mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

ToolGate: An Executable Acceptance Pipeline for Tool-Dependent Scientific Benchmark Construction

arXiv 2609.02067 ↗First posted 2 Sep 2026cs.AI cs.MS cs.SEcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Scientific benchmarks are commonly built by domain experts who write tasks and cross-check one another's work, or who adapt existing material from textbooks, published papers, and online resources. These routes can produce strong evaluations, but they require substantial per-item labor. Language models can reduce this repeated work by proposing candidates quickly. The remaining problem is acceptance. We target scientific questions whose answers require computations with specialist software rather than unaided reasoning alone. A candidate is invalid if its script fails or returns a different answer, or trivial if a model answers it without the software. We present ToolGate, which treats every generated item as a proposal and keeps it only if three gates pass. First, an executable solution script must reproduce the proposed answer when run with the scientific software. Second, randomized no-tool screening rejects candidates that models can already solve from the prompt alone. Third, a tool-using agent must solve each survivor within a fixed time limit. We instantiate ToolGate in FEniCSx with 500 generation attempts. The local-verification gate retains 478 candidates. For final reporting, we rescreen this pool after generation: two randomized no-tool screens exclude 222 from the reported pool, and direct GPT-5.5 API calls at medium reasoning (the API default) exclude another 121. Of the remaining 135, a GPT-5.5 Codex CLI agent with access to FEniCSx solves 130; exact deduplication leaves 128 unique protocol survivors. ToolGate turns repeated answer checking and difficulty screening into an auditable process while leaving domain design and final review to experts.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 2 Sep 2026.

Builds on

13 of 16 references.

References · 13

  1. 2019HellaSwag: Can a Machine Really Finish Your Sentence?cited by 4,100
  2. 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,879
  3. 2025BrowseComp: A Simple Yet Challenging Benchmark for Browsing Agentscited by 647
  4. 2023ChemCrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry toolscited by 631
  5. 2025τ2-Bench: Evaluating Conversational Agents in a Dual-Control Environmentcited by 627
  6. 2024LiveBench: A Challenging, Contamination-Limited LLM Benchmarkcited by 262
  7. 2024ScienceAgentBench: Toward Rigorous Assessment of Language Agents for Data-Driven Scientific Discoverycited by 235
  8. 2024APIGen: Automated Pipeline for Generating Verifiable and Diverse Function-Calling Datasetscited by 198
  9. 2024SciCode: A Research Coding Benchmark Curated by Scientistscited by 178
  10. 2024CORE-Bench: Fostering the Credibility of Published Research Through a Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmarkcited by 123
  11. 2025AutoCodeBench: Large Language Models are Automatic Code Benchmark Generatorscited by 26
  12. 2026Benchmarking AI Agents for Addressing Scientific Challenges Across Scalescited by 12
1 more
  1. 2026EigenData: A Self-Evolving Multi-Agent Platform for Function-Calling Data Synthesis, Auditing, and Repaircited by 6

Built on by

Not cited yet.