Daily Papers

Accurate interpretation of lab results is crucial in clinical medicine, yet most patient portals use universal normal ranges, ignoring conditional factors like age and gender. This study introduces Lab-AI, an interactive system that offers personalized normal ranges using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) from credible health sources. Lab-AI has two modules: factor retrieval and normal range retrieval. We tested these on 122 lab tests: 40 with conditional factors and 82 without. For tests with factors, normal ranges depend on patient-specific information. Our results show GPT-4-turbo with RAG achieved a 0.948 F1 score for factor retrieval and 0.995 accuracy for normal range retrieval. GPT-4-turbo with RAG outperformed the best non-RAG system by 33.5% in factor retrieval and showed 132% and 100% improvements in question-level and lab-level performance, respectively, for normal range retrieval. These findings highlight Lab-AI's potential to enhance patient understanding of lab results.

The adoption of AI-powered code completion tools in software development has increased substantially, yet the user interaction data produced by these systems remain proprietary within large corporations. This creates a barrier for the academic community, as researchers must often develop dedicated platforms to conduct studies on human--AI interaction, making reproducible research and large-scale data analysis impractical. In this work, we introduce Code4MeV2, a research-oriented, open-source code completion plugin for JetBrains IDEs, as a solution to this limitation. Code4MeV2 is designed using a client--server architecture and features inline code completion and a context-aware chat assistant. Its core contribution is a modular and transparent data collection framework that gives researchers fine-grained control over telemetry and context gathering. Code4MeV2 achieves industry-comparable performance in terms of code completion, with an average latency of 200~ms. We assess our tool through a combination of an expert evaluation and a user study with eight participants. Feedback from both researchers and daily users highlights its informativeness and usefulness. We invite the community to adopt and contribute to this tool. More information about the tool can be found at https://app.code4me.me.

Vision-Language Models (VLMs) excel at high-level scene understanding but falter on fine-grained perception tasks requiring precise localization. This failure stems from a fundamental mismatch, as generating exact numerical coordinates is a challenging task for language-centric architectures. In this paper, we introduce VLM-FO1, a novel framework that overcomes this limitation by reframing object-centric perception from a brittle coordinate generation problem into a robust feature retrieval task. Our method operates as a plug-and-play module that integrates with any pre-trained VLM. It leverages a Hybrid Fine-grained Region Encoder (HFRE), featuring a dual vision encoder, to generate powerful region tokens rich in both semantic and spatial detail. A token-based referencing system then enables the LLM to seamlessly reason about and ground language in these specific visual regions. Experiments show that VLM-FO1 achieves state-of-the-art performance across a diverse suite of benchmarks, demonstrating exceptional capabilities in object grounding, region generational understanding, and visual region reasoning. Crucially, our two-stage training strategy ensures that these perception gains are achieved without compromising the base model's general visual understanding capabilities. VLM-FO1 establishes an effective and flexible paradigm for building perception-aware VLMs, bridging the gap between high-level reasoning and fine-grained visual grounding.

We study what actually works and what doesn't for training large language models as agents via multi-turn reinforcement learning. Despite rapid progress, existing frameworks and definitions are fragmented, and there is no systematic formulation or analysis of which design choices matter across tasks. We address this gap by first breaking down the design space into three inter-related pillars -- environment, reward, and policy -- and empirically derive a recipe for training LLM agents in situated textual domains. In particular, we test TextWorld and ALFWorld, popular domains for testing situated embodied reasoning, as well as SWE-Gym for more software engineering style tasks. (i) For the environment, we analyze the impacts of task complexity in terms of sizes of the state and action spaces as well as optimal solution length, finding that even simple environments within a domain can provide signal on how well an agent can generalize to more complex tasks. (ii) For the reward, we ablate relative reward sparsity, observing that while dense turn-level rewards accelerate training, performance and stability is highly dependent on the choice of RL algorithm. (iii) And for the agent's policy, we explore the interplay between reward sparsity and biased (PPO, GRPO) and unbiased (RLOO) policy gradient methods in addition to showing how to find the optimal Supervised Fine-tuning (SFT) to RL training ratio given a fixed budget. We distill these findings into a training recipe that guides co-design across the three pillars, facilitating research and practical efforts in multi-turn agentic RL. Code: https://github.com/pearls-lab/meow-tea-taro

Process Reward Models (PRMs) provide step-level supervision that improves the reliability of reasoning in large language models. While PRMs have been extensively studied in text-based domains, their extension to Vision Language Models (VLMs) remains limited. Existing Vision-Language PRMs (VL-PRMs) rely on Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) for data construction, which can often produce noisy supervision signals and limit generalization across tasks. In this work, we aim to elucidate the design space of VL-PRMs by exploring diverse strategies for dataset construction, training, and test-time scaling. First, we introduce a hybrid data synthesis framework that combines MCTS with judgments from a strong VLM, producing more accurate step-level labels. Second, we propose perception-focused supervision, enabling our PRM to explicitly detect errors at the visual grounding stage of reasoning. Third, we systematically evaluate multiple test-time scaling strategies, showing that our PRMs can reliably guide VLMs toward more accurate solutions. Our experiments covering five diverse multimodal benchmarks (MMMU, PuzzleVQA, AlgoPuzzleVQA, MathVista, and MathVision) reveal several key insights: (i) VL-PRMs when used as Outcome Reward Models (ORMs) during test-time scaling (TTS) can outperform VL-PRM guided process step selection, (ii) smaller VL-PRMs can match or even surpass larger ones in detecting process errors, (iii) VL-PRMs uncover latent reasoning abilities in stronger VLM backbones, (iv) perception-level supervision leads to significant gains in test-time scaling, and (v) TTS performance of different policies improve on advanced math reasoning datasets despite not training VL-PRMs on such datasets. We hope our work will motivate further research and support the advancement of VLMs.

The complexity of laboratory environments requires solutions that simplify instrument interaction and enhance measurement automation. Traditional tools often require configuration, software, and programming skills, creating barriers to productivity. Previous approaches, including dedicated software suites and custom scripts, frequently fall short in providing user-friendly solutions that align with programming practices. We present LABIIUM, an AI-enhanced, zero-configuration measurement automation system designed to streamline experimental workflows and improve user productivity. LABIIUM integrates an AI assistant powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate code. LABIIUM's Lab-Automation-Measurement Bridges (LAMBs) enable seamless instrument connectivity using standard tools such as VSCode and Python, eliminating setup overhead. To demonstrate its capabilities, we conducted experiments involving the measurement of the parametric transfer curve of a simple two-transistor inverting amplifier with a current source load. The AI assistant was evaluated using different prompt scenarios and compared with multiple models, including Claude Sonnet 3.5, Gemini Pro 1.5, and GPT-4o. An expert solution implementing the Gradient-Weighted Adaptive Stochastic Sampling (GWASS) method was used as a baseline. The solutions generated by the AI assistant were compared with the expert solution and a uniform linear sweep baseline with 10,000 points. The graph results show that the LLMs were able to successfully complete the most basic uniform sweep, but LLMs were unable to develop adaptive sweeping algorithms to compete with GWASS. The evaluation underscores LABIIUM's ability to enhance laboratory productivity and support digital transformation in research and industry, and emphasizes the future work required to improve LLM performance in Electronic Measurement Science Tasks.

There is widespread optimism that frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) and LLM-augmented systems have the potential to rapidly accelerate scientific discovery across disciplines. Today, many benchmarks exist to measure LLM knowledge and reasoning on textbook-style science questions, but few if any benchmarks are designed to evaluate language model performance on practical tasks required for scientific research, such as literature search, protocol planning, and data analysis. As a step toward building such benchmarks, we introduce the Language Agent Biology Benchmark (LAB-Bench), a broad dataset of over 2,400 multiple choice questions for evaluating AI systems on a range of practical biology research capabilities, including recall and reasoning over literature, interpretation of figures, access and navigation of databases, and comprehension and manipulation of DNA and protein sequences. Importantly, in contrast to previous scientific benchmarks, we expect that an AI system that can achieve consistently high scores on the more difficult LAB-Bench tasks would serve as a useful assistant for researchers in areas such as literature search and molecular cloning. As an initial assessment of the emergent scientific task capabilities of frontier language models, we measure performance of several against our benchmark and report results compared to human expert biology researchers. We will continue to update and expand LAB-Bench over time, and expect it to serve as a useful tool in the development of automated research systems going forward. A public subset of LAB-Bench is available for use at the following URL: https://huggingface.co/datasets/futurehouse/lab-bench

Laboratory accidents pose significant risks to human life and property, underscoring the importance of robust safety protocols. Despite advancements in safety training, laboratory personnel may still unknowingly engage in unsafe practices. With the increasing reliance on large language models (LLMs) for guidance in various fields, including laboratory settings, there is a growing concern about their reliability in critical safety-related decision-making. Unlike trained human researchers, LLMs lack formal lab safety education, raising questions about their ability to provide safe and accurate guidance. Existing research on LLM trustworthiness primarily focuses on issues such as ethical compliance, truthfulness, and fairness but fails to fully cover safety-critical real-world applications, like lab safety. To address this gap, we propose the Laboratory Safety Benchmark (LabSafety Bench), a comprehensive evaluation framework based on a new taxonomy aligned with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) protocols. This benchmark includes 765 multiple-choice questions verified by human experts, assessing LLMs and vision language models (VLMs) performance in lab safety contexts. Our evaluations demonstrate that while GPT-4o outperforms human participants, it is still prone to critical errors, highlighting the risks of relying on LLMs in safety-critical environments. Our findings emphasize the need for specialized benchmarks to accurately assess the trustworthiness of LLMs in real-world safety applications.

We investigate the predictability of large language model (LLM) capabilities: given records of past experiments using different model families, numbers of parameters, tasks, and numbers of in-context examples, can we accurately predict LLM performance on new experiment configurations? Answering this question has practical implications for LLM users (e.g., deciding which models to try), developers (e.g., prioritizing evaluation on representative tasks), and the research community (e.g., identifying hard-to-predict capabilities that warrant further investigation). We study the performance prediction problem on experiment records from BIG-bench. On a random train-test split, an MLP-based predictor achieves an R^2 score greater than 95%, indicating the presence of learnable patterns within the experiment records. We then formulate the problem of searching for "small-bench," an informative subset of BIG-bench tasks from which the performance on the full set can be maximally recovered. We find a subset as informative as BIG-bench Hard for evaluating new model families, while being 3times smaller. Additionally, we find competitive subsets by clustering task representations learned by our MLP-based predictor and selecting tasks close to cluster centroids, highlighting the importance of task diversity in constructing "small-bench."

