SciCode-Verified: How Benchmark Defects Underestimated the Scientific-Coding Ability of Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) excel at general-purpose code generation, yet how well they handle scientific code remains an open question. Existing datasets and benchmarks are limited in scale, domain coverage, or executable verification, leaving the true gap between current LLMs and reliable scientific code generators inadequately assessed. To address these limitations, we present SciCodePile, the largest scientific code corpus to date, constructed from 37,737 public repositories and collectively comprising 128GB of code that spans multiple computational science disciplines. From this corpus, we further curate an executable benchmark of 200 tasks, each equipped with a sandboxed execution environment and an automated test harness for functional verification. We evaluate 15 LLMs from both open-source and closed-source families on three tasks: prefix-to-suffix completion, fill-in-the-middle infilling, and executable code generation. Results show that scientific code generation remains highly challenging: The best CodeBLEU reaches only 38.13 and 38.37 on the two completion tasks, while the strongest model achieves just 12.30% Pass@1 on the executable benchmark, underscoring how far current models remain from reliable scientific code generation. To demonstrate the training utility of SciCodePile, we further show that continued pretraining on our corpus improves CodeBLEU by $\times$2.84 on scientific code completion, and instruction tuning on our data improves Pass@1 by $\times$4.79 on the executable benchmark. All code and data are available at https://huggingface.co/SciCodePile.

Low reported scores on leading physics benchmarks, including those featured in the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026), suggest that frontier language models still struggle with advanced physics, a demanding test of their scientific reasoning and quantitative problem-solving abilities. Yet this impression does not always align with domain experts' experiences using these models in their work. We revisit these reported findings by evaluating frontier models on six widely used physics benchmarks and auditing them with experts, focusing on text-only problems with verifiable final answers. For each subfield of physics, faculty and graduate researchers with relevant expertise carefully review problem statements, reference solutions, and model responses to distinguish genuine model errors from grader errors, incorrect reference solutions, and ambiguous or underspecified questions. Most audited cases initially evaluated as incorrect reflect these benchmarking issues rather than errors in the models' physics reasoning. We then ask experts to address these benchmarking issues by correcting erroneous reference solutions and repairing or excluding flawed questions. We find that GPT-5.6-Sol's measured mean@4 rises from 47.3% to 78.7% on HLE-Physics and from 61.0% to 87.2% on CMT-Benchmark, while its corrected pass@4 reaches 94.4% on the 54 retained CritPt challenges. Corrected scores are computed on the retained evaluation subsets following expert review. Scores on the audited subsets of UGPhysics, PRISM-Physics, and PHYBench also rise substantially after correction. These findings suggest that current benchmarks substantially understate frontier models' ability to solve well-posed physics problems. Near-saturation on these closed-ended tasks highlights the need for more demanding, expert-validated evaluations.

Benchmark saturation and data contamination increasingly obscure genuine scientific reasoning in frontier LLMs. We introduce \textsc{ScienceArena}, an olympiad-style benchmark from thirteen public science competitions in physics, chemistry, and biology, including IPhO and IChO 2025--2026, IBO 2023, USAPhO 2026, and USNCO 2025. Its open-ended, multi-step problems use process-credit rubrics, making faithful scoring difficult. We build ScienceArena through an expert-audited digitization pipeline that converts official exams, figures, solutions, and rubrics into structured items verified by olympiad medalists. To scale evaluation beyond costly human grading, we calibrate LLM-as-judge against medalist ground truth on archived answers from five models across IPhO and IChO; two strong judges stay within one point of expert total scores. Medalist notes show that failures often stem from visual grounding, structure fidelity, and global problem control rather than missing terminology. Evaluating fourteen recent LLMs with interleaved solving, we find that top models obtain medal-equivalent rubric scores on several public international exams, while chemistry and long-horizon consistency remain key bottlenecks. We provide an interactive \href{https://science-arena.onrender.com/}{demo}.