SPM-Bench: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Scanning Probe Microscopy
Organizations: Alibaba Group Beijing, China
Abstract
As LLMs achieved breakthroughs in general reasoning, their proficiency in specialized scientific domains reveals pronounced gaps in existing benchmarks due to data contamination, insufficient complexity, and prohibitive human labor costs. Here we present SPM-Bench, an original, PhD-level multimodal benchmark specifically designed for scanning probe microscopy (SPM). We propose a fully automated data synthesis pipeline that ensures both high authority and low-cost. By employing Anchor-Gated Sieve (AGS) technology, we efficiently extract high-value image-text pairs from arXiv and journal papers published between 2023 and 2025. Through a hybrid cloud-local architecture where VLMs return only spatial coordinates "llbox" for local high-fidelity cropping, our pipeline achieves extreme token savings while maintaining high dataset purity. To accurately and objectively evaluate the performance of the LLMs, we introduce the Strict Imperfection Penalty F1 (SIP-F1) score. This metric not only establishes a rigorous capability hierarchy but also, for the first time, quantifies model "personalities" (Conservative, Aggressive, Gambler, or Wise). By correlating these results with model-reported confidence and perceived difficulty, we expose the true reasoning boundaries of current AI in complex physical scenarios. These insights establish SPM-Bench as a generalizable paradigm for automated scientific data synthesis.
Figures & tables
| Strategy | Intermediate | Metric Scores | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EM | Std F1 | SPC | SIP-F1 | |||
| Perfect | 2 | 0 | 1.00 | 1.0000 | 1.00 | 1.0000 |
| Conservative | 1 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.6667 | 0.50 | 0.4000 |
| Aggressive | 2 | 1 | 0.00 | 0.8000 | 0.00 | 0.2400 |
| Gambling | 2 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.6667 | 0.00 | 0.1500 |
| All wrong | 0 | 2 | 0.00 | 0.0000 | 0.00 | 0.0000 |
| Dimension | EM | Std F1 | SPC | SIP-F1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perfect match | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 50% omission | 0.0 | 0.67 | 0.50 | 0.40 |
| 1 wrong selection | 0.0 | 0.80+ | 0.0 | 0.25 |
| “Select-all” | 0.0 | High | 0.0 | 0.15 |
| Discrimination | Low | Medium | Medium | High |
| Anti-gaming | High | Low | Medium | High |
| Model | EM | SPC | SIP-F1 | Personality | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| claude-opus-4-7 | 0.793 | 0.912 | 0.936 | 0.024 | Wise |
| claude-sonnet-4-6 | 0.734 | 0.876 | 0.908 | 0.032 | Wise |
| qwen3.5-plus | 0.832 | 0.865 | 0.881 | 0.016 | Wise |
| claude-opus-4-6 | 0.696 | 0.831 | 0.863 | 0.032 | Wise |
| kimi-k2.5 | 0.790 | 0.840 | 0.855 | 0.015 | Wise |
| qwen3.6-plus | 0.658 | 0.819 | 0.790 | 0.030 | Aggressive |
| Benchmark | Time | Mod. | Num. | Area | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SPM-Bench | Feb-26 | MM | 2.7k | Phys. Mat. | MCQ, VQA |
| MicroVQA++ | Nov-25 | MM | 26k | Bio. | MCQ, VQA |
| AstroMMBench | Oct-25 | MM | 621 | Astro. | MCQ |
| AMO-Bench | Oct-25 | TXT | 50 | Math. | OE, Calc. |
| MatSciBench | Oct-25 | MM | 1.3k | Mat. Sci. | OE, Calc. |
| SEEPHYS | Oct-25 | MM | 2k | Phys. | OE, Reas. |
| Model | SIP-F1 | ECE | Personality | Well-Calibrated? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| qwen3.5-plus | 0.881 | 0.082 | Wise | Yes |
| gpt-5.2-1211-global | 0.814 | 0.095 | Wise | Yes |
| claude-opus-4.5 | 0.745 | 0.067 | Conservative | Yes |
| gemini-3-flash-preview | 0.710 | 0.183 | Aggressive | No |
| qwen3-vl-plus | 0.656 | 0.142 | Aggressive | Marginal |
| gemini-2.5-flash-image-preview | 0.646 | 0.201 | Gambling | No |
| Dimension | Claude Opus 4.7 | GPT-5.5 | Gemini 3.1 Pro | Qwen 3.6 Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific Accuracy | 4.20 | 3.98 | 4.86 | 4.90 |
| Question Clarity | 3.93 | 3.64 | 3.92 | 4.35 |
| Option Quality | 4.18 | 3.80 | 4.66 | 4.77 |
| Answer Correctness | 4.12 | 4.03 | 4.72 | 4.81 |
| Overall Quality | 4.05 | 3.84 | 4.18 | 4.74 |
| Average | 4.10 | 3.86 | 4.47 | 4.71 |
| Field Category | Questions | Share | Sub-fields |
|---|---|---|---|
| Condensed Matter Physics | 967 | 35.8% | 45+ |
| Surface Science | 596 | 22.0% | 30+ |
| Nanotechnology | 121 | 4.5% | 15+ |
| Electron Microscopy | 82 | 3.0% | 10+ |
| Magnetism & Spintronics | 34 | 1.3% | 8+ |
| Materials Science | 22 | 0.8% | 12+ |
Appendix figures & tables6 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.8 | ||||
| 1 | 1 | 0.200 | 0.267 | 0.333 | 0.400 | 0.467 | 0.533 | |
| 2 | 0.150 | 0.200 | 0.250 | 0.300 | 0.350 | 0.400 | ||
| 4 | 0.100 | 0.133 | 0.167 | 0.200 | 0.233 | 0.267 | ||
| 6 | 0.075 | 0.100 | 0.125 | 0.150 | 0.175 | 0.200 | ||
| 8 | 0.060 | 0.080 | 0.100 | 0.120 | 0.140 | 0.160 | ||
| 10 | 0.050 | 0.067 | 0.083 | 0.100 | 0.117 | 0.133 |
LLM Evaluation
Large language model evaluation measures what models can do, how reliably they do it, and whether benchmark scores predict real-world performance.
See all 2,408 papers