Organizations: Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Fudan University · XtalPi · Shanghai Institute of Ceramics, Chinese Academy of Sciences · Jiaxing University · Zhejiang University · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · East China University of Science and Technology
Laboratory experiments involve more than following predefined protocols; they require adaptive decision-making as the experimental state changes. Existing scientific benchmarks rarely assess such evidence-based decisions in laboratory settings. Here we present LabOPBench, a multimodal benchmark of 756 expert-authored, independently reviewed questions in organic synthesis and materials science. Each item pairs laboratory evidence with procedural context and an open-ended judgment, evaluated using a question-specific scoring rubric. Eight multimodal models obtain overall normalized scores of 28.8-45.8%, leaving substantial room for improvement. On a controlled 100-question subset, the strongest models outperform undergraduate participants on average but remain below the average performance of PhD participants. Expert analysis of responses from the three leading models identifies Evidence Misreading and Evidence-Decision Conflict as the dominant error patterns. These results reveal that current models still struggle to turn multimodal perception into reliable laboratory decision-making.
Figures & tables
Benchmark
Data source
Format
Focus
LAB-Bench Laurent et al. (2024)
Literature / protocols
MCQ
Biological research
MMMU-Pro Yue et al. (2025)
Academic exams
MCQ
Visual reasoning
MatCha Lai et al. (2025)
Published figures
MCQ
Materials characterization
MaCBench Alampara et al. (2025)
Figures / lab photos
MCQ + Numeric
Data & experiment analysis
LabSafety Bench Zhou et al. (2026)
Safety resources
MCQ + Open
Hazards & consequences
ChemReason-Bench Zhang et al. (2026)
Synthesis protocols
Mixed
Procedural reasoning
Table 1: Comparison of LabOPBench with related benchmarks by data source, format, and focus.
Figure 1: Composition of LabOPBench across laboratory task categories. a , Distribution of the 756 benchmark questions across the five major categories. b-e , Distribution of organic-synthesis questions across the subcategories of preparation, postprocessing, monitoring and characterization, respectively.
Figure 2: Workflow for constructing and validating a LabOPBench question. Experts draft and review each evidence-grounded item, while an LLM is used only for language standardization. Disagreements are adjudicated before the final question, multimodal evidence, reference options, and scoring anchors are compiled.
Model
Preparation
Monitoring
Postprocessing
Characterization
Materials Science
Overall
Intern-S1-Pro
24.2
40.0
25.6
29.6
41.7
28.8
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
41.1
41.4
33.1
37.8
47.6
36.8
Grok 4.3
35.8
49.4
33.5
37.4
53.7
37.5
MiniMax-M3
47.3
54.8
33.3
41.2
55.6
39.6
Qwen3.6-Plus
37.3
54.8
37.2
44.8
52.8
41.2
Gemini 3.1 Pro
38.0
48.1
37.5
48.0
53.5
41.9
Table 2: Normalized scores (%) of eight multimodal models across the major LabOPBench categories. Bold and underlined values denote the highest and second-highest scores in each column, respectively.
Figure 3: Fine-grained performance of eight multimodal models across 16 organic-synthesis subcategories. Cells show the mean normalized scores (%) from two independent judges, with darker colors indicating higher scores. Bold values indicate the highest score in each subcategory, including ties.
Figure 4: Differences between automated and expert scoring across major laboratory categories. Bars show differences in category-level mean normalized scores (automated minus expert) for a stratified sample of Claude Opus 4.7 responses. Positive values indicate higher automated scores, whereas negative values indicate higher expert scores.
Figure 5: Performance on the controlled 100-question organic-synthesis subset. Bars show normalized scores for eight multimodal models and mean normalized scores for undergraduate and PhD participants.
Figure 6: Image-mismatch ablation on the 100-question organic-synthesis subset. Connected points show normalized scores with matched and mismatched images. Values in parentheses indicate the score difference (matched minus mismatched) in percentage points.
Case
Expert judgment
Model response
Failure mechanism
TLC
Spotting was standard; the developed pattern indicated unsuitable developing-solvent polarity.
Judged spotting as non-standard and attributed the pattern to excessive sample loading.
