Originally published on AI Tech Connect.
What you need to know The headline number is 38.78%. PaperArena, an arXiv benchmark for tool-augmented agentic reasoning over scientific literature, reports that even a leading LLM driving a well-established agentic workflow reaches only 38.78% average accuracy. It is not an outlier. WebResearcher reports 36.7% on Humanity's Last Exam for its strongest configuration — a state-of-the-art result that still leaves most questions unanswered. These are hard-tail benchmarks by design. GSM-Agent builds controllable reasoning environments; OmniEAR probes embodied tasks the authors argue current models do not handle well. The number is not the story. The scaffold, the task distribution, and whether a score is single-run or pass@k matter more than the percentage itself. If you have watched an agent…
Top comments (0)