Progress in scientific discovery is rarely the result of a single "Eureka" moment, but is rather the product of hundreds of scientists incrementally working together toward a common goal. While existing agent workflows are capable of producing research autonomously, they do so in isolation, without the ability to continuously improve upon prior research results. To address these challenges, we introduce AgentRxiv-a framework that lets LLM agent laboratories upload and retrieve reports from a shared preprint server in order to collaborate, share insights, and iteratively build on each other's research. We task agent laboratories to develop new reasoning and prompting techniques and find that agents with access to their prior research achieve higher performance improvements compared to agents operating in isolation (11.4% relative improvement over baseline on MATH-500). We find that the best performing strategy generalizes to benchmarks in other domains (improving on average by 3.3%). Multiple agent laboratories sharing research through AgentRxiv are able to work together towards a common goal, progressing more rapidly than isolated laboratories, achieving higher overall accuracy (13.7% relative improvement over baseline on MATH-500). These findings suggest that autonomous agents may play a role in designing future AI systems alongside humans. We hope that AgentRxiv allows agents to collaborate toward research goals and enables researchers to accelerate discovery.

Accelerating scientific discovery requires the identification of which experiments would yield the best outcomes before committing resources to costly physical validation. While existing benchmarks evaluate LLMs on scientific knowledge and reasoning, their ability to predict experimental outcomes - a task where AI could significantly exceed human capabilities - remains largely underexplored. We introduce SciPredict, a benchmark comprising 405 tasks derived from recent empirical studies in 33 specialized sub-fields of physics, biology, and chemistry. SciPredict addresses two critical questions: (a) can LLMs predict the outcome of scientific experiments with sufficient accuracy? and (b) can such predictions be reliably used in the scientific research process? Evaluations reveal fundamental limitations on both fronts. Model accuracies are 14-26% and human expert performance is approx20%. Although some frontier models exceed human performance model accuracy is still far below what would enable reliable experimental guidance. Even within the limited performance, models fail to distinguish reliable predictions from unreliable ones, achieving only approx20% accuracy regardless of their confidence or whether they judge outcomes as predictable without physical experimentation. Human experts, in contrast, demonstrate strong calibration: their accuracy increases from approx5% to approx80% as they deem outcomes more predictable without conducting the experiment. SciPredict establishes a rigorous framework demonstrating that superhuman performance in experimental science requires not just better predictions, but better awareness of prediction reliability. For reproducibility all our data and code are provided at https://github.com/scaleapi/scipredict

Multi-modal large language models (MLLMs) have demonstrated promising capabilities across various tasks by integrating textual and visual information to achieve visual understanding in complex scenarios. Despite the availability of several benchmarks aims to evaluating MLLMs in tasks from visual question answering to complex problem-solving, most focus predominantly on mathematics or general visual understanding tasks. This reveals a critical gap in current benchmarks, which often overlook the inclusion of other key scientific disciplines such as physics and chemistry. To address this gap, we meticulously construct a comprehensive benchmark, named VisScience, which is utilized to assess the multi-modal scientific reasoning across the three disciplines of mathematics, physics, and chemistry. This benchmark comprises 3,000 questions drawn from K12 education - spanning elementary school through high school - equally distributed across three disciplines, with 1,000 questions per discipline. The questions within VisScience span 21 distinct subjects and are categorized into five difficulty levels, offering a broad spectrum of topics within each discipline. With VisScience, we present a detailed evaluation of the performance of 25 representative MLLMs in scientific reasoning. Experimental results demonstrate that closed-source MLLMs generally outperform open-source models. The best performance observed include a 53.4\% accuracy in mathematics by Claude3.5-Sonnet, 38.2\% in physics by GPT-4o, and 47.0\% in chemistry by Gemini-1.5-Pro. These results underscore the strengths and limitations of MLLMs, suggesting areas for future improvement and highlighting the importance of developing models that can effectively handle the diverse demands of multi-modal scientific reasoning.

Agentic systems are evaluated on benchmarks where agents interact with environments to solve tasks. Most papers report a pass@1 score computed from a single run per task, assuming this gives a reliable performance estimate. We test this assumption by collecting 60,000 agentic trajectories on SWE-Bench-Verified, spanning three models and two scaffolds. We find substantial variance: single-run pass@1 estimates vary by 2.2 to 6.0 percentage points depending on which run is selected, with standard deviations exceeding 1.5 percentage points even at temperature 0. This variance has critical implications: reported improvements of 2--3 percentage points may reflect evaluation noise rather than genuine algorithmic progress. Through token-level analysis, we show that trajectories diverge early, often within the first few percent of tokens, and that these small differences cascade into different solution strategies. To enable reliable evaluation of agentic systems, we recommend three concrete practices: (1) estimate pass@1 from multiple independent runs per task, especially when measuring small improvements, (2) use statistical power analysis to determine the number of runs needed to detect expected effect sizes, and (3) consider metrics like pass@k (optimistic bound) and pass^k (pessimistic bound) with k>1 to better characterize the full performance envelope. While these practices increase evaluation cost, they are essential for distinguishing genuine scientific progress from statistical noise.

Scientific laboratories increasingly rely on AI systems to reason about experiments, but the physical act of doing science remains largely outside their reach. AI can help read literature, generate hypotheses, and plan protocols, yet the execution of those protocols at the bench still requires a human operator. Vision-Language-Action (VLA) models provide one possible interface between written protocols and robot execution, but existing policies are trained mostly on household and tabletop demonstrations and rarely encounter the instruments, transparent liquids, or fixed protocol workflows found in scientific laboratories. Closing this gap requires both laboratory-specific supervision and a unified learning framework that can accommodate the diverse robot embodiments used to execute experimental protocols. We therefore identify data and embodiment as central bottlenecks alongside model design. To address the data side, we build RoboGenesis, a simulation-based workflow and data engine that composes configured laboratory workflows from atomic skills, validates and filters rollouts, and exports structured demonstrations across supported robot profiles. On the policy side, we present LabVLA, trained with a two-stage recipe: FAST action token pretraining first makes the Qwen3-VL-4B-Instruct backbone action aware before any continuous control is learned, and flow matching posttraining then attaches a DiT action expert under knowledge insulation. On the LabUtopia benchmark, LabVLA achieves the highest average success rate among all evaluated baselines under both in-distribution and out-of-distribution settings.

Quantitative chemistry is central to modern chemical research, yet the ability of large language models (LLMs) to perform its rigorous, step-by-step calculations remains underexplored. To fill this blank, we propose QCBench, a Quantitative Chemistry oriented benchmark comprising 350 computational chemistry problems across 7 chemistry subfields, which contains analytical chemistry, bio/organic chemistry, general chemistry, inorganic chemistry, physical chemistry, polymer chemistry and quantum chemistry. To systematically evaluate the mathematical reasoning abilities of large language models (LLMs), they are categorized into three tiers: easy, medium, and difficult. Each problem, rooted in realistic chemical scenarios, is structured to prevent heuristic shortcuts and demand explicit numerical reasoning. QCBench enables fine-grained diagnosis of computational weaknesses, reveals model-specific limitations across difficulty levels, and lays the groundwork for future improvements such as domain-adaptive fine-tuning or multi-modal integration. Evaluations on 24 LLMs demonstrate a consistent performance degradation with increasing task complexity, highlighting the current gap between language fluency and scientific computation accuracy. Code for QCBench is available at https://github.com/jiaqingxie/QCBench.

Autonomous agents are increasingly expected to support end-to-end medical-AI research workflows, moving beyond isolated prediction tasks or short-form clinical question answering. However, existing medical agent benchmarks primarily evaluate final outputs, providing limited visibility into agent behavior within the research process. To address this gap, we present AutoMedBench, a workflow-aware benchmark for autonomous medical-AI research across diverse medical imaging and multimodal inference tasks, organizing agent execution into a unified five-stage workflow (S1-S5): Plan, Setup, Validate, Inference, and Submit. It comprises long-horizon tasks with each run averaging 33 agent turns, spanning five research tracks: segmentation, image enhancement, visual question answering (VQA), report generation, and lesion detection. Each task is evaluated under two difficulty tiers, Lite and Standard, which use the same data and metrics but differ in the amount of task-brief scaffolding, and each run is scored using both final task performance and S1-S5 stage scores, enabling stage-level analysis from the initial task brief to the final submitted artifact. Across thousands of recorded runs, stage-level scoring reveals that Validate is the weakest workflow stage on average, whereas Setup is the strongest, suggesting that current agents are better at making pipelines executable than at verifying their reliability. Post-run error analysis further shows that verification and submission failures dominate tagged errors, accounting for 37.7% and 38.1% of fired codes respectively, whereas task-understanding errors are rare at 0.9%, and runs with one fired error code have a 48% lower overall score than runs with no error code on average.

Existing language model evaluations primarily measure general capabilities, yet reliable use of these models across a range of domains demands factual accuracy and recognition of knowledge gaps. We introduce AA-Omniscience, a benchmark designed to measure both factual recall and knowledge calibration across 6,000 questions. Questions are derived from authoritative academic and industry sources, and cover 42 economically relevant topics within six different domains. The evaluation measures a model's Omniscience Index, a bounded metric (-100 to 100) measuring factual recall that jointly penalizes hallucinations and rewards abstention when uncertain, with 0 equating to a model that answers questions correctly as much as it does incorrectly. Among evaluated models, Claude 4.1 Opus attains the highest score (4.8), making it one of only three models to score above zero. These results reveal persistent factuality and calibration weaknesses across frontier models. Performance also varies by domain, with the models from three different research labs leading across the six domains. This performance variability suggests models should be chosen according to the demands of the use case rather than general performance for tasks where knowledge is important.

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.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to scientific research, yet prevailing science benchmarks probe decontextualized knowledge and overlook the iterative reasoning, hypothesis generation, and observation interpretation that drive scientific discovery. We introduce a scenario-grounded benchmark that evaluates LLMs across biology, chemistry, materials, and physics, where domain experts define research projects of genuine interest and decompose them into modular research scenarios from which vetted questions are sampled. The framework assesses models at two levels: (i) question-level accuracy on scenario-tied items and (ii) project-level performance, where models must propose testable hypotheses, design simulations or experiments, and interpret results. Applying this two-phase scientific discovery evaluation (SDE) framework to state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a consistent performance gap relative to general science benchmarks, diminishing return of scaling up model sizes and reasoning, and systematic weaknesses shared across top-tier models from different providers. Large performance variation in research scenarios leads to changing choices of the best performing model on scientific discovery projects evaluated, suggesting all current LLMs are distant to general scientific "superintelligence". Nevertheless, LLMs already demonstrate promise in a great variety of scientific discovery projects, including cases where constituent scenario scores are low, highlighting the role of guided exploration and serendipity in discovery. This SDE framework offers a reproducible benchmark for discovery-relevant evaluation of LLMs and charts practical paths to advance their development toward scientific discovery.

