N.: Scigraphqa: A large-scale synthetic multi-turn question- answering dataset for scientific graphs (2023)

2023
[12]

org/abs/2505.03475

Liu, Z., Li, J., Zhuang, Y., Liu, Q., Shen, S., Ouyang, J., Cheng, M., Wang, S.: am- elo: A stable framework for arena-based llm evaluation (2025),https://arxiv. org/abs/2505.03475

work page arXiv 2025
[13]

Mmdu: A multi-turn multi-image dialog understanding benchmark and instruction-tuning dataset for lvlms

Liu, Z., Chu, T., Zang, Y., Wei, X., Dong, X., Zhang, P., Liang, Z., Xiong, Y., Qiao, Y., Lin, D., Wang, J.: Mmdu: A multi-turn multi-image dialog understanding benchmark and instruction-tuning dataset for lvlms (2024),https://arxiv.org/ abs/2406.11833 16 X. Dong et al

work page arXiv 2024
[14]

Lyu, W., Du, Y., Zhao, J., Zhen, X., Shao, L.: Vischainbench: A benchmark for multi-turn, multi-image visual reasoning beyond language priors (2025),https: //arxiv.org/abs/2512.06759

work page arXiv 2025
[15]

AI Tools for Automating Systematic Literature Reviews

Mikriukov, A., Senokosov, A., Succi, G., Tormasov, A., Plaksin, Y., Trofimova, E., Sitnikov, V.: Ai tools for automating systematic literature reviews. In: Pro- ceedings of the 2025 International Conference on Software Engineering and Com- puter Applications. p. 25–30. SECA ’25, Association for Computing Machin- ery, New York, NY, USA (2025).https://doi.o...

work page doi:10.1145/3747912.3747962 2025
[16]

Movva,P.,Marupaka,N.H.:Enhancingscientificvisualquestionansweringthrough multimodal reasoning and ensemble modeling (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2507.06183

work page arXiv 2025
[17]

OpenAI: Introducing gpt-5.2.https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5- 2/(2025), accessed: 2026-03-05

2025
[18]

Pramanick, S., Chellappa, R., Venugopalan, S.: Spiqa: A dataset for multimodal question answering on scientific papers (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2407. 09413

2025
[19]

Qin, Y., Liang, S., Ye, Y., Zhu, K., Yan, L., Lu, Y., Lin, Y., Cong, X., Tang, X., Qian, B., Zhao, S., Hong, L., Tian, R., Xie, R., Zhou, J., Gerstein, M., Li, D., Liu, Z., Sun, M.: Toolllm: Facilitating large language models to master 16000+ real-world apis (2023),https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16789

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[20]

Ren, Y., Wang, J., Meng, Y., Shi, Y., Lin, Z., Chu, R., Xu, Y., Li, Z., Zhao, Y., Wang, Z., Qiao, Y., Tang, R., Liu, M., Yang, Y.: Sin-bench: Tracing native evidence chains in long-context multimodal scientific interleaved literature (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.10108

work page arXiv 2026
[21]

Roucher, A., del Moral, A.V., Wolf, T., von Werra, L., Kaunismäki, E.: ‘smo- lagents‘: a smol library to build great agentic systems.https://github.com/ huggingface/smolagents(2025)

2025
[22]

In: Oh, A., Naumann, T., Glober- son, A., Saenko, K., Hardt, M., Levine, S

Schick, T., Dwivedi-Yu, J., Dessi, R., Raileanu, R., Lomeli, M., Hambro, E., Zettlemoyer, L., Cancedda, N., Scialom, T.: Toolformer: Language mod- els can teach themselves to use tools. In: Oh, A., Naumann, T., Glober- son, A., Saenko, K., Hardt, M., Levine, S. (eds.) Advances in Neural Infor- mation Processing Systems. vol. 36, pp. 68539–68551. Curran As...

