AI agents powered by large language models exhibit strong reasoning and problem-solving capabilities, enabling them to assist scientific research tasks such as formula derivation and code generation. However, whether these agents can reliably perform end-to-end reproduction from real scientific papers remains an open question. We introduce PRBench, a benchmark of 30 expert-curated tasks spanning 11 subfields of physics. Each task requires an agent to comprehend the methodology of a published paper, implement the corresponding algorithms from scratch, and produce quantitative results matching the original publication. Agents are provided only with the task instruction and paper content, and operate in a sandboxed execution environment. All tasks are contributed by domain experts from over 20 research groups at the School of Physics, Peking University, each grounded in a real published paper and validated through end-to-end reproduction with verified ground-truth results and detailed scoring rubrics. Using an agentified assessment pipeline, we evaluate a set of coding agents on PRBench and analyze their capabilities across key dimensions of scientific reasoning and execution. The best-performing agent, OpenAI Codex powered by GPT-5.3-Codex, achieves a mean overall score of 34%. All agents exhibit a zero end-to-end callback success rate, with particularly poor performance in data accuracy and code correctness. We further identify systematic failure modes, including errors in formula implementation, inability to debug numerical simulations, and fabrication of output data. Overall, PRBench provides a rigorous benchmark for evaluating progress toward autonomous scientific research.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of paper reproduction. As stated, reproducing computational results from a published paper is a comprehensive and demanding task.
Subfield
Count
Subfield
Count
Quantum Optics
4
Strong-Field Physics
2
Lattice Gauge Theory / QCD
3
Condensed Matter / Many-Body
2
Nuclear Physics
3
High-Energy Phenomenology
2
Plasma Physics
3
General Relativity / Astrophysics
2
Quantum Computing / Ion Traps
3
Atomic / Molecular Physics
2
Mathematical Physics
1
Computational Electrodynamics
2
Table 1: Distribution of PRBench tasks across physics subfields. The benchmark contains 30 tasks spanning 11 subfields of physics.
Figure 2: Overview of the PRBench task curation pipeline. The process consists of four stages: paper selection, expert reference reproduction, task specification, and independent verification, ensuring that each task is executable, scientifically grounded, and suitable for rigorous evaluation.
Figure 3: Overview of the PRBench evaluation pipeline. A green agent orchestrates the process and performs grading, while a white agent executes the task inside a sandboxed Docker environment.
Agent
Methodology
Code
Data Acc.
Instruction
Overall
OpenAI Codex
GPT-5.3-Codex
78.00
43.00
21.00
92.00
34.00
OpenCode-based Agents
GPT-5.3-Codex
72.00
36.00
16.00
90.00
28.50
Kimi K2.5 (1T)
61.90
22.00
11.40
80.60
20.57
DeepSeek V3.2 (671B)
63.20
19.30
8.90
84.20
18.50
Table 2: Aggregate performance of different agents on PRBench. Scores are averaged over tasks with available results and reported as percentages (%). The overall score is computed as 0.05× Methodology +0.30× Code +0.60× Data +0.05× Instruction.
AI agents have the potential to aid users on a variety of consequential tasks, including conducting scientific research. To spur the development of useful agents, we need benchmarks that are challenging, but more crucially, directly correspond to real-world tasks of interest. This paper introduces such a benchmark, designed to measure the accuracy of AI agents in tackling a crucial yet surprisingly challenging aspect of scientific research: computational reproducibility. This task, fundamental to the scientific process, involves reproducing the results of a study using the provided code and data. We introduce CORE-Bench (Computational Reproducibility Agent Benchmark), a benchmark consisting of 270 tasks based on 90 scientific papers across three disciplines (computer science, social science, and medicine). Tasks in CORE-Bench consist of three difficulty levels and include both language-only and vision-language tasks. We provide an evaluation system to measure the accuracy of agents in a fast and parallelizable way, saving days of evaluation time for each run compared to a sequential implementation. We evaluated two baseline agents: the general-purpose AutoGPT and a task-specific agent called CORE-Agent. We tested both variants using two underlying language models: GPT-4o and GPT-4o-mini. The best agent achieved an accuracy of 21% on the hardest task, showing the vast scope for improvement in automating routine scientific tasks. Having agents that can reproduce existing work is a necessary step towards building agents that can conduct novel research and could verify and improve the performance of other research agents. We hope that CORE-Bench can improve the state of reproducibility and spur the development of future research agents.
AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify. We present ResearchClawBench, a benchmark for evaluating autonomous scientific research across 40 tasks from 10 scientific domains. Each task is grounded in a real published paper, provides related literature and raw data, and hides the target paper during evaluation. Expert-curated multimodal rubrics decompose the target scientific artifacts into weighted criteria, enabling evaluation of target-paper-level re-discovery while leaving room for new discovery. We evaluate seven autonomous research (auto-research) agents under a unified protocol and seventeen native LLMs through the lightweight ResearchHarness. Current systems remain far from reliable re-discovery: the strongest autonomous agent, Claude Code, averages 21.5, and the strongest ResearchHarness LLM, Claude-Opus-4.7, averages 20.7, with an LLM frontier mean of only 26.5. Error analysis shows that failures concentrate in experimental protocol mismatch, evidence mismatch, and missing scientific core. ResearchClawBench provides a reproducible evaluation frontier for measuring progress toward autonomous scientific research.
The paradigm of agentic science requires AI systems to conduct robust reasoning and engage in long-horizon, autonomous exploration. However, current scientific benchmarks remain confined to domain knowledge comprehension and complex reasoning, failing to evaluate the exploratory nature and procedural complexity of real-world research. In this work, we present research-oriented evaluations in theoretical and computational physics, a natural testbed with comprehensive domain knowledge, complex reasoning, and verifiable end-to-end workflows without reliance on experiments. Here we introduce PRL-Bench (Physics Research by LLMs), a benchmark designed to systematically map the capability boundaries of LLMs in executing end-to-end physics research. Constructed from 100 curated papers from the latest issues of Physical Review Letters since August 2025 and validated by domain experts, PRL-Bench covers five major theory- and computation-intensive subfields of modern physics: astrophysics, condensed matter physics, high-energy physics, quantum information, and statistical physics. Each task in the benchmark is designed to replicate the core properties of authentic scientific research, including exploration-oriented formulation, long-horizon workflows, and objective verifiability, thereby reconstructing the essential reasoning processes and research workflows of real physics research. Evaluation across frontier models shows that performance remains limited, with the best overall score below 50, revealing a pronounced gap between current LLM capabilities and the demands of real scientific research. PRL-Bench serves a reliable testbed for accessing next generation AI scientists advancing AI systems toward autonomous scientific discovery.
Tingjia Miao, Wenkai Jin, Muhua Zhang +19
School of Artificial Intelligence, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Zhiyuan College, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · School of Physics and Astronomy, Shanghai Jiao Tong University +7