Evidence Misreading. Misinterpreted spotting evidence and selected an unsupported cause.
LC-MS sampling
Collect a representative solid-liquid aliquot while stirring, then dissolve in methanol.
Proposed centrifugation or filtration, then analysis of only the clear supernatant.
Evidence-Decision Conflict. Excluded the solid fraction required for representative sampling.
Table 3: Representative failures in model answers. The cases illustrate misinterpretation of experimental evidence and an operation inconsistent with the sampling objective.
Table 4: Organic-synthesis categories and subcategories.
Anchor
Score
Definition
Score 3 anchor
3
Complete, scientifically correct, consistent with the supplied evidence, and covers the core judgment, causal explanation, and necessary operational recommendations required by the question.
Score 2 anchor
2
The core judgment is correct, but key evidence, verification steps, causal explanation, or corrective measures are omitted; no substantive error that would change the conclusion should be present.
Score 1 anchor
1
Identifies some relevant observations or proposes a directionally reasonable recommendation, but does not complete the core judgment, lacks the necessary evidence chain, or uses an approach insufficient to support the conclusion.
Score 0 anchor
0
The core judgment is incorrect, contradicts the supplied evidence, proposes clearly inappropriate or unsafe operations, or is irrelevant to the question.
Appendix
Table 5: Four-level scoring anchors for benchmark questions.
Position
Contributors
PhD researcher
4
Postdoctoral researcher
6
Laboratory specialist
8
Associate researcher or above
4
Total
22
Appendix
Table 6: Contributor composition by position.
Laboratory experience
Contributors
Proportion
3–5 years
2
9.1%
5–7 years
8
36.4%
7–10 years
4
18.2%
>10 years
8
36.4%
Total
22
100.0%
Appendix
Table 7: Contributor laboratory experience.
Scoring source
Preparation
Monitoring
Postprocess
Characterization
Material Science
GPT-5.5 judge
48.72%
63.89%
40.20%
47.62%
59.26%
Gemini 3.1 Pro judge
50.00%
63.89%
40.39%
48.21%
60.19%
Automated mean
49.36%
63.89%
40.29%
47.92%
59.72%
Expert rater 1
48.72%
61.11%
40.00%
48.21%
58.33%
Expert rater 2
47.44%
63.89%
40.20%
48.81%
59.26%
Expert mean
48.08%
62.50%
40.10%
48.51%
58.80%
Appendix
Table 8: Automated and expert scores by major category.
Model
Judge scores
Claude Opus 4.7
58.2% / 61.4%
Gemini 3.1 Pro
51.1% / 55.8%
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
46.0% / 49.1%
GPT-5.5
52.4% / 53.3%
Grok 4.3
52.0% / 55.3%
Qwen3.6-Plus
50.2% / 55.3%
Appendix
Table 9: Model performance for materials-science tasks.
Model
Experiment_ plan ( n=46 )
Experiment_ Safety ( n=21 )
Claude Opus 4.7
54.7% / 54.7%
33.3% / 40.5%
Gemini 3.1 Pro
41.7% / 43.1%
29.4% / 27.0%
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
44.9% / 47.5%
31.0% / 28.6%
GPT-5.5
50.4% / 49.6%
42.9% / 50.8%
Grok 4.3
37.3% / 39.1%
27.8% / 33.3%
Qwen3.6-Plus
40.2% / 41.7%
26.2% / 32.5%
Appendix
Table 10: Model performance for experiment-preparation subcategories.
Model
Experiment_ Monitor ( n=16 )
Experiment_ notes ( n=14 )
Claude Opus 4.7
44.8% / 47.9%
85.7% / 86.9%
Gemini 3.1 Pro
32.3% / 35.4%
64.3% / 64.3%
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
31.3% / 31.3%
52.4% / 53.6%
GPT-5.5
43.8% / 41.7%
61.9% / 65.5%
Grok 4.3
33.3% / 41.7%
61.9% / 64.3%
Qwen3.6-Plus
36.5% / 36.5%
76.2% / 75.0%
Appendix
Table 11: Model performance for experiment-monitoring subcategories.
