SciDesignBench: Benchmarking and Improving Language Models for Scientific Inverse Design

LLMs are increasingly deployed in autonomous laboratories, under the assumption that their domain priors and reasoning over iterative feedback let them converge on good designs in fewer iterations than feedback-only baselines. Current iterative scientific design benchmarks, however, score only outcome snapshots at fixed horizons. This leaves the learning trajectory unmeasured, even though the trajectory is what captures learning efficiency, where each iteration saved is a real saving in cost and time. Motivated by this, we examine three evaluation choices that change the conclusions one draws about LLM learning efficiency in iterative scientific design: what to measure, what baseline to compare against, and what to ground against. We introduce LEAPBench, Learning Efficiency in Adaptive Processes, a 55-task framework that pairs a best-so-far area under the curve (AUC) trajectory metric with a classical Bayesian-optimization reference and an audit grounded in published literature. Applied to eight contemporary LLMs, switching from final-outcome to trajectory scoring changes the best-model decision on 53% of tasks at matched horizons, and exposes efficiency gains overlooked by outcome-based scoring. LLMs do not outperform a classical Bayesian baseline. On 16 biology tasks where the oracle's reward signal is aligned with configurations from the published-best design, domain-aware prompting leads to LLM choices that match the published-best's approximately 10 percentage points less often than domain-agnostic prompting at iteration 30. The pattern is sharpest on 6 tasks where the literature-typical and published-best configurations diverge, and domain-agnostic prompting matches the published-best more often on all 6. The trajectory metric also doubles as a tractable training target. Offline reinforcement learning with the metric as a reward improves performance on 14 of 21 held-out tasks.

Real-world molecular design remains challenging for large language model (LLM)-based agents. It requires them to interpret design contexts, satisfy multiple constraints, identify infeasible specifications, and reason over multi-step tool outputs. Existing benchmarks do not capture this complexity, focusing instead on explicit and narrow constraints, only feasible problems, and single-path solutions. To address this gap, we propose MolDesignBench, a scenario-grounded benchmark that more closely reflects real-world molecular design for evaluating tool-augmented LLM agents. MolDesignBench comprises 2K generation and optimization instances that combine implicit requirements embedded in design narratives with explicit property and functional-group constraints, including infeasible cases, and require the effective use of 17 specialized chemistry tools. Experiments across diverse frontier LLMs reveal low success rates--with the best achieving only $\sim43$%--and frequent failures in implicit-constraint reasoning, infeasibility detection, and tool reasoning. The corresponding fine-grained failure-mode analysis identifies implicit constraint interpretation and infeasibility detection as the primary bottlenecks, establishing MolDesignBench as a rigorous testbed to guide future research on chemical agents. The benchmark, tool interface, and evaluation code are publicly available.

Large language models are emerging as scientific assistants, but evaluating their ability to reason from empirical data remains challenging. Benchmarks derived from published studies and human annotations inherit publication bias, known-knowledge bias, label noise, and substantial storage requirements. We present InfiniteScienceGym, a procedurally generated benchmark of scientific repositories paired with a verifiable question-answering task. From a seed, the simulator deterministically generates a self-contained repository with realistic directory structure, files, and tabular data, and a privileged QA generator produces both answerable and unanswerable questions with exact ground truth. This makes it possible to evaluate evidence-grounded reasoning, abstention, and tool-mediated analysis in a controlled setting without distributing a large static corpus. InfiniteScienceGym complements real scientific benchmarks by targeting blind spots and failure modes that are hard to evaluate using published datasets alone. Evaluating both proprietary and open-weight models, we find that none achieve more than 50% accuracy overall, that recognizing unanswerable questions remains a major weakness, and that stronger models tend to use tools more effectively rather than simply consuming more tokens.