2023
[23]

Shabtay, N., Polo, F.M., Doveh, S., Lin, W., Mirza, M.J., Chosen, L., Yurochkin, M., Sun, Y., Arbelle, A., Karlinsky, L., Giryes, R.: Livexiv – a multi-modal live benchmark based on arxiv papers content (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2410. 10783

2025
[24]

Singh, A., Fry, A., Perelman, A., et al.: Openai gpt-5 system card (2025),https: //arxiv.org/abs/2601.03267

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[25]

Smolyansky, E.: Announcing connected papers — a visual tool for researchers to find and explore academic papers.https://medium.com/connectedpapers/ announcing- connected- papers- a- visual- tool- for- researchers- to- find- and-explore-academic-papers-89146a54c7d4(Jun 2020), accessed: 2026-02-27

2020
[26]

Tao, X., Teng, Y., Su, X., Fu, X., Wu, J., Tao, C., Liu, Z., Bai, H., Liu, R., Kong, L.: Mmsearch-plus: Benchmarking provenance-aware search for multimodal browsing agents (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.21475

work page arXiv 2025
[27]

Team, K., Bai, T., Bai, Y., et al.: Kimi k2.5: Visual agentic intelligence (2026), https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02276 Title Suppressed Due to Excessive Length 17

work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026
[28]

Team, V., Hong, W., Yu, W., et al.: Glm-4.5v and glm-4.1v-thinking: Towards versatile multimodal reasoning with scalable reinforcement learning (2026),https: //arxiv.org/abs/2507.01006

work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026
[29]

Vishesh, O., Khadilkar, H., Akkil, D.: Aegis: An agent for extraction and geo- graphic identification in scholarly proceedings (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/ 2509.09470

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

Wang, B., Xu, C., Zhao, X., Ouyang, L., Wu, F., Zhao, Z., Xu, R., Liu, K., Qu, Y., Shang, F., Zhang, B., Wei, L., Sui, Z., Li, W., Shi, B., Qiao, Y., Lin, D., He, C.: Mineru: An open-source solution for precise document content extraction (2024), https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.18839

work page arXiv 2024
[31]

Wang, D., Cheng, M., Yu, S., Liu, Z., Guo, Z., Li, X., Liu, Q.: Paperarena: An evaluation benchmark for tool-augmented agentic reasoning on scientific literature (2026),https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.10909

work page arXiv 2026
[32]

Wang, Z., Xia, M., He, L., Chen, H., Liu, Y., Zhu, R., Liang, K., Wu, X., Liu, H., Malladi, S., Chevalier, A., Arora, S., Chen, D.: Charxiv: Charting gaps in realistic chart understanding in multimodal llms (2024),https://arxiv.org/abs/2406. 18521

2024
[33]

xAI: Grok 4.1.https://x.ai/news/grok-4-1(Nov 2025), accessed: 2026-03-05

2025
[34]

Yan, D., Li, Y., Chen, Q.G., Luo, W., Wang, P., Zhang, H., Shen, C.: Mmcr: Advancing visual language model in multimodal multi-turn contextual reasoning (2025),https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.18533

work page arXiv 2025
[35]

In: The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations (2023),https://openreview.net/ forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X

Yao, S., Zhao, J., Yu, D., Du, N., Shafran, I., Narasimhan, K.R., Cao, Y.: React: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. In: The Eleventh Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations (2023),https://openreview.net/ forum?id=WE_vluYUL-X

2023
[36]

Vision-deepresearch benchmark: Rethinking visual and textual search for multimodal large language models, 2026

Zeng, Y., Huang, W., Fang, Z., Chen, S., Shen, Y., Cai, Y., Wang, X., Yin, Z., Chen, L., Chen, Z., Huang, S., Zhao, Y., Tang, X., Hu, Y., Torr, P., Ouyang, W., Cao, S.: Vision-deepresearch benchmark: Rethinking visual and textual search for multimodal large language models (2026),https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02185 18 X. Dong et al. Supplementary Material Th...

work page arXiv 2026
[37]

Identify what information is needed and check whether it is already available
[38]

If it is not available, retrieve it efficiently through search, download, or extraction tools
[39]

ABC" for the first sub-question and

Analyze the collected evidence and answer the question based on the retrieved sources. [Best Practices] - Do not rely on prior knowledge. Use tools to retrieve evidence. - Do not call final_answer in the same response as any other tool. It should be used alone only after all reasoning and tool calls are complete. - If the paper identifier is already known...