Science Done on a Machine by a Machine: AI Agents in Computational Chemistry

Evaluating AI agents on scientific research tasks is constrained by the time and resources required for the underlying experiments or calculations. In computational materials research, repeating the same expensive simulations across agents and trials can make evaluation impractical. We introduce CompMat-Bench, a benchmark of 94 tasks derived from recently published computational materials studies, each asking agents to complete a step toward achieving the study's scientific goal. We reproduce the research steps in advance and assess agents on preparing inputs and analyzing outputs for expensive simulations, so expensive simulations can be avoided during evaluation. The reproduced inputs and results serve as ground truth for grading agents with fixed rules, without an LLM judge. The benchmark supports four evaluation conditions: single tasks and workflows composed of related tasks, each with full or reduced methodological guidance. With full guidance on single tasks, agents based on three LLMs demonstrate the ability to complete individual materials research steps, with pass rates of 66.0-90.4% across 94 tasks. Both longer workflows and reduced guidance can limit agent performance, but in different ways for different agents: they lower the pass rates of the weaker agents, whereas the strongest agent falls only when a long workflow is combined with reduced guidance. Failure analysis attributes most failures to scientific errors rather than to errors in software usage. CompMat-Bench provides a basis for comparing agents on the steps of real materials research and for analyzing agent failure modes.

Quantum chemistry is a foundational enabling tool for the fields of chemistry, materials science, computational biology and others. Despite of its power, the practical application of quantum chemistry simulations remains in the hands of qualified experts due to methodological complexity, software heterogeneity, and the need for informed interpretation of results. To bridge the accessibility gap for these tools and expand their reach to chemists with broader backgrounds, we introduce El Agente Quntur, a hierarchical, multi-agent AI system designed to operate not merely as an automation tool but as a research collaborator for computational quantum chemistry. Quntur was designed following three main strategies: i) elimination of hard-coded procedural policies in favour of reasoning-driven decisions, ii) construction of general and composable actions that facilitate generalization and efficiency, and iii) implementation of guided deep research to integrate abstract quantum-chemical reasoning across subdisciplines and a detailed understanding of the software's internal logic and syntax. Although instantiated in ORCA, these design principles are applicable to research agents more generally and easily expandable to additional quantum chemistry packages and beyond. Quntur supports the full range of calculations available in ORCA 6.0 and reasons over software documentation and scientific literature to plan, execute, adapt, and analyze in silico chemistry experiments following best practices. We discuss the advances and current bottlenecks in agentic systems operating at the research level in computational chemistry, and outline a roadmap toward a fully autonomous end-to-end computational chemistry research agent.

Large language models are increasingly deployed as autonomous coding agents and have achieved remarkably strong performance on software engineering benchmarks. However, it is unclear whether such success transfers to computational scientific workflows, where tasks require not only strong coding ability, but also the ability to navigate complex, domain-specific procedures and to interpret results in the context of scientific claims. To address this question, we present AutoMat, a benchmark for evaluating LLM-based agents' ability to reproduce claims from computational materials science. AutoMat poses three interrelated challenges: recovering underspecified computational procedures, navigating specialized toolchains, and determining whether the resulting evidence supports a claim. By working closely with subject matter experts, we curate a set of claims from real materials science papers to test whether coding agents can recover and execute the end-to-end workflow needed to support (or undermine) such claims. We then evaluate multiple representative coding agent settings across several foundation models. Our results show that current LLM-based agents obtain low overall success rates on AutoMat, with the best-performing setting achieving a success rate of only 53%. Error analysis further reveals that agents perform worst when workflows must be reconstructed from paper text alone and that they fail primarily due to incomplete procedures, methodological deviations, and execution fragility. Taken together, these findings position AutoMat as both a benchmark for computational scientific reproducibility and a tool for diagnosing the current limitations of agentic systems in AI-for-science settings.