Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Latest papers

36 papers13 papers in the last four weeks, up 117% on the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Oct 27, 2026

Identity or Evidence? Auditing Evidence Dependence in Agentic Life-Science Benchmarks

Agentic life-science benchmarks give an agent evidence about a named entity and score an answer against a recorded outcome. That score tests reasoning over evidence only if the evidence, rather than the name, determines the answer. We examine this distinction by varying identity and evidence independently on a clinical-outcome benchmark and published tasks from Biomni and LAB-Bench. Blinding identity matters little when a prompt contains a decisive sequence or passage. It matters a great deal when the prompt is mostly a name and candidate list (0.742 named versus 0.082 blinded; chance 0.093). Across 96 LAB-Bench LitQA2 questions, the gap increases under one fixed passage-redaction scheme (+0.000 to +0.135; per-instance slope +0.147, p= 0.004). On the clinical benchmark, a no-evidence recall probe matches prediction accuracy and recovers a database-specific programme count. So, we argue that benchmarks intended to measure evidence-dependent reasoning should report identity-blinded results, retrieval telemetry, and positive controls.

Danai Brilli, Maria Georgila

Zo Labs

Scientific Agent Benchmarks Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Benchmark Validity AI Agent Auditing

Oct 26, 2026

The Right Fact, the Wrong Decision: SciValidityBench for Scientific Agent Memory

Most agent-memory benchmarks frame long-term memory as retrieval: can an agent recover the relevant record from a long and evolving history? Scientific agents face a stricter problem: a correctly remembered fact may still be invalid to use. The same reported test result can support confirmation when the outcome and stopping rule were fixed in advance, yet only exploration when the outcome was selected from twenty inspected results. We call this scientific use validity: whether remembered evidence is eligible to influence a decision under the state governing its interpretation. We introduce SciValidityBench, an executable benchmark factory with 64 TaskSpecs spanning five validity modules and six scientific domains. TaskSpecs couple generated experimental histories with scientific-state definitions, programmatic decision oracles, controlled interventions, and automatic scoring. The SciStateForge compiler-reader framework turns distributed histories into explicit decision-governing state. Counterfactual pairs and targeted corruption-repair controls then test whether models use those dependencies and localize failures. Across four model families, compiled scientific state improves valid decision-making by 9.2-18.8 percentage points over a generic Event Graph. Retrieval alone does not reproduce this cross-family gain, while content-identical flat and typed views show that the improvement comes from exposing governing state rather than a particular graph serialization. SciValidityBench thus shifts memory evaluation from finding the right fact to deciding whether that fact should control the decision.

Yuexi Pan, Yongchao Chen

Tsinghua University · University of Science and Technology of China

Scientific Agent Benchmarks Memory Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Oct 26, 2026

SlowLab: Benchmarking Autonomous AI Agents on a Year of Experiments They Cannot Undo

AI agents are increasingly proposed as autonomous experimenters, yet the benchmarks that test them mostly offer cheap experiments that answer at once. Experiments in physical facilities are different: they take months, occupy scarce equipment and cannot be undone. We present SlowLab, a benchmark in which an agent runs a one-year campaign in four simulated greenhouse compartments on a site whose crop, facility and prices are hidden. The agent decides when to plant which climate policy, whether to stop a crop and which measurements to read while crops grow, and at the end recommends one policy, which a private evaluator scores in weather the agent never saw. In a preregistered study on 48 unseen sites, three low-cost language-model agents ended near a standard grower setting and clearly below a Bayesian-optimisation baseline that starts from that setting. They ran the facility as two synchronous batches, so measurements taken during the season never changed what they planted, and these measurements improved no method's result. Letting other methods re-read the evidence a campaign had collected did not yield significantly better recommendations, which points to where the models start and which experiments they try. Code is released under the MIT license.

Ningpei Ding, Zai Wen Feng

College of Informatics, Huazhong Agricultural University

Scientific Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Experimentation Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation

Oct 23, 2026

BenchBench-Cloning: Evaluating Molecular Cloning Design and Protocol Development

Molecular cloning is one of the most routine wet-lab workflows, yet existing evaluations of language models in biology mostly test knowledge recall or isolated steps rather than end-to-end experimental planning. We introduce BenchBench-Cloning, a benchmark for large language models comprising 65 molecular cloning tasks grounded in sequence records, laboratory notebooks, and published experimental studies. Planning a molecular cloning experiment requires defining a set of constructs needed for a scientific objective and a construction route to produce them. BenchBench-Cloning contains 50 protocol-development tasks, in which agents produce an executable protocol for a specified construct, and 15 construct-design tasks, in which agents determine the constructs a scientific objective calls for. Protocol-development tasks are evaluated by execution in a cloning simulator; construct-design tasks are evaluated with task-specific deterministic checks and, where needed, rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge evaluation. Across eight systems with repeated attempts per task, GPT-6 Astra scores highest at 30.6%, with the others between 8.6% and 22.2%, and the benchmark remains unsaturated under best-of-ten sampling. As integrating individual cloning decisions into complete, valid plans remains challenging even for frontier models, we expect BenchBench-Cloning to serve as a useful benchmark for tracking progress in experimental planning.