Large language models (LLMs) frequently achieve impressive scores on standardized benchmarks, yet accuracy alone offers a limited view of their capabilities. Evaluating open-source LLMs through leaderboards faces persistent issues like data contamination, narrow task scope, and weak alignment with real-world reliability. Benchmark-based evaluations such as MMLU PRO, BBH, or IFEval primarily capture what a model outputs on fixed test sets, not how it processes information, calibrates uncertainty, or structures internal knowledge. In this article, we advocate for a shift from benchmark-centric evaluation toward a complementary, state-centered intrinsic assessment of LLMs. To this end, we introduce Latent Performance Profiling (LPP) -- a framework that derives task-agnostic diagnostics from hidden activations and output distributions. LPP defines a set of scalar metrics on a model's latent representations and dynamics, revealing scale-independent traits that enable interpretable comparisons and uncover hidden vulnerabilities. Unlike static accuracy scores, LPP provides stable, architecture-sensitive signatures across models of similar size. With extensive empirical analyses across eight LLMs, spanning a size range of 0.5B-14B, we demonstrate that models with similar benchmark scores can exhibit contrasting latent profiles, such as differences in entropy or adaptability. Guided by these insights, we design synthetic probes for uncertainty and symbolic reasoning that align with intrinsic metrics while decoupling from leaderboard bias. We recommend that reporting LPP alongside benchmarks provides a deeper, interpretable understanding of model behavior, enabling more reliable model selection, safety assessment, and evaluation beyond surface-level accuracy.

What makes a good Large Language Model (LLM)? That it performs well on the relevant benchmarks -- which hopefully measure, with some validity, the presence of capabilities that are also challenged in real application. But what makes the model perform well? What gives a model its abilities? We take a recently introduced type of benchmark that is meant to challenge capabilities in a goal-directed, agentive context through self-play of conversational games, and analyse how performance develops as a function of model characteristics like number of parameters, or type of training. We find that while there is a clear relationship between number of parameters and performance, there is still a wide spread of performance points within a given size bracket, which is to be accounted for by training parameters such as fine-tuning data quality and method. From a more practical angle, we also find a certain degree of unpredictability about performance across access methods, possible due to unexposed sampling parameters, and a, very welcome, performance stability against at least moderate weight quantisation during inference.

As Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit plateauing performance on conventional benchmarks, a pivotal challenge persists: evaluating their proficiency in complex, open-ended tasks characterizing genuine expert-level cognition. Existing frameworks suffer from narrow domain coverage, reliance on generalist tasks, or self-evaluation biases. To bridge this gap, we present XpertBench, a high-fidelity benchmark engineered to assess LLMs across authentic professional domains. XpertBench consists of 1,346 meticulously curated tasks across 80 categories, spanning finance, healthcare, legal services, education, and dual-track research (STEM and Humanities). These tasks are derived from over 1,000 submissions by domain experts--including researchers from elite institutions and practitioners with extensive clinical or industrial experience--ensuring superior ecological validity. Each task uses detailed rubrics with mostly 15-40 weighted checkpoints to assess professional rigor. To facilitate scalable yet human-aligned assessment, we introduce ShotJudge, a novel evaluation paradigm that employs LLM judges calibrated with expert few-shot exemplars to mitigate self-rewarding biases. Our empirical evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a pronounced performance ceiling: even leading models achieve a peak success rate of only ~66%, with a mean score around 55%. Models also exhibit domain-specific divergence, showing non-overlapping strengths in quantitative reasoning versus linguistic synthesis.. These findings underscore a significant "expert-gap" in current AI systems and establish XpertBench as a critical instrument for navigating the transition from general-purpose assistants to specialized professional collaborators.

Language model (LM) benchmarking faces several challenges: comprehensive evaluations are costly, benchmarks often fail to measure the intended capabilities, and evaluation quality can degrade due to labeling errors and benchmark saturation. Although various strategies have been proposed to mitigate these issues, they tend to address individual aspects in isolation, neglecting broader questions about overall evaluation quality. Here, we introduce Fluid Benchmarking, a new evaluation approach that advances LM benchmarking across multiple dimensions. Inspired by psychometrics, Fluid Benchmarking is based on the insight that the relative value of benchmark items depends on an LM's capability level, suggesting that evaluation should adapt to each LM. Methodologically, Fluid Benchmarking estimates an item response model based on existing LM evaluation results and uses the inferred quantities to select evaluation items dynamically, similar to computerized adaptive testing in education. In our experiments, we compare Fluid Benchmarking against the common practice of random item sampling as well as more sophisticated baselines, including alternative methods grounded in item response theory. We examine four dimensions -- efficiency, validity, variance, and saturation -- and find that Fluid Benchmarking achieves superior performance in all of them (e.g., higher validity and less variance on MMLU with fifty times fewer items). Our analysis shows that the two components of Fluid Benchmarking have distinct effects: item response theory, used to map performance into a latent ability space, increases validity, while dynamic item selection reduces variance. Overall, our results suggest that LM benchmarking can be substantially improved by moving beyond static evaluation.

Existing research has identified three structural performance bottlenecks in AI research agents: (1) synchronous single-GPU execution constrains sample throughput, limiting the benefit of search; (2) a generalization gap where validation-based selection causes performance to degrade over extended search horizons; and (3) the limited capability of fixed, single-turn LLM operators imposes a ceiling on search performance. We introduce AIRA_2, which addresses these bottlenecks through three architectural choices: an asynchronous multi-GPU worker pool that increases experiment throughput linearly; a Hidden Consistent Evaluation protocol that delivers a reliable evaluation signal; and ReAct agents that dynamically scope their actions and debug interactively. On MLE-bench-30, AIRA_2 achieves a mean Percentile Rank of 71.8% at 24 hours - surpassing the previous best of 69.9% - and steadily improves to 76.0% at 72 hours. Ablation studies reveal that each component is necessary and that the "overfitting" reported in prior work was driven by evaluation noise rather than true data memorization.

Autonomous research agents produce competitive solutions and professional-looking manuscripts, yet their outputs contain verifiability failures undetectable by surface-level evaluation: fabricated citations, unreproducible scores, and method descriptions that diverge from the implementation. We address this through three contributions. First, Chain-of-Evidence (CoE), a verifiability framework requiring every claim to be traceable to its evidence source. Second, ScientistOne, an end-to-end autonomous research system that maintains evidence chains by construction throughout literature review, solution discovery, and paper writing. Third, CoE Audit, a post-hoc audit whose four integrity checks -- score verification, specification violation, reference verification, and method-code alignment -- apply uniformly to all systems. Across 75 papers spanning five systems and five frontier research tasks, every baseline exhibits at least one systematic failure mode: hallucinated reference rates reach 21%, score verification passes in as few as 42% of papers, and method-code alignment ranges from 20% to 80%. ScientistOne achieves zero hallucinated references (0/337), perfect score verification (12/12), and the highest method-code alignment (14/15), while matching or exceeding human expert performance on all five tasks. ScientistOne further generalizes to six additional tasks spanning medical imaging, fine-grained recognition, 3D perception, and language modeling, achieving state-of-the-art on Parameter Golf and gold medals on MLE-Bench tasks where baselines fail entirely.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) hold promise for accelerating scientific discovery by interpreting complex experimental procedures. However, their true capabilities are poorly understood, as existing benchmarks neglect the fine-grained and long-horizon nature of authentic laboratory work, especially in wet-lab settings. To bridge this gap, we introduce ExpVid, the first benchmark designed to systematically evaluate MLLMs on scientific experiment videos. Curated from peer-reviewed video publications, ExpVid features a new three-level task hierarchy that mirrors the scientific process: (1) Fine-grained Perception of tools, materials, and actions; (2) Procedural Understanding of step order and completeness; and (3) Scientific Reasoning that connects the full experiment to its published conclusions. Our vision-centric annotation pipeline, combining automated generation with multi-disciplinary expert validation, ensures that tasks require visual grounding. We evaluate 19 leading MLLMs on ExpVid and find that while they excel at coarse-grained recognition, they struggle with disambiguating fine details, tracking state changes over time, and linking experimental procedures to scientific outcomes. Our results reveal a notable performance gap between proprietary and open-source models, particularly in high-order reasoning. ExpVid not only provides a diagnostic tool but also charts a roadmap for developing MLLMs capable of becoming trustworthy partners in scientific experimentation.

Benchmarks are widely used to evaluate task completion by Large Language Models (LLMs), but this approach has accumulated construction-validity problems, and a passing score may not show whether the requested task was delivered. We study both problems. In a controlled code-as-spec setup, two production Copilot CLI agents (claude-opus-4.7, gpt-5.5) re-implement a React Fluent-UI data table in Angular as a reusable library under a hidden 222-test Playwright oracle across 18 runs and three oracle-availability conditions. Alongside the score, we run a mechanical library audit and check each verdict with a no-op ablation. Without the oracle, the library is present but unfinished, revealed by scores. With the oracle in the loop, the score reaches near-perfect, but from a demo holding the tested behavior directly, the library left dead or absent. We call this building to the test; the broader disposition behind both we call validation self-awareness. The agent does not, on its own, validate what it ships as a user would. Prevalence remains an open question across other agents, signals, and model families. Beyond benchmark scores, dispositions like validation self-awareness merit research attention.

