Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 77 references

The paper claims that long-horizon, executable exploration of raw scientific repositories is a learnable skill, and that fine-tuning a compact 9B open-weight model on 2,000 tree-searched, hallucination-checked trajectories roughly doubles i

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 14:56 UTC pith:EJ7ZPREH

load-bearing objection A genuinely useful benchmark and SFT corpus for scientific data exploration, but the headline SFT gains are not yet trustworthy because the benchmark's ground truth is generated by the same LLM pipeline being evaluated. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.28098 v1 pith:EJ7ZPREH submitted 2026-07-29 cs.AI cs.CL

SciDataSailor: Deep Scientific Data Exploring

Jiyong Rao , Yicheng Qiu , Chi Zhang , Chunfeng Song , Runkai Zhao This is my paper
classification cs.AI cs.CL
keywords deep scientific data explorationLLM agentsMonte Carlo Tree Searchtrajectory synthesissupervised fine-tuningscientific data benchmarkexecutable environmentstool use
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that exploring raw scientific repositories—navigating directories, inferring schemas, running analyses, joining files, and grounding conclusions in tool output—is a distinct agentic capability that existing benchmarks and trajectory pipelines do not capture. To make such trajectories available at scale, it introduces SciDataSailor, which grows a Monte Carlo tree of executable probes using difficulty-stratified seeds, dual-feedback first-play urgency, hierarchical strategy-to-tool action generation, and entropy-guided branching, then filters traces for execution validity and hallucination. It releases a benchmark of 1,213 tasks over 27 datasets and a 2,000-trajectory supervised fine-tuning corpus, and reports that fine-tuning a compact 9B open-weight model on that corpus raises repository-level summarization Pass@1 from 14.01 to 28.99, completion rate from 49.76 to 96.14, while reducing average steps from 10.21 to 6.24. If true, this shows that process-level supervision of evidence-seeking behavior, not just answer imitation, is what makes smaller agents efficient in open-ended scientific data work.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes 'deep scientific data exploration' as a task paradigm distinct from retrieval-based QA: an agent starts with only a dataset path and an exploration intent, and must decide which files to read, which schemas to infer, which statistics to compute, and when to stop exploring and answer, with every claim traceable to an executed tool observation. It then claims that this long-horizon search can be industrialized: Monte Carlo tree search over executable probes, steered by pre-execution utility estimates, post-execution calibration, hierarchical strategy-to-tool generation, and entropy-aware branching, produces verified trajectories that serve simultaneously

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is SciDataSailor's trajectory-synthesis loop, which treats the space of exploration traces as a tree. Its four controls are: difficulty-stratified seeds (L0–L3) that set what kind of evidence a task needs; dual-feedback first-play urgency (DF-FPU), which scores an unexecuted probe with an LLM prior, then corrects that prior using the average post-execution error of already-tested sibling probes and applies a conservative penalty before first use; hierarchical strategy-to-tool action generation, which first decides what evidence category to collect (schema inspection, statistics, cross-file joins, claim validation) and only then instantiates it as a concrete Python prob

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the evaluation itself is faithful: reference answers are synthesized by a language model from candidate answers produced by the same tree-search pipeline that generated the training trajectories (§4.1, App. B.2.1), and final scores come from language-model judges without human calibration (App. B.2.2); if those judgments reward the pipeline's output style rather than true scientific correctness, the measured gains from supervised fine-tuning c

What would settle it

Have domain experts hand-verify a random sample of roughly 100 meta-information reference answers and hand-score the corresponding base and fine-tuned model outputs on the same tasks, without exposing the LLM-synthesized references. If the reported 12-step gains (Pass@1 14.01→28.99; success rate 49.76→96.14) shrink sharply under expert scoring, the benchmark is tracking the pipeline's own output distribution rather than scientific correctness; if the gains persist, the transfer result is genuine.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If correct, the synthesis pipeline yields process-level supervision for open-ended data work without hand-annotating trajectories, and that supervision transfers across life, earth, and physical science datasets through a unified executable protocol.
  • The large gains under a 12-step budget and comparatively modest gains under 24 steps imply that ReAct-step-budget sensitivity is a diagnosable symptom of exploration-policy weakness, making step efficiency a useful reporting metric alongside accuracy.
  • Fine-tuned models acquire a 'monolithic solver' code profile—denser, branching-rich single calls with short error chains—showing that trajectory imitation can reshape execution style, not only answer content.
  • Because token-level imitation handles foreseen behaviors better than unforeseen failures, the paper's own suggested next step—combining trajectory supervision with verifier-guided reinforcement learning—follows directly from its evidence.
  • The benchmark's joint coverage of meta-information summarization and scientific QA, with training and evaluation splits aligned in answer length, step budget, and repository structure, makes the measured transfer effect less likely to be an artifact of distribution mismatch.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: scoring partial evidence quality rather than only final-answer match would likely compress the observed gap between success rate and Pass@1, because some agents gather correct facts but fail to synthesize a judged answer.
  • Editorial extension: a direct audit test would be to replace the LLM-synthesized references with human-verified gold answers on a random subset; if the reported 29-point Pass@1 gain shrinks materially, the SFT effect is partly fitting the pipeline's output distribution, not improved data exploration.
  • Editorial extension: the 'monolithic solver' code profile suggests the trained policy trades robustness to novel tool failures for first-attempt density; a hybrid policy that plans decisively but triggers verification-based retries on new error types may generalize better as the tool set expands.
  • Editorial extension: the four-part MCTS recipe is not tied to file systems; it transfers naturally to other executable, evidence-rich domains (code navigation, instrument logs, simulation archives) where the hard part is discovering what evidence exists rather than reading a structured query result.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Deep Scientific Data Exploration, a task paradigm in which LLM agents interact with real scientific repositories through executable code tools, and presents SciDataSailor, an MCTS-based trajectory synthesis framework with four proposed mechanisms (difficulty-stratified seeds, dual-feedback first-play urgency, hierarchical strategy-to-tool action generation, and entropy-guided branching). Using this framework the authors build two resources: SciDataSailor-SFT-2K for trajectory-level supervised fine-tuning and SciDataSailor-Bench with 627 meta-information summarization tasks and 586 scientific QA tasks across 27 datasets. Under a unified ReAct scaffold, the paper compares proprietary and open-weight models and reports a large behavioral gap, and claims that fine-tuning Qwen3.5-9B on the SFT corpus improves Pass@1 from 14.01 to 28.99 and success rate from 49.76 to 96.14 on the Meta track while reducing average steps from 10.21 to 6.24 (Table 2, Figure 1). The appendix includes a transparent budget-sensitivity case study and full prompts for reference construction and LLM judging.