Aditya Sivakumar, Peter Ciaccia, Hassaan Qadir +2

Benchling · DNAForge

AI-Assisted Scientific Research LLM Evaluation Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Oct 23, 2026

SCI-AGENT-EXAM: Benchmarking Agents on Scientific Research Tasks

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly capable of supporting scientific workflows, but their capabilities across diverse research activities remain difficult to assess systematically. Existing benchmarks often focus on selected scientific capabilities or task types, limiting a comprehensive characterization of scientific agents' strengths and weaknesses in realistic research workflows. We introduce SCI-AGENT-EXAM, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 120 expert-curated tasks across 11 scientific fields and 7 research task types defined by the Scientific Workflow Task Taxonomy (SWTT). Each task requires both executable artifacts (e.g., code and scripts) and textual artifacts (e.g., reports and explanations). To evaluate the heterogeneous task outputs, we develop a hybrid evaluation protocol combining deterministic programmatic verification for executable artifacts with a calibrated, expert-validated LLM-based judge for textual artifacts. Beyond outcome assessment, we analyze progress and solution stability along execution trajectories to characterize how agents reach their final results. Experiments with 10 frontier LLM agents reveal substantial performance gaps: GPT-6 Astra achieves the highest overall score of 80.9, yet only 26.0% of its runs exceed the 0.95 success threshold. Further analyses uncover distinct capability profiles across scientific task types and substantial variation in execution efficiency and stability. Our code and data are available at https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/Sci-Agent-Exam.

Tianyun Zhong, Wei Wang, Jialin Li +17

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences · AI Data, Alibaba Group +4

Scientific Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks AI for Science Process-Based Agent Evaluation

Oct 23, 2026

PersonaScienceBench: Evaluating Scientific Agents with Diverse Simulated Researchers

Scientific agents collaborate with researchers whose expertise and preferences differ, but benchmarks usually hold the collaborator fixed. We introduce PersonaScienceBench: 200 tasks from five benchmarks across four scientific domains. Simulated researchers provide context and feedback according to persona profiles, while task objectives and grading remain fixed. Agents encounter researcher preferences only through conversation. Across eighteen modelconfigurations, task performance, fact recovery, and self-repetition reveal different strengths. Detailed GPT 6 Astra analyses show distinct agent responses across researcher profiles; interaction traces illustrate targeted clar ification and workflow revision. These behaviors can differ even when final scores match. PersonaScienceBench therefore evaluates how agents collaborate with diverse researchers alongside whether they complete the task.

Siyang Wu, Weizhi Zhang, Chen Yang +29

University of Chicago · University of Illinois Chicago · Harvard University +15

Scientific Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks AI Agents for Scientific Discovery Human-AI Collaboration

Oct 21, 2026

FrontierCS 2: A Benchmark for Computer Science R&D

Can LLM agents make contributions to frontier computer science R&D? We introduce FrontierCS 2, a benchmark of 48 open-ended tasks. We take a paper and the code its authors released and delete the paper's contribution. The deleted code becomes the human reference that sets the bar. Earlier open-ended benchmarks give each agent a problem statement and grade one program after the run. FrontierCS 2 places the agent inside a research environment. The agent inherits a working repository and may submit a patch at any point. For each patch, a judge returns a development-suite score but keeps the evaluator, the held-out final suite and the reference private, and grades the final submission on that suite against the reference. The tasks span 13 domains, from machine-learning systems and high-performance computing to databases, security and robotics. Beyond these 48 tasks, FrontierCS 2 keeps a private set of more than 100 tasks, to be announced in the future. We evaluate 12 agents. The best one is Claude Opus 5.5, passing 58% of its runs. No run passes on 16 tasks. A higher score is not the same as a pass: most runs that beat the reference on the combined final score still fall short on some metric or workload. On a shared capability scale for agents and tasks, the median task is roughly as difficult as what the strongest agent can handle.

Qiuyang Mang, Wenhao Chai, Runyuan He +58

Scientific Agent Benchmarks Coding Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agents for Scientific Discovery Software Engineering Agents

Oct 20, 2026

Automating ML for Science: Can Frontier Agents Climb Scientific Hills in the Wild?

Frontier coding agents are increasingly framed as end-to-end automated researchers, and ML for science offers a demanding test of that promise: improving a scientific model often requires domain insight beyond routine ML engineering. We introduce Agent4Sci, a long-horizon testbed for measuring how far today's agents can improve the published best models on scientific ML benchmarks, spanning 20 benchmarks across 11 domains. Rather than ranking agents on a leaderboard, Agent4Sci asks what kinds of progress agents can make on these tasks under in-the-wild conditions, and where they fall short. Empirically, today's frontier agents advance the published best on every benchmark, with Claude Opus reaching 10.4% mean relative improvement and no run flagged for academic misconduct. These gains, however, come almost entirely from a bag of ML-engineering tricks rather than research-level insight. Trajectory analysis surfaces three recurring limitations in this setting: novelty miscalibration, resource under-utilization, and rapid collapse into local engineering sweeps. Lightweight plug-in skills for research ideation, experiment management, and scheduled checklists raise Claude Opus from 10.4% to 20.1% and Codex from 4.4% to 8.1%, while yielding more diverse, domain-relevant interventions. Agent4Sci gives the community a way to track and push frontier agents from ML engineering toward domain insight on real-world ML-for-science problems. Code and data are available on GitHub (https://github.com/maszhongming/agent4sci) and Hugging Face (https://huggingface.co/datasets/MingZhong/agent4sci).

