Autonomous research agents can generate hypotheses, execute experiments, and draft manuscripts, yet their outputs often contain unsupported claims and inconsistencies between research questions, experiments, results, and conclusions. We argue that this problem is partly architectural: existing systems organize research as sequential pipelines but do not explicitly maintain or validate the evolving claim-evidence structure across stages. In this paper, we introduce EviGraph, an autonomous research framework that represents the research process as a typed evidence graph containing Problem, Gap, Hypothesis, Experiment, Finding, and Claim nodes. The graph serves as the operational state of the agent rather than a post-hoc record. EviGraph inspects evidence chains for missing dependencies, semantic misalignment, and result-claim inconsistencies, localizes the earliest weak node, and regenerates its affected downstream subgraph. Graph checkpointing prevents unsuccessful repairs from corrupting previously validated evidence. Manuscripts are generated only after every retained claim is grounded in a validated evidence chain. Experiments on ARC-Bench-ML and NanoResearch-20 show that EviGraph outperforms the compared end-to-end research-agent baselines in overall research performance, improves Claim Support Rate by 40.19% over the strongest baseline, and achieves 87.73% Experimental Data Consistency. These results demonstrate the value of explicit evidence-state maintenance for reliable autonomous research.
Zhen-Jiang Ren, Rui-Ji Li, Xu-Jing Zhang et al.· 0 citations
Language-model agents increasingly rely on skills: reusable procedural knowledge for reasoning, tool use, and interaction. Existing work studies how skills are acquired, retrieved, compressed, or composed, but often assumes that once a skill is selected, its interface to the agent is fixed. We argue that this overlooks a key source of skill utility: the same skill can help, distract, or mislead depending on how it is exposed. We propose SkillAlign, a provider-agnostic framework that represents candidate skills as multi-view procedural cards and renders them through alternative exposure interfaces, including full instructions, hints, compressed summaries, workflows, or no exposure. This enables counterfactual evaluation where the task, agent, and candidate skills are fixed while only the exposure interface varies. Across ALFWorld and SkillsBench, we show that exposure form substantially affects task success and rendered context cost, and that compact top-k exposure can outperform full-library injection. We further conduct a replay-based policy-learning analysis on ALFWorld, showing that adaptive exposure contains learnable signal but remains far from oracle selection. Our results suggest that skill-augmented agents should optimize not only which skills to use, but also how those skills are presented.