SciExam for ENSO: Can AI Agents Build Climate Models?

AI agents are increasingly being developed to accelerate scientific discovery, yet their practical capabilities in real research settings remain poorly understood. Existing benchmarks for AI agents rarely capture the complexity, heterogeneity, and extended reasoning required by scientific work, whereas benchmarks for scientific tasks often reduce research to static, direct problems and provide limited support for interactive evaluation. Here, we introduce SciAgentArena, a systematic benchmark for evaluating AI agents in real-world scientific research scenarios drawn from emerging needs across multiple domains. SciAgentArena comprises approximately 200 tasks with stepwise verification and an interactive, agent-agnostic environment for assessing diverse AI agents. Using this benchmark, we find that current agents can contribute effectively to well-specified data-analysis workflows, particularly when the task structure and evaluation criteria are clear. However, their performance remains uneven across scientific contexts: agents struggle to generate genuinely novel insights, sustain self-directed exploration, and formulate robust solutions for open-ended research questions. We further characterize common failure modes across agents and identify opportunities for improving their reliability, autonomy, and scientific reasoning. Together, SciAgentArena provides a practical framework for measuring progress in AI agents for science and for guiding the design of future agents capable of addressing complex scientific challenges. Full codes, tasks, and datasets can be accessed via this link: https://sciagentarena.github.io/.

Scientific progress depends not only on finding solutions, but on learning the rules that explain why they work and using that understanding to design better experiments. We introduce science sandboxes, a framework for studying this capability in AI agents through repeated cycles of experimentation, feedback, and hypothesis revision. Science sandboxes invite an agent to query the natural world in different ways, ranging from "wet" physical experiments, to "damp" predictive models trained on empirical data, to "dry" invented rules. By establishing a common experimental loop and a protocol for evaluating agents within it, science sandboxes allow assessment of both quantitative performance on specific metrics and qualitative scientific reasoning, across a spectrum of empirical verifiability. Here, we instantiate this framework in two biological settings, models of regulatory genomics and protein fitness prediction, and examine the capabilities of frontier agents. Across these settings, we could see when agents successfully optimized a quantitative metric without understanding the rules underlying the system. In particular, their scientific reasoning deteriorated when they encountered systems whose rules fell outside familiar biological priors. By highlighting such failure modes, science sandboxes make the frontier of scientific capability measurable and provide a controlled setting in which to study and ultimately expand it.

Scientific ideation is the capacity to formulate novel and testable hypotheses from scientific evidence, and autonomous AI scientists depend on it. Existing evaluations largely assess it by asking models to generate ideas from a static, curated set of reference papers. That passive setup departs from the retrieval-and-reasoning workflow of modern AI scientists, and it becomes less discriminative as models improve. We introduce AgentIdeaBench, a multidisciplinary benchmark that evaluates scientific ideation under two matched settings, static observation and active exploration. We report matched Static-Active evaluations for 33 LLMs across 40 densely scored subfields spanning five disciplines, using a multidimensional, literature-verified scoring framework whose critics assess originality against retrieved prior art. Active exploration reveals considerably more capability headroom, and that headroom is unevenly distributed across models. Performance scales about twice as fast as under static observation, and the exploration gain is capability-gated, favoring the strongest models over the weakest. The gain reflects better grounding, improving feasibility, clarity, and specificity while leaving measured originality unchanged under our critics. We further explore Scientific World Modeling, a generation-time loop that refines a draft hypothesis through structured thought experiments. It benefits mid-capability models, and its impact diminishes among frontier models that appear to have internalized such reasoning patterns already. AgentIdeaBench gives future work on scientific ideation a measurement basis suited to the agent era.