Ming Zhong, Stacy Li, Nicholas Carlini +1

Anthropic Fellows Program · Anthropic

AI Agents for Scientific Discovery Scientific Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks Long-Horizon Agent Evaluation LLM Agent Skill Learning Scientific ML

Oct 15, 2026

From Research Goals to Scientific Closure: Evaluating Agents Through Evidence-Supported Physics Research

Can AI agents organize scientific investigations that lead to well-supported conclusions? To evaluate this capability, we introduce PhysClosureBench, a benchmark of 50 expert-verified, goal-specified research tasks spanning strong-field, attosecond, and neighboring physics areas. Each task specifies the research objective and essential scientific constraints, while leaving the agent to organize the investigation and determine how to generate and validate the evidence needed to answer the question. A 20-criterion Atomic Score measures local scientific accomplishment, while Research Closure (RC0--RC4) assesses how fully the investigation resolves the specified research question based on whether its indispensable evidence requirements and applicable scope conditions are satisfied. We evaluate seven frontier LLMs, where Claude-Opus-5 achieves the highest mean Atomic Score (6.29/10) but reaches RC4 in only 32.7% of attempts. Across the benchmark, 36.2% of attempts scoring at least 8/10 still fall short of RC4, while all seven models reach RC4 on substantially fewer tasks in all three runs than in at least one. Case-level analysis further illustrates how misinterpretation of generated results and unresolved physical applicability limits can lead to incomplete closure. Together, these results reveal a persistent gap between AI agents' local scientific accomplishments and their ability to achieve complete research closure.

Yijia Mao, Song Dai, Tao Chen +14

Shanghai AI Laboratory · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · The HongKong University of Science and Technology(Guangzhou) +1

Scientific Agent Benchmarks AI Agents for Scientific Discovery LLM Agent Evaluation

Oct 13, 2026

Into the Unknown: Benchmarking AI agents on open scientific research problems

Can AI agents carry out research on open scientific problems? We introduce Into the Unknown, a benchmark that provides an agent with a science paper along with a research direction to pursue and tasks it to write a follow-up paper. We work with scientists at US Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, who each contribute an unpublished follow-up direction from their own work together with the necessary conditions a submission must meet. While assessing the quality of a follow-up paper is challenging in general, using these conditions to form a rubric makes evaluation more tractable for research problems that have no reference answer. We have nine frontier agents write 15 follow-ups each, spanning quantum computing, plasma physics, computational chemistry, materials science, and scientific machine learning domains. None of the 135 submissions satisfies all the conditions, and 114 fail our integrity check, most often because the paper claims work that was never done or reports numbers that contradict the recorded evidence. Overall, agents readily produce papers that look like follow-ups, but none meets the standard of the domain scientist, leaving substantial headroom. Our code and data are publicly available.

Seungone Kim, Jiayi Geng, Young-Jun Lee +25

Carnegie Mellon University · University of Minnesota · Stanford University +13

Scientific Agent Benchmarks AI-Assisted Scientific Research AI Agents for Scientific Discovery AI Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Research Agents AI Agent Reliability

Oct 13, 2026

Autonomous Science Bench: Evaluating AI Agents for Autonomous Scientific Discovery

AI agents for autonomous scientific discovery must decide which experiments to run under a limited budget. Most benchmarks for science agents provide fixed datasets, while others that support active experimentation largely rely on simulation. We introduce Autonomous Science Bench, an initial release comprising six budgeted design-build-test-learn campaigns grounded in published experiments across biology, chemistry, and materials science. Agents select batches of designs, receive measurements from a lab service, and use the results to guide subsequent experiments before delivering a predictive model. Success requires passing two calibrated gates: a discovery gate, which evaluates the designs the agent measured, and a learning gate, which evaluates its model's ranking of held-out designs. In a pilot evaluation of eight agent-model configurations and 144 trials, the best configuration succeeds in 67% of trials, while the hardest campaign is solved in only three of 24 attempts. The two gates reveal different weaknesses: some agents build accurate rankings but find too few promising designs, while others find promising designs but fail to predict which unseen designs will perform well. These differences are obscured by overall success rates alone. We release version 0.1 of the campaigns, lab runtime, and public leaderboard at https://yibow.me/autonomous-science-bench.

Yibo Wen, Han Liu

Northwestern University

Autonomous Scientific Discovery Scientific Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Experimentation AI Agent Benchmarks Active Learning

Oct 6, 2026

ScienceClaw: Benchmarking Continual Self-Evolution of AI-for-Science Agents Across the Natural and Social Sciences

Large language model agents are accelerating scientific automation, yet verified executions rarely become persistent program-level improvements, and existing evaluations do not examine this process across sequential tasks in both the natural and social sciences. We formalize ScienceClaw as fixed-parameter program self-evolution that unifies task solving, scientific verification, and program updates. ScienceClaw-Eval spans 23 disciplines and measures scientific correctness, evolutionary gain, retention, cross-dataset transfer, and evolution cost through sequential streams and independent reset evaluation. Our framework repairs executable workflows through multi-turn interaction, converts re-execution-verified failure--success trajectories into linked Skill and Operator candidates, and retains an update only when source-task replay reproduces the repair and independent scientific tasks improve. Code is available at https://github.com/beita6969/ScienceClaw.