Lack of rigorous reproducibility and validation are major hurdles for scientific development across many fields. Materials science in particular encompasses a variety of experimental and theoretical approaches that require careful benchmarking. Leaderboard efforts have been developed previously to mitigate these issues. However, a comprehensive comparison and benchmarking on an integrated platform with multiple data modalities with both perfect and defect materials data is still lacking. This work introduces JARVIS-Leaderboard, an open-source and community-driven platform that facilitates benchmarking and enhances reproducibility. The platform allows users to set up benchmarks with custom tasks and enables contributions in the form of dataset, code, and meta-data submissions. We cover the following materials design categories: Artificial Intelligence (AI), Electronic Structure (ES), Force-fields (FF), Quantum Computation (QC) and Experiments (EXP). For AI, we cover several types of input data, including atomic structures, atomistic images, spectra, and text. For ES, we consider multiple ES approaches, software packages, pseudopotentials, materials, and properties, comparing results to experiment. For FF, we compare multiple approaches for material property predictions. For QC, we benchmark Hamiltonian simulations using various quantum algorithms and circuits. Finally, for experiments, we use the inter-laboratory approach to establish benchmarks. There are 1281 contributions to 274 benchmarks using 152 methods with more than 8 million data-points, and the leaderboard is continuously expanding. The JARVIS-Leaderboard is available at the website: https://pages.nist.gov/jarvis_leaderboard

Language models demonstrate both quantitative improvement and new qualitative capabilities with increasing scale. Despite their potentially transformative impact, these new capabilities are as yet poorly characterized. In order to inform future research, prepare for disruptive new model capabilities, and ameliorate socially harmful effects, it is vital that we understand the present and near-future capabilities and limitations of language models. To address this challenge, we introduce the Beyond the Imitation Game benchmark (BIG-bench). BIG-bench currently consists of 204 tasks, contributed by 442 authors across 132 institutions. Task topics are diverse, drawing problems from linguistics, childhood development, math, common-sense reasoning, biology, physics, social bias, software development, and beyond. BIG-bench focuses on tasks that are believed to be beyond the capabilities of current language models. We evaluate the behavior of OpenAI's GPT models, Google-internal dense transformer architectures, and Switch-style sparse transformers on BIG-bench, across model sizes spanning millions to hundreds of billions of parameters. In addition, a team of human expert raters performed all tasks in order to provide a strong baseline. Findings include: model performance and calibration both improve with scale, but are poor in absolute terms (and when compared with rater performance); performance is remarkably similar across model classes, though with benefits from sparsity; tasks that improve gradually and predictably commonly involve a large knowledge or memorization component, whereas tasks that exhibit "breakthrough" behavior at a critical scale often involve multiple steps or components, or brittle metrics; social bias typically increases with scale in settings with ambiguous context, but this can be improved with prompting.

The Test and Measurement domain, known for its strict requirements for accuracy and efficiency, is increasingly adopting Generative AI technologies to enhance the performance of data analysis, automation, and decision-making processes. Among these, Large Language Models (LLMs) show significant promise for advancing automation and precision in testing. However, the evaluation of LLMs in this specialized area remains insufficiently explored. To address this gap, we introduce the Test and Measurement Intelligence Quotient (TMIQ), a benchmark designed to quantitatively assess LLMs across a wide range of electronic engineering tasks. TMIQ offers a comprehensive set of scenarios and metrics for detailed evaluation, including SCPI command matching accuracy, ranked response evaluation, Chain-of-Thought Reasoning (CoT), and the impact of output formatting variations required by LLMs on performance. In testing various LLMs, our findings indicate varying levels of proficiency, with exact SCPI command match accuracy ranging from around 56% to 73%, and ranked matching first-position scores achieving around 33% for the best-performing model. We also assess token usage, cost-efficiency, and response times, identifying trade-offs between accuracy and operational efficiency. Additionally, we present a command-line interface (CLI) tool that enables users to generate datasets using the same methodology, allowing for tailored assessments of LLMs. TMIQ and the CLI tool provide a rigorous, reproducible means of evaluating LLMs for production environments, facilitating continuous monitoring and identifying strengths and areas for improvement, and driving innovation in their selections for applications within the Test and Measurement industry.

The burgeoning utilization of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific research necessitates advanced benchmarks capable of evaluating their understanding and application of scientific knowledge comprehensively. To address this need, we introduce the SciKnowEval benchmark, a novel framework that systematically evaluates LLMs across five progressive levels of scientific knowledge: studying extensively, inquiring earnestly, thinking profoundly, discerning clearly, and practicing assiduously. These levels aim to assess the breadth and depth of scientific knowledge in LLMs, including knowledge coverage, inquiry and exploration capabilities, reflection and reasoning abilities, ethic and safety considerations, as well as practice proficiency. Specifically, we take biology and chemistry as the two instances of SciKnowEval and construct a dataset encompassing 50K multi-level scientific problems and solutions. By leveraging this dataset, we benchmark 20 leading open-source and proprietary LLMs using zero-shot and few-shot prompting strategies. The results reveal that despite achieving state-of-the-art performance, the proprietary LLMs still have considerable room for improvement, particularly in addressing scientific computations and applications. We anticipate that SciKnowEval will establish a comprehensive standard for benchmarking LLMs in science research and discovery, and promote the development of LLMs that integrate scientific knowledge with strong safety awareness. The dataset and code are publicly available at https://github.com/hicai-zju/sciknoweval .

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

Recent advances in machine learning and large-scale biological data collections have revived the prospect of building a virtual cell, a computational model of cellular behavior that could accelerate biological discovery. One of the most compelling promises of this vision is the ability to perform in silico phenotypic screens, in which a model predicts the effects of cellular perturbations in unseen biological contexts. This task combines heterogeneous textual inputs with diverse phenotypic outputs, making it particularly well-suited to LLMs and agentic systems. Yet, no standard benchmark currently exists for this task, as existing efforts focus on narrower molecular readouts that are only indirectly aligned with the phenotypic endpoints driving many real-world drug discovery workflows. In this work, we present AssayBench, a benchmark for phenotypic screen prediction, built from 1,920 publicly available CRISPR screens spanning five broad classes of cellular phenotypes. We formulate the screen prediction task as a gene rank prediction for each screen and introduce the adjusted nDCG, a continuous metric for comparing performance across heterogeneous assays. Our extensive evaluation shows that existing methods remain far from empirically estimated performance ceilings and zero-shot generalist LLMs outperform biology-specific LLMs and trainable baselines. Optimization techniques such as fine-tuning, ensembling, and prompt optimization can further improve LLM performance on this task. Overall, AssayBench offers a practical testbed for measuring progress toward in silico phenotypic screening and, more broadly, virtual cell models.

Coding-agent benchmarks have largely measured whether agents can produce functionally correct patches, but production software also demands measurable speedups on real execution targets. Performance optimization is a distinct agentic task: agents must profile executions, diagnose cross-layer bottlenecks, edit code without breaking correctness, and verify that gains are reproducible rather than measurement artifacts. We introduce PERFOPT-Bench, a benchmark for evaluating this full performance-engineering loop. Each task provides a correct but deliberately suboptimal codebase and asks the agent to improve a target performance metric; scoring requires hidden correctness tests, verified-speedup measurement, and trajectory-level audit. We evaluate 7 agent stacks with different LLMs and agent frameworks on 7 long-horizon optimization tasks. The results show that optimization performance is workload-dependent rather than determined by model identity alone: no single stack dominates, and changing the agent framework can materially change the same LLM's per-task speedup profile. We further find that raw speedup is unsafe as a benchmark score, since some large gains arise from benchmark-specific shortcut exploitation; an exploratory relay pilot suggests that restarting from an externalized optimization summary can recover additional headroom after an initial session stops. The benchmark and our evaluation are available at: https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Dataset-D3CC.

This paper introduces BioAgent Bench, a benchmark dataset and an evaluation suite designed for measuring the performance and robustness of AI agents in common bioinformatics tasks. The benchmark contains curated end-to-end tasks (e.g., RNA-seq, variant calling, metagenomics) with prompts that specify concrete output artifacts to support automated assessment, including stress testing under controlled perturbations. We evaluate frontier closed-source and open-weight models across multiple agent harnesses, and use an LLM-based grader to score pipeline progress and outcome validity. We find that frontier agents can complete multi-step bioinformatics pipelines without elaborate custom scaffolding, often producing the requested final artifacts reliably. However, robustness tests reveal failure modes under controlled perturbations (corrupted inputs, decoy files, and prompt bloat), indicating that correct high-level pipeline construction does not guarantee reliable step-level reasoning. Finally, because bioinformatics workflows may involve sensitive patient data, proprietary references, or unpublished IP, closed-source models can be unsuitable under strict privacy constraints; in such settings, open-weight models may be preferable despite lower completion rates. We release the dataset and evaluation suite publicly.

As the focus in LLM-based coding shifts from static single-step code generation to multi-step agentic interaction with tools and environments, understanding which tasks will challenge agents and why becomes increasingly difficult. This is compounded by current practice: agent performance is typically measured by aggregate pass rates on benchmarks, but single-number metrics obscure the diversity of tasks within a benchmark. We present a framework for predicting success or failure on individual tasks tailored to the agentic coding regime. Our approach augments Item Response Theory (IRT) with rich features extracted from tasks, including issue statements, repository contexts, solutions, and test cases, and introduces a novel decomposition of agent ability into LLM and scaffold ability components. This parameterization enables us to aggregate evaluation data across heterogeneous leaderboards and accurately predict task-level performance for unseen benchmarks, as well as unseen LLM-scaffold combinations. Our methods have practical utility for benchmark designers, who can better calibrate the difficulty of their new tasks without running computationally expensive agent evaluations.

Recent advancements have positioned AI, and particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), as transformative tools for scientific research, capable of addressing complex tasks that require reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making. Their exceptional capabilities suggest their potential as scientific research assistants but also highlight the need for holistic, rigorous, and domain-specific evaluation to assess effectiveness in real-world scientific applications. This paper describes a multifaceted methodology for Evaluating AI models as scientific Research Assistants (EAIRA) developed at Argonne National Laboratory. This methodology incorporates four primary classes of evaluations. 1) Multiple Choice Questions to assess factual recall; 2) Open Response to evaluate advanced reasoning and problem-solving skills; 3) Lab-Style Experiments involving detailed analysis of capabilities as research assistants in controlled environments; and 4) Field-Style Experiments to capture researcher-LLM interactions at scale in a wide range of scientific domains and applications. These complementary methods enable a comprehensive analysis of LLM strengths and weaknesses with respect to their scientific knowledge, reasoning abilities, and adaptability. Recognizing the rapid pace of LLM advancements, we designed the methodology to evolve and adapt so as to ensure its continued relevance and applicability. This paper describes the methodology state at the end of February 2025. Although developed within a subset of scientific domains, the methodology is designed to be generalizable to a wide range of scientific domains.

Artificial intelligence systems are increasingly deployed in biomedical research. However, current evaluation frameworks may inadequately assess their effectiveness as research collaborators. This rapid review examines benchmarking practices for AI systems in preclinical biomedical research. Three major databases and two preprint servers were searched from January 1, 2018 to October 31, 2025, identifying 14 benchmarks that assess AI capabilities in literature understanding, experimental design, and hypothesis generation. The results revealed that all current benchmarks assess isolated component capabilities, including data analysis quality, hypothesis validity, and experimental protocol design. However, authentic research collaboration requires integrated workflows spanning multiple sessions, with contextual memory, adaptive dialogue, and constraint propagation. This gap implies that systems excelling on component benchmarks may fail as practical research co-pilots. A process-oriented evaluation framework is proposed that addresses four critical dimensions absent from current benchmarks: dialogue quality, workflow orchestration, session continuity, and researcher experience. These dimensions are essential for evaluating AI systems as research co-pilots rather than as isolated task executors.

