Scientific Agent Benchmarks

Autonomous AI research agents aim to speed up scientific discovery by automating the research pipeline from hypothesis generation to peer review. However, existing benchmarks rarely test a fundamental bottleneck whether LLMs can judge the methodological viability of a research idea $\textbf{before}$ investing time and computational resources. Without a reliable ``first-gate'' filter, autonomous agents risk scaling flawed methodology rather than accelerating meaningful science. We introduce $\textbf{SoundnessBench}$, a curated benchmark of 1,099 real research proposals, with source verified extraction, reviewer-derived proxy labels, and proposal-only expert judgments on a subset of 327 proposals. Across 12 frontier LLMs, our evaluation reveals a pervasive $\textbf{optimism bias}$: standard prompting yields a $74.0\%$ mean false-positive rate. Aggressive prompting reduces false approvals but substantially increases false rejections. Additional analyses show that optimism persists under controls for public corpus contamination, and surface features, as well as in literature-grounded agent evaluation. These results suggest a limitation in judging scientific soundness, indicating that current LLMs are not yet reliable as standalone gatekeepers for scientific rigor.

AI coding agents are increasingly used for scientific work, but their end-to-end autonomous research capability remains difficult to verify. We present ResearchClawBench, a benchmark for evaluating autonomous scientific research across 40 tasks from 10 scientific domains. Each task is grounded in a real published paper, provides related literature and raw data, and hides the target paper during evaluation. Expert-curated multimodal rubrics decompose the target scientific artifacts into weighted criteria, enabling evaluation of target-paper-level re-discovery while leaving room for new discovery. We evaluate seven autonomous research (auto-research) agents under a unified protocol and seventeen native LLMs through the lightweight ResearchHarness. Current systems remain far from reliable re-discovery: the strongest autonomous agent, Claude Code, averages 21.5, and the strongest ResearchHarness LLM, Claude-Opus-4.7, averages 20.7, with an LLM frontier mean of only 26.5. Error analysis shows that failures concentrate in experimental protocol mismatch, evidence mismatch, and missing scientific core. ResearchClawBench provides a reproducible evaluation frontier for measuring progress toward autonomous scientific research.

Large language models are emerging as scientific assistants, but evaluating their ability to reason from empirical data remains challenging. Benchmarks derived from published studies and human annotations inherit publication bias, known-knowledge bias, label noise, and substantial storage requirements. We present InfiniteScienceGym, a procedurally generated benchmark of scientific repositories paired with a verifiable question-answering task. From a seed, the simulator deterministically generates a self-contained repository with realistic directory structure, files, and tabular data, and a privileged QA generator produces both answerable and unanswerable questions with exact ground truth. This makes it possible to evaluate evidence-grounded reasoning, abstention, and tool-mediated analysis in a controlled setting without distributing a large static corpus. InfiniteScienceGym complements real scientific benchmarks by targeting blind spots and failure modes that are hard to evaluate using published datasets alone. Evaluating both proprietary and open-weight models, we find that none achieve more than 50% accuracy overall, that recognizing unanswerable questions remains a major weakness, and that stronger models tend to use tools more effectively rather than simply consuming more tokens.

AI agents hold growing promise for accelerating scientific discovery; yet, a lack of frontier evaluations hinders adoption into real workflows. Expert-written benchmarks have proven effective at measuring AI reasoning, but most at this stage have become saturated and only measure performance on constrained outputs. To help address this gap, we introduce COMPOSITE-STEM, a benchmark of 70 expert-written tasks in physics, biology, chemistry, and mathematics, curated by doctoral-level researchers. Our benchmark combines exact-match grading and criterion-based rubrics with an LLM-as-a-jury grading protocol, allowing more flexible assessment of scientifically meaningful outputs. Using an adapted multimodal Terminus-2 agent harness within the Harbor agentic evaluation framework, we evaluate four frontier models. The top-performing model achieves 21%, demonstrating that COMPOSITE-STEM captures capabilities beyond current agent reach. All tasks are open-sourced with contributor permission to support reproducibility and to promote additional research towards AI's acceleration of scientific progress in these domains.

Deep research agents increasingly interleave web browsing with multi-step computation, yet existing benchmarks evaluate these capabilities in isolation, creating a blind spot in assessing real-world performance. We introduce DRBENCHER, a synthetic benchmark generator for questions that require both browsing and computation, synthesized answer-first from knowledge-graph chains with no seed passages or provenance text. It enforces four criteria: verifiability (gold answers are computed by executing parameterized code over knowledge-graph values), complexity (multi-hop entity identification, property retrieval, and domain-specific computation), difficulty (a two-stage verification cascade filters out questions solvable by the generating model), and diversity (a greedy max-min embedding filter maximizes coverage). These criteria are realized via a unified answer-first pipeline spanning five domains: biochemistry, financial, geophysical, security, and history. Human evaluation shows 76% validity, with 35% of errors due to outdated knowledge-graph entries, highlighting an inherent limitation of systems that reason over evolving data. Automatic evaluation shows that the strongest frontier model achieves only 20% answer accuracy. Compared to manually constructed benchmarks (BrowseComp+, MATH-500, GPQA), DRBENCHER achieves the highest semantic diversity. We release DrBencher pipeline and the human-verified benchmark data at https://github.com/IBM/DrBencher.

We analyze the challenges of benchmarking scientific (multi)-agentic systems, including the difficulty of distinguishing reasoning from retrieval, the risks of data/model contamination, the lack of reliable ground truth for novel research problems, the complications introduced by tool use, and the replication challenges due to the continuously changing/updating knowledge base. We discuss strategies for constructing contamination-resistant problems, generating scalable families of tasks, and the need for evaluating systems through multi-turn interactions that better reflect real scientific practice. As an early feasibility test, we demonstrate how to construct a dataset of novel research ideas to test the out-of-sample performance of our system. We also discuss the results of interviews with several researchers and engineers working in quantum science. Through those interviews, we examine how scientists expect to interact with AI systems and how these expectations should shape evaluation methods.