Mingda Zhang, Wenjin Liu, Tiesunlong Shen +6

The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen · Nanyang Technological University · Centre for Biomedical Data Science, Duke-NUS Medical School +2

Scientific Agent Benchmarks Self-Evolving Agents AI for Science AI Agent Benchmarks Continual Learning for LLM Agents

Oct 6, 2026

BioStudyBench: Evaluating Agents on Post-Cutoff Biomedical Studies

We evaluate whether AI agents can match the reported findings of published biomedical studies using public data. Existing evaluations do not consistently separate analysis from prior knowledge or retrieval of the published answer. We introduce BioStudyBench, a benchmark of 25 long-horizon analysis tasks drawn from studies first published between July and September 2026, after the developer-reported knowledge cutoffs of the models we evaluate, semi-automatically filtered down from 404,019 PubMed records. In each task, the agent receives a neutral research question but no data files, so it must find and download the relevant public data, search the literature through tools that return only records dated before its cutoff, and report findings through data analysis. To measure gains over prior knowledge, we run every task both with and without access to data and tools. Across eight models, access to data and tools raises the pass rate by 47 percentage points on average over the no-data baseline. Open-weight models across sizes trail closed-weight models, with the best open-weight model passing 81.3% of tasks against 94.7% for the best closed-weight model.

David Li, Shaamil Karim, Christian Gensbigler

University of Waterloo

Scientific Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks Data Analysis Agents Scientific Reproducibility Biomedical IR

Oct 4, 2026

AutoSciBench: Autonomous Benchmark Generation for Evaluating Scientific Agents

As agents rapidly evolve, existing benchmarks can become saturated, limiting their ability to distinguish capabilities and reveal remaining failure modes. Particularly in scientific domains, constructing and updating benchmarks requires substantial time, labor, and domain expertise, making it difficult to keep evaluation aligned with advances in agent capabilities. We address this challenge by investigating whether scientific-agent benchmarks can be automatically generated and iteratively adapted as agent capabilities evolve. We introduce AutoSciBench, a framework that represents each task as a high-level concept specifying the scientific domain, data modality, and required reasoning approach, together with a low-level recipe specifying how the question, environment, and ground-truth answer are constructed and verified. Agents attempt to solve each task, producing solver trajectories and corresponding judge feedback which AutoSciBench uses to revise the recipe or concept, closing observed shortcuts and shifting tasks toward raw-data re-examination, interpretation of intermediate results, and evidence integration. Experience distilled from completed refinement trajectories further guides new concept generation, allowing lessons from earlier task refinement to inform subsequent benchmark construction. Starting from existing benchmarks, we evaluate AutoSciBench across computational biology, materials science, and clinical imaging. Generated benchmarks reduce average solver accuracy by 22.4 and 25.5 percentage points relative to the human-curated benchmarks in computational biology and materials science, respectively, while generated tasks receive higher average quality ratings across all three domains, suggesting that scientific-agent evaluation can adapt as agent capabilities advance.

Dongki Kim, Namkyeong Lee, Surag Nair +7

Genentech · KAIST

AI for Science AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Synthetic Benchmark Generation Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Oct 4, 2026

Are We Measuring Scientific Intelligence? Rethinking the Evaluation of AI Scientists

AI agents can now carry out data-driven scientific analyses end to end, and benchmarks assess them by giving an agent a question and a dataset and scoring its final answer against a fixed key. These benchmarks assume that a correct answer was derived from the supplied data, a property we call evidence grounding. However, an agent can also reach the key from prior knowledge or by ruling out the other options, and a score based on a single run cannot tell these cases apart. We show how to test this assumption and find that it often fails. For each question, we build versions of its data files in which the evidence for the answer is left intact, withdrawn or reversed, check each edit with a pre-registered reference statistic, and run the same agent on every version. We then measure evidence-grounded accuracy, which credits a correct answer only if the agent also responds when the evidence is withdrawn and follows it when it is reversed. We evaluate three agent scaffolds and five models on 18 single-cell questions from BAISBench and four synthetic problems from GeneBench-Pro. On the single-cell questions, the Claude agents are 95% accurate and answer 83% correctly without any data, but their evidence-grounded accuracy is only 41%. Hiding gene names raises the share of runs that follow reversed evidence from 58% to 93% on ten gene tasks, suggesting that prior knowledge competes with the supplied data. The benchmark score and LLM judges can also reward answers that ignore the changed evidence. Measuring scientific intelligence rather than recall therefore requires checking whether answers follow the evidence and whether scores reward them for it.

Kate Zhang, Yuante Li

School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213

AI Agent Evaluation Scientific Agent Benchmarks Evidence-Grounded Reasoning AI Agents for Scientific Discovery Scientific QA Counterfactual Evaluation

Sep 30, 2026

OSWorld-Science: A Benchmark of Computer Use Agents for Learning and Using Scientific Software

Scientific software presents a demanding test for computer-using agents based on visual language models (VLMs): completing a research workflow requires interpreting specialized interfaces, manipulating scientific objects, and producing verifiable results. We thus introduce OSWorld-Science, a benchmark and evaluation environment that combines scientifically meaningful tasks, artifact-based evaluation, and an efficient agent harness for studying computer use in the scientific domain. The benchmark contains 12 VLMs and 146 high-quality tasks across several scientific domains and software configurations, covering workflows such as molecular drawing and retrosynthesis, pathology image analysis, statistical computing, and physical simulation. Tasks are developed through expert proposals and iterative human--AI co-design, with selection guided by scientific value and difficulty. Task-specific execution-based evaluators inspect application states and generated artifacts, including molecular structures, segmentation masks, plots, and numerical results, and award partial credit for incomplete outcomes. Our special harness integrates model adapters, interaction-loop control, and trajectory logging to support comparisons of models and interaction strategies. Our results show that current state-of-the-art VLMs with a strong harness still face challenges in addressing key questions in the scientific domains. We also analyze the benchmarking results across multi-linguistics, reasoning efforts, context length and other factors and derive several important conclusions and directions to assist future development. Overall, we provide an integrated framework connecting expert-defined scientific goals to verifiable software outcomes, enabling systematic evaluation of both agent capabilities and harness design in scientific workflows.