Laboratory test results are an important and generally high dimensional component of a patient's Electronic Health Record (EHR). We train embedding representations (via Word2Vec and GloVe) for LOINC codes of laboratory tests from the EHRs of about 80,000 patients at a cancer center. To include information about lab test outcomes, we also train embeddings on the concatenation of a LOINC code with a symbol indicating normality or abnormality of the result. We observe several clinically meaningful similarities among LOINC embeddings trained over our data. For the embeddings of the concatenation of LOINCs with abnormality codes, we evaluate the performance for mortality prediction tasks and the ability to preserve ordinality properties: i.e. a lab test with normal outcome should be more similar to an abnormal one than to the a very abnormal one.

Despite its importance to experimental design, statistical power (the probability that, given a real effect, an experiment will reject the null hypothesis) has largely been ignored by the NLP community. Underpowered experiments make it more difficult to discern the difference between statistical noise and meaningful model improvements, and increase the chances of exaggerated findings. By meta-analyzing a set of existing NLP papers and datasets, we characterize typical power for a variety of settings and conclude that underpowered experiments are common in the NLP literature. In particular, for several tasks in the popular GLUE benchmark, small test sets mean that most attempted comparisons to state of the art models will not be adequately powered. Similarly, based on reasonable assumptions, we find that the most typical experimental design for human rating studies will be underpowered to detect small model differences, of the sort that are frequently studied. For machine translation, we find that typical test sets of 2000 sentences have approximately 75% power to detect differences of 1 BLEU point. To improve the situation going forward, we give an overview of best practices for power analysis in NLP and release a series of notebooks to assist with future power analyses.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated notable progress on many mathematical benchmarks. However, most of these benchmarks only feature problems grounded in junior and senior high school subjects, contain only multiple-choice questions, and are confined to a limited scope of elementary arithmetic operations. To address these issues, this paper introduces an expansive benchmark suite SciBench that aims to systematically examine the reasoning capabilities required for complex scientific problem solving. SciBench contains two carefully curated datasets: an open set featuring a range of collegiate-level scientific problems drawn from mathematics, chemistry, and physics textbooks, and a closed set comprising problems from undergraduate-level exams in computer science and mathematics. Based on the two datasets, we conduct an in-depth benchmark study of two representative LLMs with various prompting strategies. The results reveal that current LLMs fall short of delivering satisfactory performance, with an overall score of merely 35.80%. Furthermore, through a detailed user study, we categorize the errors made by LLMs into ten problem-solving abilities. Our analysis indicates that no single prompting strategy significantly outperforms others and some strategies that demonstrate improvements in certain problem-solving skills result in declines in other skills. We envision that SciBench will catalyze further developments in the reasoning abilities of LLMs, thereby ultimately contributing to scientific research and discovery.

Progress in large language models is constrained by an evaluation bottleneck: build a benchmark, evaluate models and settings, then iterate. We therefore ask a simple question: can we forecast outcomes before running any experiments? We study text-only performance forecasting: estimating a model's score from a redacted task description and intended configuration, with no access to dataset instances. To support systematic study, we curate PRECOG, a corpus of redacted description-performance pairs spanning diverse tasks, domains, and metrics. Experiments show the task is challenging but feasible: models equipped with a retrieval module that excludes source papers achieve moderate prediction performance with well-calibrated uncertainty, reaching mean absolute error as low as 8.7 on the Accuracy subset at high-confidence thresholds. Our analysis indicates that stronger reasoning models engage in diverse, iterative querying, whereas current open-source models lag and often skip retrieval or gather evidence with limited diversity. We further test a zero-leakage setting, forecasting on newly released datasets or experiments before their papers are indexed, where GPT-5 with built-in web search still attains nontrivial prediction accuracy. Overall, our corpus and analyses offer an initial step toward open-ended anticipatory evaluation, supporting difficulty estimation and smarter experiment prioritization.

Large language models are increasingly applied to materials science, yet fundamental questions remain about their reliability and knowledge encoding. Evaluating 25 LLMs across four materials science tasks -- over 200 base and fine-tuned configurations -- we find that output modality fundamentally determines model behavior. For symbolic tasks, fine-tuning converges to consistent, verifiable answers with reduced response entropy, while for numerical tasks, fine-tuning improves prediction accuracy but models remain inconsistent across repeated inference runs, limiting their reliability as quantitative predictors. For numerical regression, we find that better performance can be obtained by extracting embeddings directly from intermediate transformer layers than from model text output, revealing an ``LLM head bottleneck,'' though this effect is property- and dataset-dependent. Finally, we present a longitudinal study of GPT model performance in materials science, tracking four models over 18 months and observing 9--43\% performance variation that poses reproducibility challenges for scientific applications.

Automating AI research holds immense potential for accelerating scientific progress, yet current AI agents struggle with the complexities of rigorous, end-to-end experimentation. We introduce EXP-Bench, a novel benchmark designed to systematically evaluate AI agents on complete research experiments sourced from influential AI publications. Given a research question and incomplete starter code, EXP-Bench challenges AI agents to formulate hypotheses, design and implement experimental procedures, execute them, and analyze results. To enable the creation of such intricate and authentic tasks with high-fidelity, we design a semi-autonomous pipeline to extract and structure crucial experimental details from these research papers and their associated open-source code. With the pipeline, EXP-Bench curated 461 AI research tasks from 51 top-tier AI research papers. Evaluations of leading LLM-based agents, such as OpenHands and IterativeAgent on EXP-Bench demonstrate partial capabilities: while scores on individual experimental aspects such as design or implementation correctness occasionally reach 20-35%, the success rate for complete, executable experiments was a mere 0.5%. By identifying these bottlenecks and providing realistic step-by-step experiment procedures, EXP-Bench serves as a vital tool for future AI agents to improve their ability to conduct AI research experiments. EXP-Bench is open-sourced at https://github.com/Just-Curieous/Curie/tree/main/benchmark/exp_bench.

We introduce AInsteinBench, a large-scale benchmark for evaluating whether large language model (LLM) agents can operate as scientific computing development agents within real research software ecosystems. Unlike existing scientific reasoning benchmarks which focus on conceptual knowledge, or software engineering benchmarks that emphasize generic feature implementation and issue resolving, AInsteinBench evaluates models in end-to-end scientific development settings grounded in production-grade scientific repositories. The benchmark consists of tasks derived from maintainer-authored pull requests across six widely used scientific codebases, spanning quantum chemistry, quantum computing, molecular dynamics, numerical relativity, fluid dynamics, and cheminformatics. All benchmark tasks are carefully curated through multi-stage filtering and expert review to ensure scientific challenge, adequate test coverage, and well-calibrated difficulty. By leveraging evaluation in executable environments, scientifically meaningful failure modes, and test-driven verification, AInsteinBench measures a model's ability to move beyond surface-level code generation toward the core competencies required for computational scientific research.

Ensuring safe and effective use of AI requires understanding and anticipating its performance on novel tasks, from advanced scientific challenges to transformed workplace activities. So far, benchmarking has guided progress in AI, but it has offered limited explanatory and predictive power for general-purpose AI systems, given the low transferability across diverse tasks. In this paper, we introduce general scales for AI evaluation that can explain what common AI benchmarks really measure, extract ability profiles of AI systems, and predict their performance for new task instances, in- and out-of-distribution. Our fully-automated methodology builds on 18 newly-crafted rubrics that place instance demands on general scales that do not saturate. Illustrated for 15 large language models and 63 tasks, high explanatory power is unleashed from inspecting the demand and ability profiles, bringing insights on the sensitivity and specificity exhibited by different benchmarks, and how knowledge, metacognition and reasoning are affected by model size, chain-of-thought and distillation. Surprisingly, high predictive power at the instance level becomes possible using these demand levels, providing superior estimates over black-box baseline predictors based on embeddings or finetuning, especially in out-of-distribution settings (new tasks and new benchmarks). The scales, rubrics, battery, techniques and results presented here represent a major step for AI evaluation, underpinning the reliable deployment of AI in the years ahead. (Collaborative platform: https://kinds-of-intelligence-cfi.github.io/ADELE.)

Thousands of diverse benchmarks have been developed to measure the quality of large language models (LLMs). Yet prior work has demonstrated that LLM performance is often sufficiently explained by a small set of latent factors, or abilities. This suggests the potential for more efficient and principled benchmarking, but it remains difficult to compare the quality of different methods. Motivated by predictive validity, we argue that the quality of a benchmarking framework should be grounded in how efficiently it enables the prediction of model performance on unseen tasks. To analyze this objective, we collect the "Wide-scale Item Level Dataset" (WILD), a dataset of item-model response pairs, comprising evaluations of 65 models on 109,564 unique items spanning 163 tasks drawn from 27 datasets. This dataset enables the first analysis of how different techniques can predict a model's performance on a large, diverse collection of unseen tasks under different budget constraints. We demonstrate that combining a modified multidimensional item response theory (IRT) model with adaptive item selection driven by optimal experimental design can predict performance on 112 held-out benchmark tasks with a mean absolute error (MAE) of less than 7%, and can do so after observing only 16 items. We further demonstrate that incorporating cost-aware discount factors into our selection criteria can reduce the total tokens needed to reach 7% MAE from 141,000 tokens to only 22,000, an 85% reduction in evaluation cost.

Scientific discovery workflows usually contain and rely heavily on lab notes, where researchers record observations, interpret uncertain results, and plan follow-up experiments. Such informative lab notes preserve evolving scientific reasoning and author uncertainty, rather than polished final results exhibited in publications, providing a valuable opportunity for AI to engage in scientific exploration at a more comprehensive and deeper level. However, most prior work on scientific text focuses on papers, protocols, or structured databases, leaving informal laboratory notes underexplored as inputs to AI agents for science. This gap matters because lab notes often intermingle validated observations, tentative judgments, and possible experimental next steps within the same passage. If these signals are conflated, an AI agent may mistake uncertain scientific judgments for confirmed conclusions or executable actions. To this end, we present Notes2Skills, a two-stage framework for turning lab notebooks into verifiable skills for scientific AI agents while preserving the author's certainty. Across seven conditions and three wet-lab sessions, Notes2Skills is the only configuration that neither mistakes uncertain notes for firm instructions nor discards firm ones. We show that certainty preservation is the missing piece between lab notebooks and reliable agent skills, opening a path toward safer AI co-scientist systems.

