Step 10: tool results

{
  "status": "supported",
  "claim_id": "6d318e34-dfe2-4f86-a5d8-d7f71179125d",
  "assessment": "The weight of evidence supports the claim that, as of late 2026, evaluations of AI agents measure open-ended research ability poorly. The best-known benchmarks of AI research and engineering, such as MLE-bench, RE-Bench and PaperBench, score agents against objectives set in advance and checked automatically or by rubric. They leave out the parts of research that a 2026 study by Kirgis, Kapoor, Narayanan and coauthors found agents worst at: judging what result would be worth publishing, redesigning a study creatively, and backing out of dead ends. The other common approach, sending AI-written papers to blind peer review, inherits peer review's well-documented noise. In the NeurIPS consistency experiments, independent committees disagreed on a large share of accepted papers.\n\nThe case against is that the gap is partial. Long-horizon task suites, studies in which experts grade agents' work, and the newer \"shadow evaluations\" all probe research ability more directly. But these are small, costly and rarely repeated, and the fact that the field is still building them is itself evidence that standard practice falls short. Because \"poorly\" is an evaluative word, the claim holds as a broad characterisation, not a precise finding. It would be weakened by the arrival of evaluations of open-ended research that are reliable, repeatable and widely adopted.",
  "confidence": 0.7,
  "claim_credence": 0.75,
  "marginal_yield": 0.3,
  "reasoning_trace": "Prior: the claim is a description of the evaluation landscape, and it fits what is generally known. The widely cited agent R&D benchmarks (MLE-bench, Kaggle-style tasks; RE-Bench, which runs 8-hour ML engineering tasks with a scoring function; PaperBench, which replicates existing papers against a rubric) all fix the research question and the success metric in advance. Peer review as a test has known reliability problems (the NeurIPS 2014 and 2021 consistency experiments). The Sakana \"AI Scientist\" workshop acceptance was widely discussed as weak evidence for the same reason.\n\nSource: the one instance, arXiv 2607.27191 (Kirgis et al., 2026; 24 authors including people from Princeton, the UK AISI and Stanford), states the claim in its abstract. The authors have a mild interest: they use the critique to motivate their own method, shadow evaluations. Their two case studies showed agents finishing the engineering but failing at research judgment. That fits the claim, since narrow benchmarks would have credited the engineering. However, two case studies are a small sample.\n\nAgainst: long-horizon measurements (METR time horizons), expert-graded studies and replication benchmarks do capture parts of research ability. That is a reason to call the evaluations incomplete rather than worthless, and it lowers the credence somewhat. It does not overturn the overall characterisation.\n\nThis pass did not survey every 2026 benchmark, which leaves residual uncertainty. Credence: 0.75."
}