Dingyuan Dai, Heli Qi, Lei Liu +28

University of California, Los Angeles · RIKEN AIP · Yale University +12

Computer-Use Agent Benchmarks AI for Science Computer-Use Agents Scientific Workflow Automation LLM Agent Harnesses Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Sep 27, 2026

DISCERN: Can AI Agents Work Like Scientists and Guide Discovery?

Reliable automated research requires agents to vet data, verify analyses, and generate hypotheses grounded in trustworthy evidence, potentially reducing routine scientific workload while allowing scientists to focus on interpretation and discovery. Existing benchmarks often only assess analytical task completion or hypothesis generation separately rather than testing whether reliable evidence supports valid and novel claims. We introduce DISCERN (Data Integrity and Scientific Capability: Evidence, Reasoning, and Novelty), a controlled benchmark on real, publicly available datasets that evaluates three key levels of an automated research workflow. The first two levels test data integrity and analysis verification under confounds and tool traps, while the third tests hypothesis generation and revision under adversarial review, including counterfactual cases in which evidence consistent with real data and documented scientific phenomena conflicts with established expectations, motivating alternative explanations and testable hypotheses. Across 203 tasks, eight life-science tracks, and eight models, DISCERN shows that strong aggregate performance can mask level-specific weaknesses. Agents earn perfect scores in only 60.8% of Level 1, 34.2% of Level 2, and 0.6% of Level 3 evaluations, with penalties attributed to rejection of sound data, failure to carry recognized limitations into conclusions, and wide variation in hypothesis production. Cross-track rankings by token and code use are substantially more stable than rankings by evidence judgment, suggesting greater consistency in computational effort than in evidence-based reasoning. These profiles identify opportunities for supervised scientific assistance, but current agents do not yet demonstrate reliable autonomous analysis or discovery. Code and data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/discern-bench-anon/discern-benchmark

Nan Huang, Mario Tapia-Pacheco, Kun Zhou +4

University of California San Diego · Independent Researcher

AI Agent Reliability Scientific Hypothesis Generation AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Data Analysis Agents Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Sep 7, 2026

Scientific Agents: Evaluating Profession-Specific System Prompts on Scientific Tasks

Detailed profession-specific system prompts raise token use and estimated cost per response without a consistent accuracy gain. We evaluate Scientific Agents, an open-source corpus of 503 profession-specific AGENTS.md profiles, with Gemini 3.8 Flash via OpenRouter in the Pi agent harness. We compare matched profiles with four controls: a minimal baseline ("You are a helpful assistant"), the profile's opening role sentence, a generic scientific rigor guide, and a profile from an unrelated domain. Across nine text-based science benchmarks (4,531 sampled questions, 100 matched profiles), 4,488 items completed all five conditions after API-error retries, scored with automated, rule-based grading. The average profile-baseline accuracy difference is -0.6 percentage points (95% bootstrap interval [-1.5, +0.2] across fixed tasks), and no benchmark shows a statistically clear improvement. Matched profiles produced 1.5-2.3 times as many output tokens and cost 2.2-4.5 times more per successful call. On 60 tool-using BioMysteryBench bioinformatics problems (three runs each for baseline and profile), mean solve rates were 46.7% with the profile and 56.7% at baseline, a difference of -10.0 percentage points (95% interval [-16.7, -3.3]) driven by more frequent token- and time-limit stops under the profile. Longer prompts had one unexpected operational advantage: on SuperGPQA, frequent provider API drops left the short baseline with a correct first-pass answer on only 54.0% of items, against 71.6% with the profile. Generic and mismatched prompts were about as reliable, so this gain comes from prompt length or formatting rather than domain expertise. For the tested model and tasks, loading full profession profiles by default does not improve accuracy and costs considerably more; whether selective retrieval of profile sections or open-ended scientific tasks would change this remains to be tested.

Timothy Kassis

K-Dense

Prompt Engineering LLM Agent Evaluation Scientific Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific QA LLM Inference Efficiency

Sep 5, 2026

SCIRIGOR:Evaluating Open-Ended Scientific Analysis Beyond Final Scores

Scientific coding agents produce interdependent code, results, figures, and claims, yet evaluating final outputs alone does not establish whether their conclusions are scientifically supported. We formulate evidence-grounded multimodal scientific analysis, requiring agents to produce executable analyses and claims supported by results and visualizations from the same run. We introduce SciRIGOR, an evaluation framework and benchmark comprising 100 cases from scientific articles across six domains and 17 subfields. The framework reconstructs typed evidence graphs, separates artifact fidelity from relational validity, and scores complete claim-support paths while localizing the earliest unsupported relation. Source-grounded alternative paths accommodate scientifically equivalent analyses and visualizations. We evaluate 11 agent/model configurations. On full-benchmark runs, claims agree with faithful and unfaithful results at nearly identical rates (91.8% versus 91.0%). Yet no system exceeds 62.6% on the soft evidence-chain score or 18.0% strict whole-chain success. These findings show that internal coherence does not establish scientific correctness: evaluation must verify support along the complete data-to-claim path.