Large language model (LLM) simulations of human behavior have the potential to revolutionize the social and behavioral sciences, if and only if they faithfully reflect real human behaviors. Current evaluations are fragmented, based on bespoke tasks and metrics, creating a patchwork of incomparable results. To address this, we introduce SimBench, the first large-scale, standardized benchmark for a robust, reproducible science of LLM simulation. By unifying 20 diverse datasets covering tasks from moral decision-making to economic choice across a large global participant pool, SimBench provides the necessary foundation to ask fundamental questions about when, how, and why LLM simulations succeed or fail. We show that, while even the best LLMs today have limited simulation ability (score: 40.80/100), performance scales log-linearly with model size. Simulation performance is not improved by increased inference-time compute. We demonstrate an alignment-simulation trade-off: instruction-tuning improves performance on low-entropy (consensus) questions but degrades it on high-entropy (diverse) ones. Models particularly struggle when simulating specific demographic groups. Finally, we demonstrate that simulation ability correlates most strongly with deep, knowledge-intensive reasoning (MMLU-Pro, r=0.939). By making progress measurable, we aim to accelerate the development of more faithful LLM simulators.

We introduce AbGen, the first benchmark designed to evaluate the capabilities of LLMs in designing ablation studies for scientific research. AbGen consists of 1,500 expert-annotated examples derived from 807 NLP papers. In this benchmark, LLMs are tasked with generating detailed ablation study designs for a specified module or process based on the given research context. Our evaluation of leading LLMs, such as DeepSeek-R1-0528 and o4-mini, highlights a significant performance gap between these models and human experts in terms of the importance, faithfulness, and soundness of the ablation study designs. Moreover, we demonstrate that current automated evaluation methods are not reliable for our task, as they show a significant discrepancy when compared to human assessment. To better investigate this, we develop AbGen-Eval, a meta-evaluation benchmark designed to assess the reliability of commonly used automated evaluation systems in measuring LLM performance on our task. We investigate various LLM-as-Judge systems on AbGen-Eval, providing insights for future research on developing more effective and reliable LLM-based evaluation systems for complex scientific tasks.

Designing a generalist scientific agent capable of performing tasks in laboratory settings to assist researchers has become a key goal in recent Artificial Intelligence (AI) research. Unlike everyday tasks, scientific tasks are inherently more delicate and complex, requiring agents to possess a higher level of reasoning ability, structured and temporal understanding of their environment, and a strong emphasis on safety. Existing approaches often fail to address these multifaceted requirements. To tackle these challenges, we present DAVIS. Unlike traditional retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approaches, DAVIS incorporates structured and temporal memory, which enables model-based planning. Additionally, DAVIS implements an agentic, multi-turn retrieval system, similar to a human's inner monologue, allowing for a greater degree of reasoning over past experiences. DAVIS demonstrates substantially improved performance on the ScienceWorld benchmark comparing to previous approaches on 8 out of 9 elementary science subjects. In addition, DAVIS's World Model demonstrates competitive performance on the famous HotpotQA and MusiqueQA dataset for multi-hop question answering. To the best of our knowledge, DAVIS is the first RAG agent to employ an interactive retrieval method in a RAG pipeline.

The paradigm of agentic science requires AI systems to conduct robust reasoning and engage in long-horizon, autonomous exploration. However, current scientific benchmarks remain confined to domain knowledge comprehension and complex reasoning, failing to evaluate the exploratory nature and procedural complexity of real-world research. In this work, we present research-oriented evaluations in theoretical and computational physics, a natural testbed with comprehensive domain knowledge, complex reasoning, and verifiable end-to-end workflows without reliance on experiments. Here we introduce PRL-Bench (Physics Research by LLMs), a benchmark designed to systematically map the capability boundaries of LLMs in executing end-to-end physics research. Constructed from 100 curated papers from the latest issues of Physical Review Letters since August 2025 and validated by domain experts, PRL-Bench covers five major theory- and computation-intensive subfields of modern physics: astrophysics, condensed matter physics, high-energy physics, quantum information, and statistical physics. Each task in the benchmark is designed to replicate the core properties of authentic scientific research, including exploration-oriented formulation, long-horizon workflows, and objective verifiability, thereby reconstructing the essential reasoning processes and research workflows of real physics research. Evaluation across frontier models shows that performance remains limited, with the best overall score below 50, revealing a pronounced gap between current LLM capabilities and the demands of real scientific research. PRL-Bench serves a reliable testbed for accessing next generation AI scientists advancing AI systems toward autonomous scientific discovery.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed as clinical agents, yet static, single-turn benchmarks cannot capture how a model dynamically delivers care across an encounter: gathering information, planning treatment, and adapting longitudinal management across successive patient states. Medical education has long addressed an analogous challenge through standardized patients (SPs): trained actors who consistently portray clinical cases, enabling realistic practice and objective, scripted assessment. Here we introduce MedSP1000, an SP-derived interactive benchmark for clinical-agent evaluation, including 1,638 SP cases with 24,602 trajectory-level peer-reviewed rubrics. MedSP1000 converts peer-reviewed SP teaching cases into executable scenarios with defined SP case scripts, clinical environment contexts, and human-validated structured rubric. In each simulation evaluation run, a clinical agent interacts in closed loop with a patient agent and an environment controller, and its behaviour is scored throughout the encounter against expert criteria specified in the original materials. Applying MedSP1000 to a range of general-purpose and medically specialized LLMs, we find that performance on static benchmarks does not reliably translate to such educational scenarios. The best-performing model, GPT-5.5, completes only 60.4% of expert-defined rubric items, whereas the strongest medically specialized model reaches 40.0%; increasing test-time compute produces no measurable gain. These results suggest that current LLMs, including agentic systems tuned for medicine, are not yet reliable enough to be safely integrated into actual clinical practice. More broadly, MedSP1000 shows how process-level, SP-style evaluation can reveal clinically relevant failure modes that single-turn benchmarks miss.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong performance on mathematical reasoning under well-posed conditions. However, real-world engineering problems require more than mathematical symbolic computation -- they need to deal with uncertainty, context, and open-ended scenarios. Existing benchmarks fail to capture these complexities. We introduce EngiBench, a hierarchical benchmark designed to evaluate LLMs on solving engineering problems. It spans three levels of increasing difficulty (foundational knowledge retrieval, multi-step contextual reasoning, and open-ended modeling) and covers diverse engineering subfields. To facilitate a deeper understanding of model performance, we systematically rewrite each problem into three controlled variants (perturbed, knowledge-enhanced, and math abstraction), enabling us to separately evaluate the model's robustness, domain-specific knowledge, and mathematical reasoning abilities. Experiment results reveal a clear performance gap across levels: models struggle more as tasks get harder, perform worse when problems are slightly changed, and fall far behind human experts on the high-level engineering tasks. These findings reveal that current LLMs still lack the high-level reasoning needed for real-world engineering, highlighting the need for future models with deeper and more reliable problem-solving capabilities. Our source code and data are available at https://github.com/EngiBench/EngiBench.

Advanced Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have demonstrated impressive performance in K-12 reasoning tasks, exhibiting great promise as intelligent tutors. Realizing this potential requires models to navigate real-world examinations effectively, yet most existing benchmarks fail to capture the complexity of authentic testing environments. Specifically, most datasets are static, prone to data contamination, and are often confined to restricted modalities, disciplines, and evaluation criteria. To address these issues, we introduce LiveK12Bench, a dynamic, holistic, multi-disciplinary benchmark designed to evaluate the reasoning abilities of LMMs in realistic examination scenarios. LiveK12Bench comprises 2K+ verified questions spanning Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, and Biology, sourced from the latest real-world exam papers and designed to grow over time. Our framework features several core innovations: 1) featuring an automated pipeline that continuously ingests and parses the latest examination papers to mitigate data leakage; and 2) proposing a novel `Mock Exam' evaluation scheme, which assesses the ability to complete end-to-end exams autonomously with accurate and efficient reasoning paths. Extensive experiments on 12 LMMs reveal that advanced models suffer substantial performance degradation under exam-realistic constraints: GPT-5's score drops from 79 to 53 (out of 100) when process rigor and efficiency are jointly evaluated. Our findings expose critical vulnerabilities, such as sensitivity to complex visual layouts, highlighting the gap between idealized reasoning capabilities and true educational readiness. Both code and dataset are publicly available.

We present MixtureVitae, an open-access pretraining corpus built to minimize legal risk while providing strong model performance. MixtureVitae follows a risk-mitigated sourcing strategy that combines public-domain and permissively licensed text (e.g., CC-BY/Apache) with carefully justified low-risk additions (e.g., government works and EU TDM-eligible sources), alongside targeted instruction, reasoning and synthetic data with documented provenance. We detail a transparent, multi-stage pipeline for license-aware filtering, safety and quality screening, and domain-aware mixing, and we release the dataset and curation recipes to support reproducible research. In controlled experiments using the open-sci-ref training protocol (fixed architectures at 130M/400M/1.3B/1.7B parameters; training budgets of 50B and 300B tokens), models trained on MixtureVitae consistently outperform other permissive datasets across a suite of standard benchmarks, and at the 1.7B/300B setting they surpass FineWeb-Edu and approach DCLM in the later stages of training. Performance is particularly strong on math/code and competitive on QA tasks. These results demonstrate that permissive-first, risk-mitigated data provides a practical and legally mitigated foundation for training capable LLMs, reducing reliance on indiscriminate web scraping without sacrificing competitiveness. Code: https://github.com/ontocord/mixturevitae

We present the Virology Capabilities Test (VCT), a large language model (LLM) benchmark that measures the capability to troubleshoot complex virology laboratory protocols. Constructed from the inputs of dozens of PhD-level expert virologists, VCT consists of 322 multimodal questions covering fundamental, tacit, and visual knowledge that is essential for practical work in virology laboratories. VCT is difficult: expert virologists with access to the internet score an average of 22.1% on questions specifically in their sub-areas of expertise. However, the most performant LLM, OpenAI's o3, reaches 43.8% accuracy, outperforming 94% of expert virologists even within their sub-areas of specialization. The ability to provide expert-level virology troubleshooting is inherently dual-use: it is useful for beneficial research, but it can also be misused. Therefore, the fact that publicly available models outperform virologists on VCT raises pressing governance considerations. We propose that the capability of LLMs to provide expert-level troubleshooting of dual-use virology work should be integrated into existing frameworks for handling dual-use technologies in the life sciences.