Model
Extraction ( n=38 )
Evaporation ( n=46 )
Column ( n=75 )
Recrystallization ( n=16 )
Claude Opus 4.7
48.2% / 49.6%
48.9% / 51.4%
44.9% / 46.2%
32.3% / 33.3%
Gemini 3.1 Pro
46.5% / 44.3%
39.1% / 40.6%
39.1% / 43.1%
31.3% / 36.5%
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
43.0% / 42.1%
37.0% / 37.0%
29.6% / 32.7%
28.1% / 35.4%
GPT-5.5
43.4% / 46.5%
50.7% / 50.4%
46.9% / 46.7%
34.4% / 38.5%
Grok 4.3
46.1% / 44.7%
36.2% / 36.6%
40.4% / 41.3%
33.3% / 36.5%
Qwen3.6-Plus
46.5% / 46.9%
40.2% / 40.2%
36.7% / 42.2%
22.9% / 30.2%
Appendix
Table 12: Model performance for postprocessing subcategories.
Model
NMR ( n=42 )
LCMS ( n=48 )
Meltingpoint ( n=8 )
Crystal ( n=29 )
GCMS ( n=15 )
Claude Opus 4.7
41.3% / 41.7%
57.6% / 59.0%
8.3% / 6.3%
55.7% / 55.7%
34.4% / 33.3%
Gemini 3.1 Pro
47.2% / 48.8%
54.2% / 56.6%
18.8% / 25.0%
49.4% / 54.0%
31.1% / 31.1%
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
38.1% / 42.1%
36.8% / 37.2%
16.7% / 14.6%
40.8% / 45.4%
31.1% / 40.0%
GPT-5.5
44.4% / 48.0%
54.2% / 53.8%
16.7% / 16.7%
47.1% / 50.6%
38.9% / 42.2%
Grok 4.3
31.0% / 31.3%
45.5% / 50.0%
12.5% / 14.6%
42.0% / 40.8%
24.4% / 28.9%
Qwen3.6-Plus
42.1% / 44.0%
55.6% / 54.9%
22.9% / 20.8%
36.8% / 37.9%
42.2% / 43.3%
Appendix
Table 13: Model performance for characterization subcategories.
Table 14: Composition of the controlled 100-question subset.
Participant ID
Group
GPT-5.5 judge
Gemini 3.1 Pro judge
Mean score
Sample SD
U01
Undergraduate
26.7%
28.2%
27.4%
—
U02
Undergraduate
29.0%
31.3%
30.2%
—
U03
Undergraduate
33.8%
35.0%
34.4%
—
U04
Undergraduate
29.8%
30.8%
30.3%
—
U05
Undergraduate
32.0%
33.3%
32.7%
—
Group mean
Undergraduate, n = 5
30.3%
31.7%
31.0%
2.7%
Appendix
Table 15: Individual human participant scores.
Model
Matched scores
Matched mean
Mismatched scores
Mismatched mean
Score drop
Claude Opus 4.7
43.2% / 44.2%
43.7%
25.0% / 20.3%
22.7%
21.0 pp
Gemini 3.1 Pro
37.8% / 40.2%
39.0%
17.7% / 16.7%
17.2%
21.8 pp
Gemini 3.1 Flash-Lite
34.7% / 36.0%
35.4%
22.5% / 18.7%
20.6%
14.8 pp
GPT-5.5
41.7% / 45.2%
43.5%
21.0% / 18.0%
19.5%
24.0 pp
Grok 4.3
35.5% / 33.5%
34.5%
22.5% / 20.7%
21.6%
12.9 pp
Qwen3.6-Plus
38.2% / 39.7%
39.0%
20.5% / 18.3%
19.4%
19.6 pp
Appendix
Table 16: The cross-model score drop is the difference between the separately rounded condition means, rather than the mean of model-wise reductions.
Figure 7: Model-balanced shares of assigned error labels across Claude Opus 4.7, GPT-5.5, and Gemini 3.1 Pro on the controlled organic-synthesis subset. Percentages sum to 100%.
