AI 服务暂时不可用，以下为来源正文，待恢复后补全翻译。
[Submitted on 7 Sep 2026] Title:Scientific Agents: Evaluating Profession-Specific System Prompts on Scientific Tasks View a PDF of the paper titled Scientific Agents: Evaluating Profession-Specific System Prompts on Scientific Tasks, by Timothy Kassis View PDF HTML (experimental) Abstract:Detailed profession-specific system prompts raise token use and estimated cost per response without a consistent accuracy gain. We evaluate Scientific Agents, an open-source corpus of 503 profession-specific this http URL profiles, with Gemini 3.8 Flash via OpenRouter in the Pi agent harness. We compare matched profiles with four controls: a minimal baseline ("You are a helpful assistant"), the profile's opening role sentence, a generic scientific rigor guide, and a profile from an unrelated domain. Across nine text-based science benchmarks (4,531 sampled questions, 100 matched profiles), 4,488 items completed all five conditions after API-error retries, scored with automated, rule-based grading. The average profile-baseline accuracy difference is -0.6 percentage points (95% bootstrap interval [-1.5, +0.2] across fixed tasks), and no benchmark shows a statistically clear improvement. Matched profiles produced 1.5-2.3 times as many output tokens and cost 2.2-4.5 times more per successful call. On 60 tool-using BioMysteryBench bioinformatics problems (three runs each for baseline and profile), mean solve rates were 46.7% with the profile and 56.7% at baseline, a difference of -10.0 percentage points (95% interval [-16.7, -3.3]) driven by more frequent token- and time-limit stops under the profile. Longer prompts had one unexpected operational advantage: on SuperGPQA, frequent provider API drops left the short baseline with a correct first-pass answer on only 54.0% of items, against 71.6% with the profile. Generic and mismatched prompts were about as reliable, so this gain comes from prompt length or formatting rather than domain expertise. For the tested model and tasks, loading full profession profiles by default does not improve accuracy and costs considerably more; whether selective retrieval of profile sections or open-ended scientific tasks would change this remains to be tested. Comments: 46 pages (11 pages main text, references, 33-page appendix); 10 figures, 29 tables. Evaluated corpus: this https URL (commit 48dedd2); evaluation code and item-level records are not released Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL) Cite as: arXiv:2610.00084 [cs.AI] (or arXiv:2610.00084v1 [cs.AI] for this version) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00084 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) Submission history From: Timothy Kassis [view email] [v1] Mon, 7 Sep 2026 00:21:09 UTC (777 KB) Full-text links: Access Paper: View a PDF of the paper titled Scientific Agents: Evaluating Profession-Specific System Prompts on Scientific Tasks, by Timothy Kassis View PDF HTML (experimental) TeX Source view license Current browse context: cs.AI new | recent | 2026-10 Change to browse by: cs cs.CL References & Citations NASA ADS Google Scholar Semantic Scholar Loading... Data provided by: Bibliographic Tools Bibliographic and Citation Tools Bibliographic Explorer Toggle Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?) Connected Papers Toggle Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?) Litmaps Toggle Litmaps (What is Litmaps?) scite.ai Toggle scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?) Code, Data, Media Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article alphaXiv Toggle alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?) Links to Code Toggle CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?) DagsHub Toggle DagsHub (What is DagsHub?) GotitPub Toggle Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?) Huggingface Toggle Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?) ScienceCast Toggle ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?) Demos Demos Replicate Toggle Replicate (What is Replicate?) Spaces Toggle Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?) Spaces Toggle TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?) Related Papers Recommenders and Search Tools Link to Influence Flower Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?) Core recommender toggle CORE Recommender (What is CORE?) Author Venue Institution Topic About arXivLabs arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website. Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them. Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs. Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)