Bowen Liu, Shuo Nie, Bodong Du +1

HKUST · Alibaba Group

Scientific Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Evaluation Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Scientific Claim Verification Scientific Reproducibility

Sep 5, 2026

OpenDiscoveryTrace: Process Traces for Evaluating AI Scientist Workflows

Existing benchmarks for autonomous AI scientists evaluate only final outputs---generated code, hypotheses, or papers---yet discard the reasoning process by which those outputs were obtained. This makes it impossible to audit scientific methodology, diagnose failure modes, or distinguish systematic reasoning from fortunate guessing. We present OpenDiscoveryTrace, a public dataset of 558 complete AI scientific agent trajectories that captures how models reason, not just what they produce. Each trajectory records a structured 9-field-per-step trace---including thoughts, tool calls, observations, errors, revision triggers, and self-reported confidence---as models execute 124 scientific tasks spanning drug discovery, materials science, genomics, and scientific literature analysis. The dataset covers seven models: three frontier models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, and Gemini 3.1 Pro; 124 trajectories each, fully balanced across domains and difficulty levels) and four open-weight models (Qwen2.5-7B, Mistral-7B-v0.3, Phi-3.5-mini, and Qwen2.5-1.5B; 30 each), plus 60 live-retrieval variant trajectories. Pilot analysis on 363 LLM-judged trajectories reveals that process traces expose behavioral differences invisible to output-only evaluation: all three frontier models achieve comparable success rates (84--89%), yet Claude Opus 4.6 produces 30

\times

more errors than GPT-5.4 (2.5 vs. 0.08 per trajectory,

p < 0.0001

, Cliff's

δ= 0.613

), with qualitatively different error profiles---66.7% tool misuse for Claude versus 83.6% reasoning errors for GPT-5.4. We define five benchmark tasks with baselines from logistic regression, random forests, LSTMs, and Transformer models. The dataset, trace schema, agent harness, and benchmark definitions are publicly available under CC BY 4.0 to support research on process-level evaluation, scientific agent auditing, and AI governance.

Aayam Bansal, Keertan Balaji

AI Agent Benchmarks AI for Science Process-Based Agent Evaluation AI Agent Auditing LLM Auditing AI Agent Evaluation+2

Sep 4, 2026

TruthInsightBench: An Evidence-Grounded Benchmark for Automated Evaluation of Open-Ended Scientific Discovery Agents

Autonomous coding agents are increasingly proposed as AI-scientist systems that conduct analyses and write research reports, but executing a prescribed analysis is not the same as making a discovery. Existing benchmarks are configured for reproduction: tasks, data, and rubrics are built around a hidden target study, and recovery of its result is rewarded. We present TruthInsightBench, a benchmark configured for discovery. Its 40 blind tasks, drawn from 40 peer-reviewed studies across 10 scientific domains, expose only a neutral scientific objective and frozen data; source conclusions, expected values, and analysis paths are withheld, leaving the agent to determine what claim the data support. A fixed LLM-based judge scores the evidentiary maturity of an agent's own claims along six dimensions, operationalized as 29 artifact-grounded items, with automated, deterministic aggregation and no per-instance human grading, so evaluation can be repeated automatically as agents evolve. On one frozen base model, four coding agents form a narrow plateau (58.4-60.3 of 100) with no statistically reliable pairwise separation: they execute and document analyses competently, with comparatively strong evidence auditability and novelty, but largely lack the discriminating acts that establish a trustworthy claim (controls, robustness, falsifiability, and cross-dataset generalization). The bottleneck is scientific judgment rather than coding, and genuine discovery remains out of reach. TruthInsightBench makes this gap a measurable target; data and scoring code are at https://github.com/TruthInsight-stack/TruthInsightBench.

Zhibo Yang, Chen Zhang, Yuewei Zhang +1

TruthInsight-AI

AI Agents for Scientific Discovery AI Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Scientific Discovery Automated Evaluation Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Aug 31, 2026

Science sandboxes measure the scientific capability of AI agents

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.

Arya S. Rao, Rodrigo I. Castro, Sager J. Gosai +8

The Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; Cambridge, MA 02142, USA. · Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School; Boston, MA 02115, USA. · The Jackson Laboratory; Bar Harbor, ME 04609, USA. +10

Protein Fitness Prediction AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Experimentation Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Aug 24, 2026

EarthVerse: Benchmarking Scientific Agents Across Dynamic Earth Systems and Natural Hazards

Earth-system analysis reconstructs changing physical processes from observations that differ in source, scale, timing, and modality. Natural hazards make this work consequential because incomplete evidence can change estimates of severity, exposure, and mechanism. We introduce EarthVerse, a benchmark that evaluates scientific agents through package-scoped investigations. Its 405 reproducible tasks are grounded in 199 documented events and 19 hazard families. Agents inspect heterogeneous event packages, choose compatible evidence, execute transparent calculations, reconcile source differences, and preserve provenance in the final answer. We provide executable ground truth that decomposes each task into fine-grained answer units, together with task-specific rubrics that assess the supporting research process while allowing multiple valid paths. We evaluate 25 model and agent systems under a controlled tool-using protocol, then use controlled studies to locate failures in evidence access, tool selection, memory, reasoning, interaction, and scientific execution. Across systems, the best mean answer-unit accuracy is 84.65%, while the highest Strict@95 is only 34.81%. The gap shows that current agents often complete individual steps without maintaining a consistent chain across evidence, scales, units, calculations, and physical interpretation. EarthVerse provides a reproducible basis for measuring end-to-end scientific reliability in dynamic Earth systems.