Significance. If the evaluation is valid, this is a valuable contribution: it opens a relatively underexplored task paradigm, releases executable resources (data curation code, evaluation scaffolding, verified trajectories), and demonstrates that compact open-weight models can acquire efficient scientific-data-exploration behavior from trajectory-level supervision. The case study in Appendix C is a commendable, transparent illustration of budget sensitivity. However, the empirical claims rest on a benchmark whose ground truth is generated by the same pipeline being evaluated. The absence of an external correctness anchor, the lack of a stated train/eval disjointness, and the reliance on uncalibrated LLM judges mean that the headline SFT gains could reflect distribution matching to a self-generated target rather than improved scientific exploration. The resources and paradigm are promising, but the central empirical claim is not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, App. B.2.1, App. B.2.2] The benchmark's ground truth is circular. QA pairs are extracted from trajectories synthesized by the same MCTS pipeline (§4.1), the meta-information reference answers are constructed by an LLM merging candidate answers produced by that same pipeline (App. B.2.1), and scoring uses an LLM judge with no reported human calibration (App. B.2.2). The benchmark therefore measures agreement with the pipeline's own generation distribution, not with an externally anchored scientific ground truth. The reported SFT gains (Table 2: Pass@1 14.01→28.99, SR 49.76→96.14) could be inflated by fitting to the pipeline's output style. To support the central claim, the authors should provide an external validation subset with human-verified gold answers, report a judge-human agreement study (or replace the judge with rule-based checks against dataset facts), and demonstrate that scoring decisions track scien
  2. [§4.3] The paper says the training and evaluation splits are 'aligned' in answer length, ReAct-step budget, reasoning depth, and repository structure, but it never states that the instances are disjoint. If SciDataSailor-SFT-2K and SciDataSailor-Bench share the same (dataset, seed, question) instances, the SFT improvements could reflect memorization rather than transferable exploration skill. The authors must state explicitly, at the instance level, that no SFT trajectory or QA pair overlaps with any benchmark instance, and ideally report a nearest-neighbor or exact-match leakage check between the two splits.
  3. [§4.2] The quality-control protocol relies on an LLM verifier to label each reasoning and observation transition as supported, unsupported, or contradicted, and to detect hallucinations. No human agreement study or verifier-accuracy numbers are reported. Since the same class of model is used to generate, verify, and judge the data, the claim that these are 'verified' trajectories is not yet demonstrated. A human audit of a random sample of trajectories (with inter-annotator agreement) and a report of the verifier's precision/recall against that audit would be needed to establish that the retained trajectories are indeed evidence-grounded.
  4. [§5.3] The section titled 'Ablation Analysis' does not ablate any of the four proposed MCTS mechanisms (DF-FPU, hierarchical strategy-to-tool generation, entropy-guided branching, dual-feedback). It compares full agent models, so the individual contribution of each mechanism to trajectory quality or downstream SFT gains is unmeasured. The paper's contributions list these mechanisms as novel; without ablations (e.g., removing each mechanism from the synthesis pipeline and measuring the effect on trajectory acceptance, evidence coverage, or downstream benchmark performance), the claim that these mechanisms are effective is unsupported. Consider renaming this section to 'Behavioral Analysis' and adding a proper ablation study, or explicitly positioning the mechanisms as design choices without individual empirical validation.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / §1] Typographical errors: 'We introducedeep scientific data exploring' should be 'We introduce deep scientific data exploring' (missing space). Also 'perfom' (§4.2) and 'knwoledge' (§4.2) are typos.
  2. [Figure 1 caption] The caption reports SFT gains of Pass@1 14.01→28.99 and SR 49.76→96.14 but does not state the ReAct-step budget. Since gains are budget-dependent (Tables 2 and 3), the caption should specify that these numbers are at the 12-step budget.
  3. [App. C] The selection rule is transparent, but the statement 'To limit presentation-length selection bias, we report the member of that 61-record subset with the shortest combined stored transcript' is potentially misleading: selecting the shortest transcript may favor traces that are incomplete for reasons other than the budget. It would be clearer to state that the selection was for readability and to note the distribution of transcript lengths in the subset.
  4. [§4.3 / §5.1] The definition of a ReAct step ('a complete thought–code/action–observation cycle') appears first in §5.1 but is used in §4.3. Move the definition to its first use.
  5. [Table 4] The table is presented under an 'Ablation' heading but contains no ablations; also, the '207 paired tasks' subset is not described (how selected, from which split, and whether the pairs are shared across models). Please clarify.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

