CompMat-Bench: Benchmarking AI Agents for Computational Materials Science

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.

Multimodal GUI agents have achieved impressive results on general software benchmarks, yet their ability to operate professional scientific software remains largely unexplored. In materials science, sparse domain-specific web data, specialized interfaces, and tacit workflow conventions create blind spots that general-purpose pretraining cannot readily bridge. We present MatToolBench, the first real-environment benchmark for evaluating multimodal GUI agents on professional materials science software, comprising 204 tasks across 10 tools in three modalities: GUI operation, OriginPro scripting, and code-based database queries, all executed inside a Windows 11 VM. Each task is decomposed into fine-grained sub-criteria by domain experts, enabling interpretable partial-credit scoring; the GUI component of our multi-level evaluation pipeline achieves an average F1 of 0.98. For OriginPro figure-generation tasks, we further conduct a human-LLM agreement study to validate the use of a multimodal judge for secondary aesthetic assessment. Our experiments show that strong performance on general benchmarks does not transfer to professional scientific workflows, and that this gap is not a visual-grounding problem alone: failures arise from domain-specific operational knowledge, sparse pretraining coverage of scientific software, weak cross-tool artifact handoff, and critical states exposed only visually. Even the best model reaches only 25% success rate on GUI tasks and 45% on code tasks. MatToolBench therefore serves as a challenging diagnostic benchmark and real-environment testbed for data-scarce, knowledge-intensive scientific workflows.

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.