Zhiqing Cui, Xinxiang Yin, Yihong Tang +11

NUIST · HKU · McGill +7

Scientific Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks Earth Science Tool-Use Evaluation

Aug 21, 2026

K-Bench: measuring model performance on real scientific agent requests

Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference solutions, or simulators with a known generative structure. Real scientific requests arrive differently. They are underspecified, they carry attachments, and they lack ground truth. We report K-Bench 01, an evaluation built from first-turn requests sampled from live user traffic on K-Dense Web and run end to end by nine frontier models in identical sandboxes, yielding 1,602 completed agent runs. Three blinded language-model judges scored every run against an eight-dimension rubric. On a rubric whose 8-anchor is defined as work a domain scientist would accept with minor edits, no model clears the line under all three judges. gpt-5.6-sol has the highest pooled mean, 8.04, but its 95% interval [7.80, 8.23] spans the threshold, and two of the three judges rank claude-opus-5 first instead. We therefore report the ordering of systems as the reproducible quantity, the absolute level as an attribute of the instrument, and the top of the table as unresolved. Across all 39,934 scored judgments -- the eight dimension scores plus a holistic overall for each assessment, excluding not-applicable cells -- 47.6% fall below the 8-point threshold. Difficulty is not uniform across the rubric: scientific accuracy averages 6.22 against 7.33 for communication, on identical denominators and in the same direction within every one of the nine models. The single leading failure tag is overclaiming, on 31.4% of assessments. We argue that the informative quantity for scientific agents is not a leaderboard position but the joint distribution of what was delivered, what was claimed, and what artifacts were produced.

Aubrey M. Brueckner, Darshil Patel, Yuhuan He +1

1K-Dense, Inc.

AI for Science LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks LLM Agent Reliability Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Aug 18, 2026

ASI-Bench: At the Dawn of Artificial Superintelligence

Artificial superintelligence (ASI) requires AI to move beyond mastering existing knowledge toward exploring the unknown, creating new knowledge, and turning new ideas into verifiable results. However, the capabilities of today's AI systems are still largely built on learning, compressing, and applying existing human knowledge. Accordingly, existing benchmarks primarily test whether AI can produce correct answers based on learned knowledge, or whether it can complete tasks under extensive human guidance. We therefore introduce ASI-Bench, the first benchmark to jointly evaluate AI systems' capabilities of innovative exploration and autonomous scientific execution across general research domains, and the first to progressively withdraw human methodological guidance within the same research project to test how far AI can proceed on its own. Built by over 40 experts with the cost of 31,000+ human hours, ASI-Bench contains 60 project-level research tasks across 11 scientific domains and progressively reduces methodological guidance to test whether AI can independently select methods, conduct research, and produce verifiable results. All tasks undergo expert review, AI-assisted auditing, sandbox execution, and scorer validation. Across 18 state-of-the-art agent--model configurations, the average score drops from 50.91 with full methodological guidance to 29.10 with only the method specified and 26.62 when agents must determine the method themselves. This sharp decline shows that current systems remain heavily dependent on human guidance and are still far from autonomously conducting end-to-end, project-level scientific research. ASI-Bench is open to the world. We invite researchers and builders everywhere to contribute new tasks, challenge the limits of today's AI, and help accelerate humanity's collective path toward artificial superintelligence at https://asibench.apexin.ai/submit.

Junwei Zhou, Zhen Sun, Binyu Li +39

Scientific Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Scientific Discovery Autonomous Research Agents Benchmark Design

Aug 14, 2026

How Do Agents Fail on AutoResearch: End-to-End Diagnostic Evaluation on 100 Real-World Frontier Research Tasks

AI has long assisted scientific research, but the rapid advance of LLMs and agentic scaffolds is reshaping the landscape; a single system can now carry whole-stage research from an initial hypothesis all the way to final published paper, which is a paradigm now referred to as AutoResearch. Existing evaluations reveal little about how these agents operate or where they break down. Tasks are narrowly-scoped, evaluation measures performance but not process, and failure diagnoses lack systematic coverage or artifact-level visibility. To address this gap, we introduce AutoResearchEval, featuring 100 tasks grounded in published frontier science across 7 scientific domains and the full research lifecycle, including ideation, retrieval, execution, analysis, writing, and review. Evaluating 8 harness-model combinations yields 800 autoresearch agent trajectories, with process-level annotation. We organize these insights into AutoResearch Failure Taxonomy or ARFT, a framework of 45 empirically-grounded failure patterns. To enable scalable fine-grained attribution, we leverage a human-calibrated agent-as-a-judge pipeline to inspect complete trajectories and intermediate artifacts. Failure patterns converge on a single overarching limitation, namely that current agents lack a metacognitive loop, which entails the ability to check what they produced against what they found, revise when it does not hold up, and question whether the path they took was sound. The same patterns recur across all 8 harness-model combinations, including the strongest models tested, locating the deficit at the model level rather than in any particular scaffold; whether orchestration-level interventions can close it is an open question this work does not test. We publicly release AutoResearchEval and ARFT to facilitate continued research and development in autonomous scientific discovery.