SFT gains are measured on a benchmark whose ground-truth answers are generated by the same MCTS/LLM pipeline that produced the SFT corpus, with no external correctness anchor.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Fig. 3 caption; §4.1 'Trajectory selection and QA synthesis'; §4.3 'Dataset Analysis']
    "Filtered trajectories are converted into trajectory and QA data for SciDataSailor-SFT-2K and SciDataSailor-Bench."

    The same filtered trajectories feed both the SFT corpus and the benchmark. §4.1 says 'The resulting benchmark instance extract the synthesized QA pair (q,y) from the trajectory of meta-information summarization (xσ,τ).' Thus the evaluation instances are extracted from the same trajectory distribution on which Qwen3.5-9B-SFT is trained. §4.3 only states that splits are 'aligned' in answer length, budget, reasoning depth, and structure, never that they are disjoint or grounded in externally verified facts. The headline gains (Pass@1 14.01→28.99, SR 49.76→96.14) are therefore partly a measure of reproducing the pipeline's own trajectory/answer style rather than of independently validated scientific exploration.

  2. self definitional [App. B.2.1 'Meta-Information Reference'; App. B.2.2 'LLM-as-a-Judge Scoring']
    "You will receive several candidate final answers produced from the same seed task and the same dataset. Your goal is to merge them into one comprehensive reference answer for later evaluation."

    The meta-information 'reference answer' is an LLM merge of candidate answers produced by the same MCTS pipeline whose trajectories constitute SciDataSailor-SFT-2K. Scoring then compares each candidate response against this pipeline-derived reference via the LLM judge in B.2.2. Consequently, the benchmark's correctness criterion is defined by the pipeline's own output distribution, and the SFT model is trained on that same distribution. The reported improvements in Pass@1 and success rate thus partly measure self-agreement with the training distribution, not agreement with an externally anchored scientific ground truth; no human calibration of the LLM judge is reported.

