Recently, Agentic AI has become an increasingly popular field of research. However, we argue that current practices on agent research are far from standard, rigorous scientific research, which makes it hard to conduct apples-to-apples comparisons among and against existing methods. As a result, it is still obscure how different design choices in an agent framework impact its effectiveness, and measuring progress on agent research remains very hard. In this work, we conduct a systematic empirical study on the GAIA benchmark to investigate the impact of different popular design choices within key agent components in a fair and rigorous way. To begin with, we find that the lack of a standard evaluation protocol makes previous works, even the open-sourced ones, not reproducible, and the variance between different random runs is often non-negligible. Therefore, we first introduce a more robust evaluation protocol to make comparisons more stable. Our empirical study then unveils which components and designs, as well as correlations between these designs, are the keys for building effective agents, while others are not and redundant, despite seemingly making sense. With the insights gained from our empirical study, we build and open-source OAgents, a new foundation agent framework that achieves state-of-the-art performance among open-source projects, providing a good starting point and guidelines for building effective agents. More importantly, supports various design choices for agent components in a modularized way, facilitating future scientific research on Agentic AI.

Recent work has investigated the interesting question using pre-trained language models (PLMs) as knowledge bases for answering open questions. However, existing work is limited in using small benchmarks with high test-train overlaps. We construct a new dataset of closed-book QA using SQuAD, and investigate the performance of BART. Experiments show that it is challenging for BART to remember training facts in high precision, and also challenging to answer closed-book questions even if relevant knowledge is retained. Some promising directions are found, including decoupling the knowledge memorizing process and the QA finetune process, forcing the model to recall relevant knowledge when question answering.

SemEval task 4 aims to find a proper option from multiple candidates to resolve the task of machine reading comprehension. Most existing approaches propose to concat question and option together to form a context-aware model. However, we argue that straightforward concatenation can only provide a coarse-grained context for the MRC task, ignoring the specific positions of the option relative to the question. In this paper, we propose a novel MRC model by filling options into the question to produce a fine-grained context (defined as summary) which can better reveal the relationship between option and question. We conduct a series of experiments on the given dataset, and the results show that our approach outperforms other counterparts to a large extent.