Auto86%Harbor: pendingAgentic / Tool UseKnowledge & Reasoning

SciΠvot

SciΠvot: Benchmarking Principal-Investigator Judgment at Pivotal Moments of Scientific AutoResearch Agents

A 248-case benchmark evaluating scientific judgment by asking models to choose between original LLM plans and human-corrected alternatives using project records.

How to run

ltb · scipivot
$ npm i -g lettokenburn-cli
$ ltb bench info scipivot

External harness. No Harbor adapter has been generated for this benchmark yet. `ltb bench info` prints the known links.

Runs happen on your machine with your own subscription; only the score summary is pushed. CLI docs

Scores

5 sourced entries
HarnessSourceConfidenceLink
Astra59.5N/AIndependentmediumOct 15, 2026arxiv.org
Claude Opus38.9N/AIndependentmediumOct 15, 2026arxiv.org
Sol35.1N/AIndependentmediumOct 15, 2026arxiv.org
Grok33.1N/AIndependentmediumOct 15, 2026arxiv.org
Terra29.2N/AIndependentmediumOct 15, 2026arxiv.org

Every number links to where it was published. Low-confidence rows are muted and need per-cell verification.

Reproduced by the community

All runs
Loading community runs…

About

SciΠvot comprises 248 cases from 26 PhD-level projects across six fields, pairing original agent plans with human-corrected alternatives based on intervention records. Models select the better plan using pre-intervention context.

Scoring measures accuracy against human corrections. Frontier models perform below chance (max 63.5%) compared to fresh researchers (73.4%), often preferring flawed original plans.