full rationale

SciDataSailor's data-construction contribution is real and the trajectory-synthesis pipeline is independently described, but the central empirical claim—that SFT on SciDataSailor-SFT-2K yields large gains in scientific data exploration—is evaluated on SciDataSailor-Bench, whose reference answers are generated by the same MCTS/LLM process that produced the SFT corpus. The QA pairs are extracted from the same trajectories that become training data, and the meta-information references are LLM-merges of candidate answers from the same pipeline. The paper never states that train and eval splits are disjoint, only that they are distributionally 'aligned.' With no human-calibrated correctness signal or external benchmark anchor, the measured gains (14.01→28.99 Pass@1; 49.76→96.14 SR) are substantially attributable to the model fitting the pipeline's own output distribution. This is partial circularity: the result is not forced by a single equation, but the evaluation target is self-referential. No load-bearing self-citation or uniqueness-import pattern was found; the SciDataCopilot self-citation is not load-bearing. Score 6 reflects that the headline prediction reduces in large part to distribution matching against a self-generated benchmark, while the underlying trajectory synthesis and resources still have independent content.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a set of hand-set MCTS hyperparameters with unreported values, an assumed-valid LLM judge, assumed-valid LLM-synthesized references, and an assumed-valid self-verification step. No new physical or mathematical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • λ UCT exploration weight
    Eq. (11); balances exploration and exploitation in tree selection; value not reported or swept.
  • δ_fpu first-play reduction
    Eq. (9); hand-set penalty for unvisited children; value not reported.
  • β depth bonus weight
    Eq. (11); favors deeper trajectories; value not reported.
  • θ_post post-execution threshold
    §4.1; nodes with y_w < θ_post are marked non-expandable; threshold not reported.
  • T_p proposal temperature
    Eq. (12); temperature used in entropy-guided branching and diversity filtering; value not reported.
  • k_min, k_max branching widths
    Eq. (13); minimum and maximum branching widths; values not reported.
  • w_p, w_t entropy weights
    Eq. (13); combine prior entropy and token entropy; values not reported.
  • Seed difficulty stratification
    App. A.1; eight seed intents are manually assigned to L0-L3 difficulty levels, shaping the trajectory distribution.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption LLM-as-a-judge scores are a valid measure of meta-information answer quality
    Invoked in App. B.2.2; no human agreement study or judge calibration is reported.
  • domain assumption LLM-synthesized reference answers are ground truth for meta-information tasks
    App. B.2.1 merges pipeline candidate answers into references using an LLM; correctness depends on the same model family that generated the candidates.
  • domain assumption QA pairs extracted from self-verified trajectories are correct
    §4.2 quality control relies on an LLM verifier labeling transitions supported/unsupported/contradicted; no human audit is reported.
  • standard math Standard MCTS update equations (UCT, backpropagation)
    §3, Eqs. (2)-(3); background method assumed correct.
  • domain assumption Python sandbox observations faithfully represent the scientific repositories
    §5.1 execution protocol; if sandbox behavior or serializer differences distort observations, model comparisons could be affected.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-daily-deepseek · 49816 in / 10201 out tokens · 116719 ms · 2026-08-01T14:56:41.830306+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Scientific datasets are commonly organized as hierarchical repositories containing heterogeneous and interdependent files, making their inspection, integration, and analysis labor-intensive and reliant on domain expertise. Although large language model (LLM) agents have advanced substantially in planning, reasoning, and tool use, existing research has largely overlooked their ability to interact with real scientific data assets through executable environments. We introduce Deep Scientific Data Exploration, an agentic task paradigm in which agents navigate repositories, interpret heterogeneous files and schemas, execute analyses, integrate cross-file evidence, and produce conclusions grounded in executed observations. To operationalize this paradigm, we present SciDataSailor, a framework for synthesizing tool-interactive trajectories by balancing broad exploration with targeted exploitation. SciDataSailor instantiates trajectory synthesis as Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) with four task-specific mechanisms: difficulty-stratified exploration seeds, dual-feedback first-play urgency, hierarchical strategy-to-tool action generation, and entropy-guided branching. Using this framework, we construct SciDataSailor-SFT-2K for supervised fine-tuning and SciDataSailor-Bench for evaluation, with the latter comprising 627 meta-information summarization tasks and 586 scientific question-answering tasks across 27 datasets spanning the life, earth, and physical sciences.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 19 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Data mining and knowledge discovery in databases: implications for scientific databases

    Usama Fayyad. Data mining and knowledge discovery in databases: implications for scientific databases. InProceedings. Ninth International Conference on Scientific and Statistical Database Management, 1997

    1997

  2. [2]

    Scidatacopilot: An agentic data preparation framework for agi-driven scientific discovery

    Jiyong Rao, Yicheng Qiu, Jiahui Zhang, Juntao Deng, Shangquan Sun, Fenghua Ling, Hao Chen, Nanqing Dong, Zhangyang Gao, Siqi Sun, et al. Scidatacopilot: An agentic data preparation framework for agi-driven scientific discovery. InarXiv preprint arXiv:2602.09132, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  3. [3]

    Cellvoyager: Ai compbio agent generates new insights by autonomously analyzing biological data.Nature Methods, 2026

    Samuel Alber, Bowen Chen, Eric Sun, Alina Isakova, Aaron J Wilk, and James Zou. Cellvoyager: Ai compbio agent generates new insights by autonomously analyzing biological data.Nature Methods, 2026

    2026

  4. [4]

    scbasecount: an ai agent-curated, uniformly processed, and autonomously updated single cell data repository.bioRxiv, 2025

    ND Youngblut, C Carpenter, A Nayebnazar, A Adduri, R Shah, C Ricci-Tam, J Prashar, R Ilango, N Teyssier, S Konermann, et al. scbasecount: an ai agent-curated, uniformly processed, and autonomously updated single cell data repository.bioRxiv, 2025

    2025

  5. [5]

    Data harmonization for heterogeneous datasets: a systematic literature review.Applied Sciences, 2021

    Ganesh Kumar, Shuib Basri, Abdullahi Abubakar Imam, Sunder Ali Khowaja, Luiz Fernando Capretz, and Abdullateef Oluwagbemiga Balogun. Data harmonization for heterogeneous datasets: a systematic literature review.Applied Sciences, 2021

    2021

  6. [6]

    Data integration for heterogenous datasets.Big data, 2014

    James Hendler. Data integration for heterogenous datasets.Big data, 2014

    2014

  7. [7]

    Does the use of unusual combinations of datasets contribute to greater scientific impact?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2024

    Yulin Yu and Daniel M Romero. Does the use of unusual combinations of datasets contribute to greater scientific impact?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    A repository for the publication and sharing of heterogeneous materials data

    Haiyan Gong, Jie He, Xiaotong Zhang, Lei Duan, Ziqi Tian, Wei Zhao, Fuzhou Gong, Tong Liu, Zongguo Wang, Haifeng Zhao, et al. A repository for the publication and sharing of heterogeneous materials data. Scientific Data, 2022

    2022

  9. [9]

    Hiersearch: A hierarchical enterprise deep search framework integrating local and web searches