Large language models are increasingly used as chemistry assistants, yet most chemistry benchmarks still score only final answers. This masks a critical failure mode: a model may output the correct molecule, product, or option while its reasoning violates chemical logic. Existing process-level evaluators are hard to scale because LLM judges and human step-level process annotation are costly, inconsistent, and vulnerable to hallucination. We introduce ChemCoTBench-V2, a rule-verifiable diagnostic benchmark for low-cost, auditable evaluation of structured, verifier-addressable chemical reasoning traces. It spans molecular understanding, molecule editing, molecular optimization, and reaction prediction, with 5,620 evaluation samples across 18 reporting tasks. Models must expose key intermediate steps in expert-designed templates, and those steps are checked with deterministic chemistry rules and, for closed-answer tasks, reference traces rather than another LLM judge. Open-ended molecular optimization is evaluated with oracle-verifiable state constraints rather than strict trace matching. The benchmark reports three separate signals: final-answer correctness, template adherence, and step-wise verifier correctness over expert-refined intermediate commitments. Experiments on frontier models reveal a persistent gap between final-answer success and structured-reasoning-state consistency: models often follow the requested format while failing chemical-step checks, or answer correctly with weak supporting reasoning. ChemCoTBench-V2 enables fine-grained model comparison and identifies the concrete step at which the trace first violates the verifier.

Exponential increases in scientific experimental data are outstripping the rate of progress in silicon technology. As a result, heterogeneous combinations of architectures and process or device technologies are increasingly important to meet the computing demands of future scientific experiments. However, the complexity of heterogeneous computing systems requires systematic modeling to understand performance. We present a model which addresses this need by framing key aspects of data collection pipelines and constraints, and combines them with the important vectors of technology that shape alternatives, computing metrics that allow complex alternatives to be compared. For instance, a data collection pipeline may be characterized by parameters such as sensor sampling rates, amount of data collected, and the overall relevancy of retrieved samples. Alternatives to this pipeline are enabled by hardware development vectors including advancing CMOS, GPUs, neuromorphic computing, and edge computing. By calculating metrics for each alternative such as overall F1 score, power, hardware cost, and energy expended per relevant sample, this model allows alternate data collection systems to be rigorously compared. To demonstrate this model's capability, we apply it to the CMS experiment (and planned HL-LHC upgrade) to evaluate and compare the application of novel technologies in the data acquisition system (DAQ). We demonstrate that improvements to early stages in the DAQ are highly beneficial, greatly reducing the resources required at later stages of processing (such as a 60% power reduction) and increasing the amount of relevant data retrieved from the experiment per unit power (improving from 0.065 to 0.31 samples/kJ) However, we predict further advances will be required in order to meet overall power and cost constraints for the DAQ.

Biological protocols are fundamental to reproducible and safe life science research. While LLMs excel on general tasks, their systematic evaluation on these highly specialized, accuracy-critical, and inherently procedural texts remains limited. In this work, we present BioProBench, the first large-scale, integrated multi-task benchmark for biological protocol understanding and reasoning. While limited benchmarks have touched upon specific aspects like protocol QA, BioProBench provides a comprehensive suite of five core tasks: Protocol Question Answering, Step Ordering, Error Correction, Protocol Generation, and Protocol Reasoning, enabling a holistic evaluation of LLMs on procedural biological texts. Built upon 27K original protocols, it yields nearly 556K high-quality structured instances. We evaluate 12 mainstream open/closed-source LLMs on BioProBench. Experimental results reveal that while top models preform well on surface understanding tasks, struggle significantly with deep reasoning and structured generation tasks like ordering and generation. Furthermore, model comparisons reveal diverse performance: certain open-source models approach closed-source levels on some tasks, yet bio-specific small models lag behind general LLMs, indicating limitations on complex procedural content. Overall, our findings underscore that procedural reasoning within biological protocols represents a significant challenge for current LLMs. BioProBench serves as a standardized framework to diagnose these specific limitations and guide the development of AI systems better equipped for safely automating complex scientific procedures. The code and data are available at: https://github.com/YuyangSunshine/bioprotocolbench and https://huggingface.co/datasets/GreatCaptainNemo/BioProBench.

As LLM benchmarks saturate, the evaluation community has pursued two strategies to increase difficulty: escalating knowledge demands (GPQA, HLE) or removing knowledge entirely in favor of abstract reasoning (ARC-AGI). The first conflates memorization with capability; the second divorces reasoning from the practical contexts in which it matters. We take a different approach. The Grounded Integration Measure (GIM) is a benchmark of 820 original problems (615 public, 205 private) where difficulty comes from integration; individual problems require coordinating multiple cognitive operations (constraint satisfaction, state tracking, epistemic vigilance, audience calibration) over broadly accessible knowledge, so that reasoning stays grounded in realistic tasks without being gated on specialized expertise. Each problem is an original expert-authored composition, majority with rubric-decomposed scoring (median 6 independently judged criteria). A balanced public--private split provides built-in contamination diagnostic. We calibrate a continuous response 2-parameter logistic (2PL) IRT model over >200k prompt-response pairs across 28 models, producing robust ability estimates that correctly order test-configurations even when raw accuracy is distorted by errors or missing data, addressing a common challenge in benchmark reporting. Using this framework, we present a comprehensive leaderboard spanning 22 models and 47 test-configurations (unique model, thinking-level pairs), and conduct what is to our knowledge the most extensive published study of how test-time compute trades off against model capability on a fixed benchmark: 11 models swept across 35 test-configurations. We observe that within-family configuration choices, such as thinking budget and quantization, matter as much as model selection. We release the evaluation framework, calibrated IRT parameters, and all public problems.

Scientific discoveries increasingly rely on complex multimodal reasoning based on information-intensive scientific data and domain-specific expertise. Empowered by expert-level scientific benchmarks, scientific Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) hold the potential to significantly enhance this discovery process in realistic workflows. However, current scientific benchmarks mostly focus on evaluating the knowledge understanding capabilities of MLLMs, leading to an inadequate assessment of their perception and reasoning abilities. To address this gap, we present the Scientists' First Exam (SFE) benchmark, designed to evaluate the scientific cognitive capacities of MLLMs through three interconnected levels: scientific signal perception, scientific attribute understanding, scientific comparative reasoning. Specifically, SFE comprises 830 expert-verified VQA pairs across three question types, spanning 66 multimodal tasks across five high-value disciplines. Extensive experiments reveal that current state-of-the-art GPT-o3 and InternVL-3 achieve only 34.08% and 26.52% on SFE, highlighting significant room for MLLMs to improve in scientific realms. We hope the insights obtained in SFE will facilitate further developments in AI-enhanced scientific discoveries.

Evaluating LLM agents on benchmarks like SWE-Bench and GAIA can be expensive, time-consuming, and requires complex infrastructure. A single evaluation can cost thousands of dollars and take days to complete. In contrast, non-agentic LLM benchmarks that test individual capabilities (e.g., reasoning, code generation) are fast and cheap to run. In this paper, we investigate whether performance on expensive agentic benchmarks can be accurately predicted by the performance on a small, carefully selected subset of atomic evaluation instances. We introduce PACE, a framework that constructs proxy benchmarks by selecting instances from existing non-agentic evaluations whose aggregate scores most reliably predict model performances on agentic benchmarks. Given a pool of candidate instances spanning atomic capabilities, PACE fits a regression that maps a model's scores on a compact subset of source instances to its score on the target agentic benchmark. The subset itself is curated by combining two complementary instance-selection strategies, target-relevance local selection and globally informative global selection. We apply PACE to the 4 target agentic benchmarks in this paper, which yields PACE-Bench, the concrete proxy benchmark that we evaluate in the paper. Experiments across 14 models, 4 agentic benchmarks, and 19 non-agentic benchmarks show that PACE-Bench predicts agentic scores with leave-one-out cross-validation (LOOCV) mean absolute error (MAE) under 4%, Spearman correlation above 0.80, and pairwise model-ranking accuracy around 85%, all at much less than 1% of the full agentic evaluation cost. We further analyze the selected proxy instances, revealing which skills each agentic benchmark uniquely demands. PACE enables practitioners to obtain reliable estimates of agentic performance during model development, selection, and routing, without the overhead of full agent evaluation.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) excel in general domains but struggle with complex, real-world science. We posit that polymer science, an interdisciplinary field spanning chemistry, physics, biology, and engineering, is an ideal high-stakes testbed due to its diverse multimodal data. Yet, existing benchmarks related to polymer science largely overlook real-world workflows, limiting their practical utility and failing to systematically evaluate MLLMs across the full, practice-grounded lifecycle of experimentation. We introduce PolyReal, a novel multimodal benchmark grounded in real-world scientific practices to evaluate MLLMs on the full lifecycle of polymer experimentation. It covers five critical capabilities: (1) foundational knowledge application; (2) lab safety analysis; (3) experiment mechanism reasoning; (4) raw data extraction; and (5) performance & application exploration. Our evaluation of leading MLLMs on PolyReal reveals a capability imbalance. While models perform well on knowledge-intensive reasoning (e.g., Experiment Mechanism Reasoning), they drop sharply on practice-based tasks (e.g., Lab Safety Analysis and Raw Data Extraction). This exposes a severe gap between abstract scientific knowledge and its practical, context-dependent application, showing that these real-world tasks remain challenging for MLLMs. Thus, PolyReal helps address this evaluation gap and provides a practical benchmark for assessing AI systems in real-world scientific workflows.

Laboratory workflows in pharmaceutical and biomedical research encode substantial tacit knowledge -- expert judgment about failure conditions, decision branching logic, and contextual dependencies -- that remains inaccessible to protocol documents, sensor streams, and existing biomedical ontologies. We present a repeatable structured expert elicitation methodology and federated Semantic Knowledge Graph (SKG) architecture for capturing and querying this knowledge, demonstrated through deployment at the Biochemical and Cellular Pharmacology Department of Genentech. Knowledge is elicited via the Protocol Intelligence Co-pilot, a purpose-built AI interview agent that applies structured elicitation lenses to surface tacit procedural knowledge with expert-assigned confidence scores, producing graph representations across three tiers: program-level decision milestones, assay protocol knowledge, and physical execution infrastructure. Separately constructed subgraphs, exemplified by immunoassay (ELISA), quantitative mass spectrometry (LC-MS/PRM), and laboratory automation, are aligned through a shared upper ontology and queried as a single federated graph. Evaluation demonstrates seven query types structurally unavailable from any individual data source, including a cross-subgraph traversal that identifies automation-masked silent failures -- conditions where execution logs report success while scientific validity is compromised. Critically, the MASKED_BY graph relationship encodes a class of laboratory risk invisible to current informatics platforms -- the structural gap that prevents existing systems from reasoning about scientific validity. This architecture provides the semantic world model that AI laboratory agents currently lack: a queryable representation of where workflows fail silently, where human judgment is irreplaceable, and which execution assets mask rather than detect failure.

