# SCIRIGOR:Evaluating Open-Ended Scientific Analysis Beyond Final Scores

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.06192 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2609.06192/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use.
- Builds on 6 of its 11 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 5 Sep 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM agents and tool use / [Web, search, and research agents](https://mlsanity.com/agents/web-search-and-research-agents/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 6 of 6)

- [ScienceAgentBench: Toward Rigorous Assessment of Language Agents for Data-Driven Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.05080/) (2024)
- [BLADE: Benchmarking Language Model Agents for Data-Driven Science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.09667/) (2024)
- [DataSciBench: An LLM Agent Benchmark for Data Science](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.13897/) (2025)
- [FIRE-Bench: Evaluating AI Agents on the Rediscovery of Scientific Insights](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2602.02905/) (2026)
- [SciVisAgentBench: A Benchmark for Evaluating Scientific Data Analysis and Visualization Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2603.29139/) (2026)
- [FactReview: Evidence-Grounded Peer Review with Execution-Based Claim Verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2604.04074/) (2026)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Scientific coding agents produce interdependent code, results, figures, and claims, yet evaluating final outputs alone does not establish whether their conclusions are scientifically supported. We formulate evidence-grounded multimodal scientific analysis, requiring agents to produce executable analyses and claims supported by results and visualizations from the same run. We introduce SciRIGOR, an evaluation framework and benchmark comprising 100 cases from scientific articles across six domains and 17 subfields. The framework reconstructs typed evidence graphs, separates artifact fidelity from relational validity, and scores complete claim-support paths while localizing the earliest unsupported relation. Source-grounded alternative paths accommodate scientifically equivalent analyses and visualizations. We evaluate 11 agent/model configurations. On full-benchmark runs, claims agree with faithful and unfaithful results at nearly identical rates (91.8% versus 91.0%). Yet no system exceeds 62.6% on the soft evidence-chain score or 18.0% strict whole-chain success. These findings show that internal coherence does not establish scientific correctness: evaluation must verify support along the complete data-to-claim path.