    Jiejun Tan, Zhicheng Dou, Yan Yu, Jiehan Cheng, Lifeng Liu, Jian Xie, and Jirong Wen. Hiersearch: A hierarchical enterprise deep search framework integrating local and web searches. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2026

    2026

  10. [10]

    Towards agentic rag with deep reasoning: A survey of rag-reasoning systems in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09477, 2, 2025

    Yangning Li, Weizhi Zhang, Yuyao Yang, Wei-Chieh Huang, Yaozu Wu, Junyu Luo, Yuanchen Bei, Henry Peng Zou, Xiao Luo, Yusheng Zhao, et al. Towards agentic rag with deep reasoning: A survey of rag-reasoning systems in llms.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.09477, 2, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  11. [11]

    A survey of personalization: From rag to agent.ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 2025

    Xiaopeng Li, Pengyue Jia, Derong Xu, Yi Wen, Yingyi Zhang, Wenlin Zhang, Wanyu Wang, Yichao Wang, Zhaocheng Du, Xiangyang Li, et al. A survey of personalization: From rag to agent.ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 2025

    2025

  12. [12]

    Sqlfixagent: Towards semantic-accurate text-to-sql parsing via consistency-enhanced multi-agent collaboration

    Jipeng Cen, Jiaxin Liu, Zhixu Li, and Jingjing Wang. Sqlfixagent: Towards semantic-accurate text-to-sql parsing via consistency-enhanced multi-agent collaboration. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 2025

    2025

  13. [13]

    this is my sql, are you with me?

    Hanchen Xia, Feng Jiang, Naihao Deng, Cunxiang Wang, Guojiang Zhao, Rada Mihalcea, and Yue Zhang. R3:“this is my sql, are you with me?” a consensus-based multi-agent system for text-to-sql tasks. In Proceedings of the 4th Table Representation Learning Workshop, 2025

    2025

  14. [14]

    From web search towards agentic deep research: Incentivizing search with reasoning agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18959, 2025

    Weizhi Zhang, Yangning Li, Yuanchen Bei, Junyu Luo, Guancheng Wan, Liangwei Yang, Chenxuan Xie, Yuyao Yang, Wei-Chieh Huang, Chunyu Miao, et al. From web search towards agentic deep research: Incentivizing search with reasoning agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18959, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Deep research agents: A systematic examination and roadmap.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18096, 2025

    Yuxuan Huang, Yihang Chen, Haozheng Zhang, Kang Li, Huichi Zhou, Meng Fang, Linyi Yang, Xiaoguang Li, Lifeng Shang, Songcen Xu, et al. Deep research agents: A systematic examination and roadmap.arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.18096, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    Deepresearch-9k: A challenging benchmark dataset of deep-research agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01152, 2026

    Tongzhou Wu, Yuhao Wang, Xinyu Ma, Xiuqiang He, Shuaiqiang Wang, Dawei Yin, and Xiangyu Zhao. Deepresearch-9k: A challenging benchmark dataset of deep-research agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.01152, 2026. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  17. [17]

    Deepwidesearch: Benchmarking depth and width in agentic information seeking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20168, 2025

    Tian Lan, Bin Zhu, Qianghuai Jia, Junyang Ren, Haijun Li, Longyue Wang, Zhao Xu, Weihua Luo, and Kaifu Zhang. Deepwidesearch: Benchmarking depth and width in agentic information seeking.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.20168, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Openseeker: Democ- ratizing frontier search agents by fully open-sourcing training data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15594, 2026

    Yuwen Du, Rui Ye, Shuo Tang, Xinyu Zhu, Yijun Lu, Yuzhu Cai, and Siheng Chen. Openseeker: Democ- ratizing frontier search agents by fully open-sourcing training data.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15594, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    Websailor: Navigating super-human reasoning for web agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02592, 2025

    Kuan Li, Zhongwang Zhang, Huifeng Yin, Liwen Zhang, Litu Ou, Jialong Wu, Wenbiao Yin, Baixuan Li, Zhengwei Tao, Xinyu Wang, et al. Websailor: Navigating super-human reasoning for web agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.02592, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    Websailor-v2: Bridging the chasm to proprietary agents via synthetic data and scalable reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13305, 2025

    Kuan Li, Zhongwang Zhang, Huifeng Yin, Rui Ye, Yida Zhao, Liwen Zhang, Litu Ou, Dingchu Zhang, Xixi Wu, Jialong Wu, et al. Websailor-v2: Bridging the chasm to proprietary agents via synthetic data and scalable reinforcement learning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.13305, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  21. [21]

    Open deep search: Democratizing search with open-source reasoning agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20201, 2025

    Salaheddin Alzubi, Creston Brooks, Purva Chiniya, Edoardo Contente, Chiara von Gerlach, Lucas Irwin, Yihan Jiang, Arda Kaz, Windsor Nguyen, Sewoong Oh, et al. Open deep search: Democratizing search with open-source reasoning agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20201, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Lab-bench: Measuring capabilities of language models for biology research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10362, 2024