Error type
Definition
GPT- 5.5
Gemini 3.1 Pro
Claude Opus 4.7
Evidence Misreading
Misreading or omission of decision-relevant experimental evidence.
38
31
34
Evidence–Decision Conflict
A diagnosis or action inconsistent with the experimental evidence or rubric.
33
29
30
Chemical Signal Errors
Incorrect interpretation of chemical signals, peaks, species, or quantitative results.
6
5
9
Common Rule Misuse
Applying generic laboratory rules in place of case-specific evidence.
9
6
4
Mistaking Normal for Abnormal
Treating a normal or transient state as abnormal and recommending unnecessary intervention.
3
5
4
Experimental Method Errors
Independent errors in experimental steps, conditions, methods, or execution.
3
5
3
Appendix
Table 17: Definitions and raw counts of expert-assigned error labels across the three models.
Language models are playing an increasingly important role in laboratory science, performing tasks such as experiment planning, execution, and post-hoc analysis. However, precisely measuring their abilities is difficult, as scientific capabilities require a mixture of both problem-solving skills and domain-specific intuition. Existing evaluations rarely measure the capabilities required to make reliable decisions in a physical laboratory and often rely on public data that may have appeared in model training corpora. We introduce onepot-Bench 0, a proprietary benchmark suite for evaluating language models on synthetic chemistry capabilities relevant to wet-lab execution. onepot-Bench 0 comprises three complementary evaluations: ChemAbacus measures tool-free cheminformatics literacy and numerical reasoning; SynthRefusal characterizes safety and refusal behavior across a variety of benign, controlled, and designer-drug targets; and SynthBench evaluates reaction-outcome prediction and catalyst selection using private experimental data generated in our laboratory. Together, these evaluations probe basic competency, reliability, and deeper knowledge, all skills which are required for reliable performance in the lab.
We introduce BenchBench-Protocol, a benchmark for large language models of 149 protocol-modification tasks recovered from modifications that scientists made to published protocols during real experimental work. Adapting a published protocol to a new experiment is a routine task for a wet-lab scientist, and a correct modification requires accounting for prior choices and downstream steps. Recent life-science benchmarks have moved toward open-ended, rubric-graded tasks, but tasks are typically elicited from experts rather than reconstructed from real-world modifications. BenchBench-Protocol tasks are derived from differences between a published protocol and a version a scientist modified, which provides the basis for the query and the weighted rubric elements for a correct response. The benchmark draws from 96 source protocols across nine domains of wet-lab biology and only includes tasks rated highly after review by domain experts. We evaluate nine closed and open models; Claude Opus 5 scores highest at 59.2% normalized rubric score, with other models between 34.1% and 47.1%, and the benchmark remains unsaturated when taking the best of ten attempts. As models are increasingly helpful in life-sciences research, evaluating them on routine wet-lab tasks becomes correspondingly important. We present BenchBench-Protocol as both a grounded assessment of wet-lab reasoning and evidence for the utility of real-world experiments to construct benchmark tasks.
Aditya Sivakumar, Ashu Singhal, Nicholas Larus-Stone +1
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in scientific discovery, yet it remains unclear whether they can support complex real laboratory science. Here we introduce Science Edge Evaluation (SEE), a multimodal benchmark of expert-curated questions grounded in peer-reviewed literature and experimental practice in chemistry, biology, and materials science. Evaluation of 19 multimodal large language models (MLLMs) shows that even the best-performing model reaches only 48.7% accuracy. Moreover, general-purpose models outperform science-specialized models on average. In the visual-agent evaluation, the use of tools increases the best accuracy to 52.7%. Tool use can expand the information available to models, but more information does not necessarily lead to reliable scientific reasoning. The key challenge is whether models can manage tool-derived information within the boundaries of the original experimental evidence. Together, these findings reveal that current MLLMs still cannot reliably make justified and evidence-bounded inferences from experimental results, which is an essential capability in real scientific discovery. Bridging this gap requires MLLMs to transition from explaining established scientific concepts to deriving novel and evidence-based insights from experimental data.
Taolin Han, Yuchen Zhang, Jinghang Wang +22
1Alibaba Group · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Taolin Han1,3* +28