OmniMatBench: A Human-Calibrated Multimodal Reasoning Benchmark Across 19 Materials Science Subfields
Authors: Wanhao Liu, Jiaqing Xie, Qian Tan, Weida Wang, Jue Wang, Ran Sun, Zhuo Yang, Wanli Ouyang, +5 more
Organizations: University of Science and Technology of China · Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Fudan University · Southeast University · Nanjing University · Suzhou Laboratory · Shanghai Jiao Tong University
As multimodal language models play an increasingly important role in scientific research, materials science offers a critical testbed due to its interdisciplinary, multimodal, and application-driven nature. However, existing materials benchmarks mainly focus on property prediction, knowledge QA, or characterization understanding, leaving the broader reasoning process from materials knowledge to application underexplored. To fill this gap, we present OmniMatBench, a human-calibrated multimodal reasoning benchmark for materials science. OmniMatBench contains 3,171 expert-curated QA and calculation problems across 19 materials-science subfields, spanning fundamental materials knowledge, structural and engineering materials, materials processing and manufacturing, and functional and applied materials. We evaluate 13 open-source and closed-source MLLMs and find that the best model achieves only a 0.372 overall score, revealing a substantial gap in current materials-science reasoning. Further analysis shows strong variation across subfields, fixed reasoning heuristics, uneven materials knowledge, and limited high-level knowledge application under formula-, retrieval-, and code-assisted settings. OmniMatBench provides crucial insights into the capabilities and limitations of current MLLMs and establishes a foundation for reliable AI assistants in materials-science research.
Scientific reasoning is a key aspect of human intelligence, requiring the integration of multimodal inputs, domain expertise, and multi-step inference across various subjects. Existing benchmarks for multimodal large language models (MLLMs) often fail to capture the complexity and traceability of reasoning processes necessary for rigorous evaluation. To fill this gap, we introduce SciVQR, a multimodal benchmark covering 54 subfields in mathematics, physics, chemistry, geography, astronomy, and biology. SciVQR includes domain-specific visuals, such as equations, charts, and diagrams, and challenges models to combine visual comprehension with reasoning. The tasks range from basic factual recall to complex, multi-step inferences, with 46% including expert-authored solutions. SciVQR not only evaluates final answers but also examines the reasoning process, providing insights into how models reach their conclusions. Our evaluation of leading MLLMs, including both proprietary and open-source models, reveals significant limitations in handling complex multimodal reasoning tasks, underscoring the need for improved multi-step reasoning and better integration of interdisciplinary knowledge in advancing MLLMs toward true scientific intelligence. The dataset and evaluation code are publicly available at https://github.com/CASIA-IVA-Lab/SciVQR.
We present SFBench, a benchmark dataset for evaluating systems that assess the feasibility of scientific claims. SFBench includes 197 claims in materials science, each annotated with a ground-truth feasibility score on a five-point scale along with an explanation of that assessment. The collection differs from previous collections in several important ways: 1) it defines a complex task that requires reasoning over claims of varying scientific feasibility; 2) its claims are not extracted from existing scientific publications but are created de novo, greatly reducing the chances that LLMs have trained on them; 3) claims and ground truth are established by subject matter experts, not by artificial intelligence; and 4) unlike many benchmarks that ask about question/answer pairs, provide multiple choice answers, or ask questions requiring short, fixed answers, SFBench explanations are completely open-ended. We describe the benchmark design, data creation process, and evaluation metrics, and we report baseline results using recent GPT models.
Material property prediction (MPP) infers key properties from chemical composition and structure, accelerating the discovery and optimization of novel materials. In the realm of MPP, MatBench is a widely accepted benchmarking tool that defines over ten significant problems and provides the paradigm of performance evaluation for AI prediction models. Even though MatBench works well in benchmarking the performances of prediction models on in-distribution (ID) tasks and datasets, it lacks the ability to reflect their performances on out-of-distribution (OOD) material data, resulting failure in new material discovery. By combining the pipelines of MatBench and the existing researches on OOD performance evaluation, this study enables a huge space of benchmarking configurations, comprehensively reflecting the performances, abilities, and disadvantages of various AI prediction models. This work reports that the discrepancy of performances at different configuration values is huge and can be illustrated with prior knowledge and novel insights, therefore consideration of causal effect of configurations on performance results is necessary. In case of the impossibility of enumerative benchmarking at every configuration, this work further proposes AutoMatBench, an automatic toolkit with Bayesian optimization. Experiments with AutoMatBench reports that, within twelve steps of optimization, the similar results with MatBench and former OOD research can be accessed while more than half of the cost are saved. Besides, this tool also yields more essential findings on MPP benchmarking, positively contributing to the cost and efficiency of new material discovery.