    Jon M Laurent, Joseph D Janizek, Michael Ruzo, Michaela M Hinks, Michael J Hammerling, Siddharth Narayanan, Manvitha Ponnapati, Andrew D White, and Samuel G Rodriques. Lab-bench: Measuring capabilities of language models for biology research.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.10362, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Biokgbench: A knowledge graph checking benchmark of ai agent for biomedical science.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00466, 2024

    Xinna Lin, Siqi Ma, Junjie Shan, Xiaojing Zhang, Shell Xu Hu, Tiannan Guo, Stan Z Li, and Kaicheng Yu. Biokgbench: A knowledge graph checking benchmark of ai agent for biomedical science.arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.00466, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    Curie: Evaluating llms on multitask scientific long context understanding and reasoning.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    Hao Cui, Zahra Shamsi, Gowoon Cheon, Xuejian Ma, Shutong Li, Maria Tikhanovskaya, Peter Norgaard, Nayantara Mudur, Martyna Plomecka, Paul Raccuglia, et al. Curie: Evaluating llms on multitask scientific long context understanding and reasoning.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2025

    2025

  25. [25]

    Scienceagentbench: Toward rigorous assessment of language agents for data-driven scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05080, 2024

    Ziru Chen, Shijie Chen, Yuting Ning, Qianheng Zhang, Boshi Wang, Botao Yu, Yifei Li, Zeyi Liao, Chen Wei, Zitong Lu, et al. Scienceagentbench: Toward rigorous assessment of language agents for data-driven scientific discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.05080, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  26. [26]

    Bixbench: a comprehensive bench- mark for llm-based agents in computational biology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00096, 2025

    Ludovico Mitchener, Jon M Laurent, Alex Andonian, Benjamin Tenmann, Siddharth Narayanan, Geemi P Wellawatte, Andrew White, Lorenzo Sani, and Samuel G Rodriques. Bixbench: a comprehensive bench- mark for llm-based agents in computational biology.arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.00096, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Bioagent bench: An ai agent evaluation suite for bioinformatics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21800, 2026

    Dionizije Fa, Marko Čuljak, Bruno Pandža, and Mateo Čupić. Bioagent bench: An ai agent evaluation suite for bioinformatics.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.21800, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  28. [28]

    Mlevolve: A self-evolving framework for automated machine learning algorithm discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.06473, 2026

    Shangheng Du, Xiangchao Yan, Jinxin Shi, Zongsheng Cao, Shiyang Feng, Zichen Liang, Boyuan Sun, Tianshuo Peng, Yifan Zhou, Xin Li, et al. Mlevolve: A self-evolving framework for automated machine learning algorithm discovery.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.06473, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Intern-atlas: A methodological evolution graph as research infrastructure for ai scientists.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.28158, 2026

    Yujun Wu, Dongxu Zhang, Xinchen Li, Jinhang Xu, Yiling Duan, Yumou Liu, Jiabao Pan, Qiyuan Zhu, Xu- anhe Zhou, Jingxuan Wei, et al. Intern-atlas: A methodological evolution graph as research infrastructure for ai scientists.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.28158, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Swe-explore: Benchmarking how coding agents explore repositories

    Shaoqiu Zhang, Yuhang Wang, Jialiang Liang, Yuling Shi, Wenhao Zeng, Maoquan Wang, Shilin He, Ningyuan Xu, Siyu Ye, Kai Cai, et al. Swe-explore: Benchmarking how coding agents explore repositories. arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.07297, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Scaling generalist data-analytic agents.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    Shuofei Qiao, Yanqiu Zhao, Zhisong Qiu, Xiaobin Wang, Jintian Zhang, Zhao Bin, Ningyu Zhang, Yong Jiang, Pengjun Xie, Fei Huang, et al. Scaling generalist data-analytic agents.International Conference on Learning Representations, 2026. 15

    2026

  32. [32]

    Agentic reinforced policy optimization

    Guanting Dong, Hangyu Mao, Kai Ma, Licheng Bao, Yifei Chen, Zhongyuan Wang, Zhongxia Chen, Jiazhen Du, Huiyang Wang, Fuzheng Zhang, Guorui Zhou, Yutao Zhu, Ji-Rong Wen, and Zhicheng Dou. Agentic reinforced policy optimization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  33. [33]

    Deepanalyze: Agentic large language models for autonomous data science.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16872, 2025

    Shaolei Zhang, Ju Fan, Meihao Fan, Guoliang Li, and Xiaoyong Du. Deepanalyze: Agentic large language models for autonomous data science.arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.16872, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Dataflow: An llm-driven framework for unified data preparation and workflow automation in the era of data-centric ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16676, 2025

    HaoLiang, XiaochenMa, ZhouLiu, ZhenHaoWong, ZhengyangZhao, ZimoMeng, RunmingHe, Chengyu Shen, Qifeng Cai, Zhaoyang Han, et al. Dataflow: An llm-driven framework for unified data preparation and workflow automation in the era of data-centric ai.arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.16676, 2025

    arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    Dataflex: A unified framework for data-centric dynamic training of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26164, 2026