Yanlin Fei, Nazhou Liu, Xinmiao Yu +7

Prentis AI · Stanford University · Titan Holdings

Scientific Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Research Agents Agent Failure Analysis LLM Agent Evaluation AI Agent Evaluation

Jul 23, 2026

SciExplore: Evaluating Autonomous Agents from Scientific Navigation to Information Integration

Scientific research involves complex information-seeking and reasoning workflows across heterogeneous sources. However, existing benchmarks primarily emphasize general-domain retrieval or static scientific question answering, and therefore fail to assess key capabilities required in realistic scientific research workflows. We introduce SciExplore, a benchmark designed to evaluate scientific information-seeking and reasoning capabilities of LLMs and agents. SciExplore comprises four task types covering 103 expert-curated tasks across more than ten scientific disciplines: scientific database navigation, ambiguous literature retrieval, missing reference completion, and cross-source structured knowledge synthesis, which probe progressively higher-level abilities from entity-level reasoning and document-level identification to evidence-level grounding and domain-level synthesis. We evaluate over ten state-of-the-art LLMs and autonomous agents on SciExplore, revealing substantial performance gaps with performance degrading sharply as task complexity increases and extremely low accuracy on the most challenging structured synthesis tasks. These results highlight significant limitations of current models and agents in realistic scientific information-seeking scenarios.

Yinhao Tang, Youqing Fang, Yanan Sun +6

University of Science and Technology of China · Shanghai AI Laboratory

AI Agent Benchmarks Information Retrieval Scientific Document Retrieval Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Jun 23, 2026

NatureBench: Can Coding Agents Match the Published SOTA of Nature-Family Papers?

We introduce NatureBench, a cross-discipline benchmark of 90 tasks distilled from peer-reviewed Nature-family publications, designed to evaluate whether AI coding agents can move beyond reproduction toward discovery on real scientific problems. NatureBench is built on NatureGym, an automated pipeline that constructs a standardized, per-task containerized environment from a source paper, addressing the environment-fragmentation problem that has limited the credibility of prior agent-on-research benchmarks. Evaluating ten frontier agent configurations under a strict web-search-disabled protocol, we find that the strongest model surpasses SOTA on only 17.8% of tasks under the g>0.1 criterion. Analysis of method pathways reveals that agents succeed primarily through methodological translation, converting scientific tasks into familiar supervised prediction problems, rather than through genuine scientific invention. Failures are dominated by wrong method choice and insufficient compute budget, not by task misunderstanding. We release the benchmark, the NatureGym pipeline, and a public leaderboard with maintainer-side reproduction. Code: https://github.com/FrontisAI/NatureBench

Yuru Wang, Lejun Cheng, Yuxin Zuo +14

Horizon Research, Frontis.AI Tsinghua University

AI for Science Coding Agents AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Synthetic Benchmark Generation Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Jun 20, 2026

OpenBioRQ: Unsolved Biomedical Research Questions for Agents

A working citation looks like proof -- but the fact that a link resolves does not mean the cited paper supports the claim. I find that current agentic models rarely fabricate citations (over

99\%

resolve), yet roughly

15.9\%

link to the wrong paper. Existing benchmarks miss this failure mode: when a question has a fixed answer key, a model can reproduce the expected source from that key rather than independently verifying that the source supports the claim. I introduce \openbiorq{}, a retrieval-grounded agentic benchmark of

12{,}553

unsolved biomedical research questions across

12

domains that treats open questions as a faithfulness-and-abstention probe. To my knowledge, this is the first biomedical benchmark to combine an agentic setting -- where the model must issue multiple tool calls -- with unsolved questions that have no answer key. Openness is verified against real follow-up evidence rather than a model's parametric knowledge. Difficulty is empirical: I anchor it on questions that three open-weight reference models fail to answer, rather than on subjective hardness labels. On this hardest subset, held-out models from the same lineage as the difficulty anchors solve only ~17%, while three independent frontier agents (Gemini-3-Pro, Opus-4.7, GPT-5.5) span a wide 29-60% range. The benchmark is thus hard, non-saturating (the best agent still leaves ~33-40% unsolved), and discriminating across capability tiers. Beyond difficulty, I observe agentic collapse on the hardest questions, where agents stop using their tools. For the most collapse-prone model, blocking tool access entirely barely changes its score -- so tools stop paying off exactly where they are needed most. A frozen per-question checklist raises inter-judge agreement from Spearman 0.35 to 0.82.

Minbyul Jeong

Upstage AI

Agentic RAG AI Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Reliability Citation Verification LLM Agent Evaluation Biomedical QA+2

Jun 10, 2026

Benchmarking AI Agents for Addressing Scientific Challenges Across Scales

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/.

Tianyu Liu, Allen Xin Wang, Antonia Panescu +30

Yale University, CT, USA · The Pennsylvania State University, PA, USA · Northeastern University, MA, USA +7

AI for Science Scientific Agent Benchmarks AI Agent Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Autonomous Scientific Discovery