MOF-VERIFY: A Failure-Aware Agentic Harness for MOF Hypothesis Verification
Organizations: Institute for Multiscale Matters and System (IMMS), Ewha Womans University, Seoul, Republic of Korea · Lymeric, Seoul, Republic of Korea
Abstract
Large language models are increasingly used as reasoning components in AI-driven materials Co-Scientists, yet the reliability of the resulting verification pipeline remains unclear. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) provide a particularly challenging setting because structures may appear under different identifiers, synthesis outcomes depend strongly on experimental conditions, evidence is distributed across heterogeneous sources, and some hypotheses require computation rather than literature alone. We introduce a diagnostic benchmark with four task families covering structural grounding, synthesis-condition verification, evidence-sufficiency verification, and MLIP-based computational verification. T-MOF-1-3 are evaluated under closed-book, retrieval-enabled, and oracle-evidence settings to localize failures in knowledge access, evidence acquisition, and reasoning, while T-MOF-4 separately evaluates computational verification. Guided by these diagnosed failure modes, we develop MOF-Verify, a failure-aware agentic harness that targets structural, literature, evidence-sufficiency, and computational bottlenecks before producing a final verdict. Across multiple backbone LLMs, MOF-Verify substantially improves hypothesis-verification performance over direct inference and retrieval-based baselines. Benchmark datasets are released at https://github.com/IMMS-Ewha/MOF-Verify-Benchmark.
Figures & tables
| Task | Items | Controls | Abstention gold | Evidence anchor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| T-MoF-1 | 276 | 130 (47%) | 6 | CSD refcode |
| T-MoF-2 | 869 | 425 (49%) | 53 | DOI + verbatim span |
| T-MoF-3 | 117 | 74 (63%) | 18 | DOI + decisive condition |
| T-MoF-4 | 8 | 0 (0%) | 5 | MLIP calc. spec. hash |
| Total | 1,270 | 629 (50%) | 82 |
| Family | Model | Dataset | Closed | RAG | Oracle | Ours | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | gpt-5.4 | T-MOF-1 | 11.09 | 55.99 | 82.86 | 44.89 | 26.87 | 78.31 |
| T-MOF-2 | 24.47 | 51.76 | 60.96 | 27.29 | 9.20 | 50.00 | ||
| T-MOF-3 | 58.09 | 43.19 | 64.52 | -14.90 | 21.33 | 54.40 | ||
| T-MOF-4 | 16.67 | – | – | – | – | 56.97 | ||
| gpt-5.6-terra | T-MOF-1 | 19.39 | 62.39 | 80.64 | 43.00 | 18.25 | 78.31 | |
| T-MOF-2 | 39.70 | 53.19 | 62.39 | 13.50 | 9.20 | 50.78 |
| Family | Model | Dataset | Metric | Closed | RAG | Oracle | Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OpenAI | gpt-5.4 | T-MOF-1 | 98.18 | 98.99 | 92.31 | 96.49 | |
| T-MOF-2 | 99.26 | 93.18 | 91.03 | 94.49 | |||
| T-MOF-3 | 60.00 | 57.69 | 57.14 | 58.28 | |||
| 88.89 | 72.22 | 88.24 | 83.12 | ||||
| gpt-5.6-terra | T-MOF-1 | 97.47 | 100.00 | 76.92 | 91.46 | ||
| T-MOF-2 | 97.64 | 91.42 | 88.78 | 92.61 |
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Family | Model | Dataset | Closed | RAG | Oracle | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Uncertain | Yes | No | Uncertain | Yes | No | Uncertain | |||
| OpenAI | gpt-5.4 | T-MOF-1 | 0.00 | 31.62 | 1.67 | 66.67 | 85.40 | 15.89 | 90.70 | 91.23 | 66.67 |
| T-MOF-2 | 34.98 | 25.10 | 13.33 | 61.85 | 74.20 | 19.23 | 73.78 | 81.84 | 27.27 | ||
| T-MOF-3 | 76.92 | 80.67 | 16.67 | 33.33 | 69.57 | 26.67 | 88.31 | 86.21 | 19.05 | ||
| gpt-5.6-terra | T-MOF-1 | 0.00 | 58.18 | 0.00 | 78.79 | 87.88 | 20.51 | 96.68 | 95.24 | 50.00 | |
| T-MOF-2 | 52.55 | 46.33 | 20.22 | 69.02 | 76.28 | 14.29 | 78.98 | 84.49 | 23.70 | ||
| Family | Model | Dataset | MOF-Verify (Ours) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | No | Uncertain | |||
| OpenAI | gpt-5.4 | T-MOF-2 | 59.65 | 69.74 | 20.62 |
| T-MOF-3 | 62.07 | 63.04 | 38.10 | ||
| gpt-5.6-terra | T-MOF-2 | 58.35 | 72.60 | 21.39 | |
| T-MOF-3 | 70.97 | 63.74 | 39.51 | ||
| gpt-5.6-sol | T-MOF-2 | 63.57 | 75.95 | 24.36 | |
| Hypothesis (T-MOF-2). “In Cryst. Growth Des. 2015 (DOI 10.1021/acs.cgd.5b00140), HKUST-1 coating B was prepared. Is the reported route: a Cu anode + benzene-1,3,5-tricarboxylic acid in ethanol/H 2 O, heated at 99 ∘ C?” | ||
|---|---|---|
| Stage | Input | Output (typed, with provenance) |
| LE | the cited DOI | document digest verified, then one temperature-zero extraction over body and SI: a schema-validated record reading 49 ∘ C , ethanol/H 2 O, with the sentence it came from |
| compare | claimed vs. extracted | temperature contradicted ( , against a tolerance); solvent agrees |
| VR | the evidence bundle | No , citing the paper and the quoted sentence |
| Diagnosed failure | MOF consequence | Component |
|---|---|---|
| Identity resolution | wrong material identity | IR |
| Structure acquisition | missing or untrusted deposited structure | SE |
| Literature acquisition | missing or misread synthesis conditions | LE |
| Evidence sufficiency | debatable or conditionally correct claim | ES |
| Verdict routing | unsupported or over-confident verdict | VR (compare) |
| Missing computational evidence | unresolved computational claim | CE |
Scientific Reasoning in Language Models
Scientific reasoning in language models studies how AI systems use evidence, domain knowledge, and tools to solve problems and support discovery.
See all 132 papers