    Hao Liang, Zhengyang Zhao, Meiyi Qiang, Mingrui Chen, Lu Ma, Rongyi Yu, Hengyi Feng, Shixuan Sun, Zimo Meng, Xiaochen Ma, et al. Dataflex: A unified framework for data-centric dynamic training of large language models.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.26164, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  36. [36]

    Agentflow: Unified agent data synthesis framework

    AgentFlow Team. Agentflow: Unified agent data synthesis framework. https://github.com/ OpenDCAI/AgentFlow, 2026

    2026

  37. [37]

    Scaling the horizon, not the parameters: Reaching trillion-parameter performance with a 35b agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.30616, 2026

    Lei Bai, Zongsheng Cao, Yang Chen, Zhiyao Cui, Shangheng Du, Yue Fan, Shiyang Feng, Zijie Guo, Haonan He, Liang He, et al. Scaling the horizon, not the parameters: Reaching trillion-parameter performance with a 35b agent.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.30616, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  38. [38]

    I-mcts: Enhancing agentic automl via introspective monte carlo tree search.Association for Computational Linguistics, 2026

    Zujie Liang, Feng Wei, Wujiang Xu, Yuxi Qian, Lin Chen, and Xinhui Wu. I-mcts: Enhancing agentic automl via introspective monte carlo tree search.Association for Computational Linguistics, 2026

    2026

  39. [39]

    Treerl: Llm reinforcement learning with on-policy tree search

    Zhenyu Hou, Ziniu Hu, Yujiang Li, Rui Lu, Jie Tang, and Yuxiao Dong. Treerl: Llm reinforcement learning with on-policy tree search. InAssociation for Computational Linguistics, 2026

    2026

  40. [40]

    Tooltree: Efficient llm agent tool planning via dual-feedback monte carlo tree search and bidirectional pruning

    Shuo Yang, Soyeon Caren Han, Yihao Ding, Shuhe Wang, and Eduard Hovy. Tooltree: Efficient llm agent tool planning via dual-feedback monte carlo tree search and bidirectional pruning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2026

    2026

  41. [41]

    The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584, 2024

    Tula Masterman, Sandi Besen, Mason Sawtell, and Alex Chao. The landscape of emerging ai agent architectures for reasoning, planning, and tool calling: A survey.arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.11584, 2024

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  42. [42]

    Menti: Bridging medical calculator and llm agent with nested tool calling

    Yakun Zhu, Shaohang Wei, Xu Wang, Kui Xue, Shaoting Zhang, and Xiaofan Zhang. Menti: Bridging medical calculator and llm agent with nested tool calling. InAssociation for Computational Linguistics, 2025

    2025

  43. [43]

    Re- act: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. Re- act: Synergizing reasoning and acting in language models. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2023

    2023

  44. [44]

    Jaap van den Herik, Paolo Ciancarini, and H

    H. Jaap van den Herik, Paolo Ciancarini, and H. H. L. M. (Jeroen) Donkers. Efficient selectivity and backup operators in monte-carlo tree search. InInternational Conference on Computers and Games, 2007

    2007

  45. [45]

    Executable code actions elicit better llm agents

    Xingyao Wang et al. Executable code actions elicit better llm agents. InInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2024

    2024

  46. [46]

    Gpt-5.4 thinking system card

    OpenAI. Gpt-5.4 thinking system card. https://deploymentsafety.openai.com/ gpt-5-4-thinking/gpt-5-4-thinking.pdf, 2026. Accessed July 1, 2026

    2026

  47. [47]

    Gemini 3.1 pro model card

    Google DeepMind. Gemini 3.1 pro model card. https://storage.googleapis.com/ deepmind-media/Model-Cards/Gemini-3-1-Pro-Model-Card.pdf , 2026. Accessed July 1, 2026

    2026

  48. [48]

    System card: Claude opus 4.7

    Anthropic. System card: Claude opus 4.7. https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/ 037f06850df7fbe871e206dad004c3db5fd50340/Claude%20Opus%204.7%20System%20Card. pdf, 2026. Accessed July 1, 2026. 16

    2026

  49. [49]

    Glm-5: From vibe coding to agentic engineering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15763, 2026

    Aohan Zeng, Xin Lv, Zhenyu Hou, Zhengxiao Du, Qinkai Zheng, Bin Chen, Da Yin, Chendi Ge, Chenghua Huang, Chengxing Xie, et al. Glm-5: From vibe coding to agentic engineering.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.15763, 2026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  50. [50]

    Kimi k2.6 model card.https://www.kimi.com/blog/kimi-k2-6, 2026

    Kimi Team. Kimi k2.6 model card.https://www.kimi.com/blog/kimi-k2-6, 2026. Accessed July 1, 2026

    2026

  51. [51]

    Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.19348, 2026

    Anyi Xu, Bangcai Lin, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bingzheng Xu, Bochao Wu, Bowei Zhang, Chaofan Lin, Chen Dong, Chenchen Ling, et al. Deepseek-v4: Towards highly efficient million-token context intelligence.arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.19348, 2026

    arXiv 2026

  52. [52]

    Gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b model card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10925, 2025

    Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Jason Ai, Sam Altman, Andy Applebaum, Edwin Arbus, Rahul K Arora, Yu Bai, Bowen Baker, Haiming Bao, et al. Gpt-oss-120b & gpt-oss-20b model card.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.10925, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  53. [53]

    Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    An Yang, Anfeng Li, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chang Gao, Chengen Huang, Chenxu Lv, et al. Qwen3 technical report.arXiv preprint arXiv:2505.09388, 2025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents.https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5,

    Qwen Team. Qwen3.5: Towards native multimodal agents.https://qwen.ai/blog?id=qwen3.5,

  55. [55]

    Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E

    Lianmin Zheng, Wei-Lin Chiang, Ying Sheng, Siyuan Zhuang, Zhanghao Wu, Yonghao Zhuang, Zi Lin, Zhuohan Li, Dacheng Li, Eric P. Xing, Hao Zhang, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Ion Stoica. Judging llm-as-a- judge with mt-bench and chatbot arena.arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.05685, 2023

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [56]

    Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models

    Yaowei Zheng, Richong Zhang, Junhao Zhang, Yanhan Ye, and Zheyan Luo. Llamafactory: Unified efficient fine-tuning of 100+ language models. InAssociation for computational linguistics, 2024

    2024

  57. [57]

    Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters

    Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. InInternational Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 2020

    2020

  58. [58]

    content":

    Tri Dao. FlashAttention-2: Faster attention with better parallelism and work partitioning. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations, 2024. 17 A Dataset Construction and Training Details This section documents the benchmark seed taxonomy, training-corpus composition, dataset statistics, and supervised fine-tuning configuration needed to repro...

    arXiv 2024

  59. [411]

    ‘guacamol_v1_all.smiles‘ - main SMILES file (77MB)

  60. [422]

    ‘outlier_analysis.csv‘ - outlier analysis (103MB)

  61. [433]

    {DATASET_ROOT}

    Several PNG plots for analysis 44 45Let me examine each of these systematically. 46 47===== ACTION 2: python_interpreter ===== 48 49import os 50 51root = "{DATASET_ROOT}" 52 53# Examine the SMILES file structure 54with open(os.path.join(root, "guacamol_v1_all.smiles"), "r") as f: 55lines = [] 56for i, line in enumerate(f): 57if i < 20: 58lines.append(line...

    2084

  62. [2026]

    Accessed July 1, 2026

    2026

  63. [5421]

    **Very sparse annotations** 543- only length and outlierness beyond SMILES 544

  64. [5452]

    **No explicit scientific endpoints** 546- no measured properties, no activities, no assays 547

  65. [5483]

    **No multimodal support** 549- only molecular strings 550

  66. [5514]

    **No stereochemistry in sampled lines** 552- sampled prevalence of ‘@‘ was 0 33 553- this may limit stereochemically sensitive tasks 554

  67. [5555]

    **Outlier label appears narrow** 556- ‘is_outlier‘ is likely tied to length extremes, not chemistry quality broadly 557

  68. [5586]

    {DATASET_ROOT}

    **Potential domain bias** 559- appears centered on drug-like organic chemistry, not general chemistry 560 561--- 562 563## 9) Best realistic scientific uses 564 565Most realistic future research uses: 566 567- **pretraining chemical foundation models** 568- **benchmarking molecular generative models** 569- **chemical space coverage and diversity studies**...

  69. [7281]

    Is there any label/activity data? (No, it’s just SMILES)

  70. [7292]

    What’s the molecular diversity?

  71. [7303]

    Are there any temporal or spatial aspects?

  72. [7314]

    {DATASET_ROOT}

    What downstream tasks can it support? 732 733Let me also check whether there are any duplicate SMILES, stereochemistry information, etc. 734 735===== ACTION 12: python_interpreter ===== 736 737import os, random 738from rdkit import Chem 739from rdkit.Chem import Descriptors, AllChem, Lipinski 740from collections import Counter 741 742root = "{DATASET_ROOT...

  73. [8051]

    **Dataset**: ~1.59M unique SMILES strings from the GuacaMol benchmark

  74. [8062]

    **Data modality**: Only SMILES strings - no additional labels, properties, bioactivity data, or experimental measurements

  75. [8073]

    **Pre-computed analysis**: Outlier analysis based on SMILES string length (not chemical properties), plus visualization PNGs

  76. [8084]

    **Molecular diversity**: 809- High scaffold diversity (93% singleton Murcko scaffolds) 810- Wide MW range: 69-928 Da 811- Good drug-likeness (mean QED 0.56) 812- No stereochemistry information 813- Mostly drug-like organic molecules (C, N, O, S, F, Cl, Br) 814- Ring-containing (99%), aromatic (95%)

  77. [8155]

    {DATASET_ROOT}

    **Limitations**: 816- No biological activity labels 817- No property labels (solubility, toxicity, etc.) 818- No stereochemistry 819- No temporal or spatial data 820- Only SMILES strings + length-based outlier flag 821 822Now let me write the assessment. 823 824===== ACTION 13: python_interpreter ===== 825 826import os 827 828root = "{DATASET_ROOT}" 829 8...