As large language models (LLMs) advance, the ultimate vision for their role in science is emerging: we could build an AI collaborator to effectively assist human beings throughout the entire scientific research process. We refer to this envisioned system as ResearchGPT. Given that scientific research progresses through multiple interdependent phases, achieving this vision requires rigorous benchmarks that evaluate the end-to-end workflow rather than isolated sub-tasks. To this end, we contribute CS-54k, a high-quality corpus of scientific Q&A pairs in computer science, built from 14k CC-licensed papers. It is constructed through a scalable, paper-grounded pipeline that combines retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) with multi-stage quality control to ensure factual grounding. From this unified corpus, we derive two complementary subsets: CS-4k, a carefully curated benchmark for evaluating AI's ability to assist scientific research, and CS-50k, a large-scale training dataset. Extensive experiments demonstrate that CS-4k stratifies state-of-the-art LLMs into distinct capability tiers. Open models trained on CS-50k with supervised training and reinforcement learning demonstrate substantial improvements. Even 7B-scale models, when properly trained, outperform many larger proprietary systems, such as GPT-4.1, GPT-4o, and Gemini 2.5 Pro. This indicates that making AI models better research assistants relies more on domain-aligned training with high-quality data than on pretraining scale or general benchmark performance. We release CS-4k and CS-50k in the hope of fostering AI systems as reliable collaborators in CS research.

Existing evaluation of large language model (LLM) agents on scientific discovery lacks objective baselines and metrics to assess the viability of their proposed methods. To address this issue, we introduce MLRC-Bench, a benchmark designed to quantify how effectively language agents can tackle challenging Machine Learning (ML) Research Competitions. Our benchmark highlights open research problems that demand novel methodologies, in contrast to recent benchmarks such as OpenAI's MLE-Bench (Chan et al., 2024) and METR's RE-Bench (Wijk et al., 2024), which focus on well-established research tasks that are largely solvable through sufficient engineering effort. Unlike prior work, e.g., AI Scientist (Lu et al., 2024b), which evaluates the end-to-end agentic pipeline by using LLM-as-a-judge, MLRC-Bench measures the key steps of proposing and implementing novel research methods and evaluates them with newly proposed rigorous protocol and objective metrics. Our curated suite of 7 competition tasks reveals significant challenges for LLM agents. Even the best-performing tested agent (gemini-exp-1206 under MLAB (Huang et al., 2024a)) closes only 9.3% of the gap between baseline and top human participant scores. Furthermore, our analysis reveals a misalignment between the LLM-judged innovation and their actual performance on cutting-edge ML research problems. MLRC-Bench is a dynamic benchmark, which is designed to continually grow with new ML competitions to encourage rigorous and objective evaluations of AI's research capabilities.

Clinical protocol-execution tasks -- checking a lab value, applying a threshold, placing a correctly structured FHIR order -- are natural candidates for RL from world feedback: once clinical SMEs encode decision logic into a verifier, that verifier grades unlimited rollouts without per-episode annotation. But applying RL requires a sound feedback channel and sufficient base capability. We audit MedAgentBench v1/v2, find a 41.7\% silent-finish ceiling that makes inaction the RL dominant strategy, and construct MedAgentBench-v3 (MAB-v3) (508 tasks, 8.9\% ceiling). Training Qwen3-8B exposes two structural barriers: a capability ceiling (10/20 task types have 0\% base performance, zero gradient) and a format-knowledge barrier (3/20 types require exact clinical codes undiscoverable by exploration). Pure RL reaches 18.2\% pass@1 vs.\ 34.1\% for rule-based SFT; the 15.9~pp gap is attributable entirely to these barriers. A decision/format-knowledge/lookup taxonomy predicts RL learnability and prescribes the fix: SFT to inject codes, RL to learn conditionals.

We report the development of GPT-4, a large-scale, multimodal model which can accept image and text inputs and produce text outputs. While less capable than humans in many real-world scenarios, GPT-4 exhibits human-level performance on various professional and academic benchmarks, including passing a simulated bar exam with a score around the top 10% of test takers. GPT-4 is a Transformer-based model pre-trained to predict the next token in a document. The post-training alignment process results in improved performance on measures of factuality and adherence to desired behavior. A core component of this project was developing infrastructure and optimization methods that behave predictably across a wide range of scales. This allowed us to accurately predict some aspects of GPT-4's performance based on models trained with no more than 1/1,000th the compute of GPT-4.

Recent progress in deep research systems has been impressive, but evaluation still lags behind real user needs. Existing benchmarks predominantly assess final reports using fixed rubrics, failing to evaluate the underlying research process. Most also offer limited multimodal coverage, rely on synthetic tasks that do not reflect real-world query complexity, and cannot be refreshed as knowledge evolves. To address these gaps, we introduce MiroEval, a benchmark and evaluation framework for deep research systems. The benchmark comprises 100 tasks (70 text-only, 30 multimodal), all grounded in real user needs and constructed via a dual-path pipeline that supports periodic updates, enabling a live and evolving setting. The proposed evaluation suite assesses deep research systems along three complementary dimensions: adaptive synthesis quality evaluation with task-specific rubrics, agentic factuality verification via active retrieval and reasoning over both web sources and multimodal attachments, and process-centric evaluation audits how the system searches, reasons, and refines throughout its investigation. Evaluation across 13 systems yields three principal findings: the three evaluation dimensions capture complementary aspects of system capability, with each revealing distinct strengths and weaknesses across systems; process quality serves as a reliable predictor of overall outcome while revealing weaknesses invisible to output-level metrics; and multimodal tasks pose substantially greater challenges, with most systems declining by 3 to 10 points. The MiroThinker series achieves the most balanced performance, with MiroThinker-H1 ranking the highest overall in both settings. Human verification and robustness results confirm the reliability of the benchmark and evaluation framework. MiroEval provides a holistic diagnostic tool for the next generation of deep research agents.

Hypothesis ranking is a crucial component of automated scientific discovery, particularly in natural sciences where wet-lab experiments are costly and throughput-limited. Existing approaches focus on pre-experiment ranking, relying solely on large language model's internal reasoning without incorporating empirical outcomes from experiments. We introduce the task of experiment-guided ranking, which aims to prioritize candidate hypotheses based on the results of previously tested ones. However, developing such strategies is challenging due to the impracticality of repeatedly conducting real experiments in natural science domains. To address this, we propose a simulator grounded in three domain-informed assumptions, modeling hypothesis performance as a function of similarity to a known ground truth hypothesis, perturbed by noise. We curate a dataset of 124 chemistry hypotheses with experimentally reported outcomes to validate the simulator. Building on this simulator, we develop a pseudo experiment-guided ranking method that clusters hypotheses by shared functional characteristics and prioritizes candidates based on insights derived from simulated experimental feedback. Experiments show that our method outperforms pre-experiment baselines and strong ablations.

Training algorithms, broadly construed, are an essential part of every deep learning pipeline. Training algorithm improvements that speed up training across a wide variety of workloads (e.g., better update rules, tuning protocols, learning rate schedules, or data selection schemes) could save time, save computational resources, and lead to better, more accurate, models. Unfortunately, as a community, we are currently unable to reliably identify training algorithm improvements, or even determine the state-of-the-art training algorithm. In this work, using concrete experiments, we argue that real progress in speeding up training requires new benchmarks that resolve three basic challenges faced by empirical comparisons of training algorithms: (1) how to decide when training is complete and precisely measure training time, (2) how to handle the sensitivity of measurements to exact workload details, and (3) how to fairly compare algorithms that require hyperparameter tuning. In order to address these challenges, we introduce a new, competitive, time-to-result benchmark using multiple workloads running on fixed hardware, the AlgoPerf: Training Algorithms benchmark. Our benchmark includes a set of workload variants that make it possible to detect benchmark submissions that are more robust to workload changes than current widely-used methods. Finally, we evaluate baseline submissions constructed using various optimizers that represent current practice, as well as other optimizers that have recently received attention in the literature. These baseline results collectively demonstrate the feasibility of our benchmark, show that non-trivial gaps between methods exist, and set a provisional state-of-the-art for future benchmark submissions to try and surpass.

In Brazil, all legal professionals must demonstrate their knowledge of the law and its application by passing the OAB exams, the national bar exams. The OAB exams therefore provide an excellent benchmark for the performance of legal information systems since passing the exam would arguably signal that the system has acquired capacity of legal reasoning comparable to that of a human lawyer. This article describes the construction of a new data set and some preliminary experiments on it, treating the problem of finding the justification for the answers to questions. The results provide a baseline performance measure against which to evaluate future improvements. We discuss the reasons to the poor performance and propose next steps.

Evaluating progress in large language models (LLMs) is often constrained by the challenge of verifying responses, limiting assessments to tasks like mathematics, programming, and short-form question-answering. However, many real-world applications require evaluating LLMs in processing professional documents, synthesizing information, and generating comprehensive reports in response to user queries. We introduce ProfBench: a set of over 7000 response-criterion pairs as evaluated by human-experts with professional knowledge across Physics PhD, Chemistry PhD, Finance MBA and Consulting MBA. We build robust and affordable LLM-Judges to evaluate ProfBench rubrics, by mitigating self-enhancement bias and reducing the cost of evaluation by 2-3 orders of magnitude, to make it fair and accessible to the broader community. Our findings reveal that ProfBench poses significant challenges even for state-of-the-art LLMs, with top-performing models like GPT-5-high achieving only 65.9\% overall performance. Furthermore, we identify notable performance disparities between proprietary and open-weight models and provide insights into the role that extended thinking plays in addressing complex, professional-domain tasks. Data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/nvidia/ProfBench and Code: https://github.com/NVlabs/ProfBench

Frontier deep research agents (DRAs) plan a research task, synthesize across documents, and return a structured deliverable on demand. They are being deployed in enterprise workflows faster than they are being evaluated. Existing benchmarks measure factual recall, single-hop QA, or generic agentic skill, missing the multi-document, decision-grade work DRAs are deployed to produce. We introduce a benchmark targeting the structured analytical deliverables that fill a management consultant's typical week. We grade three frontier agents, namely Claude Opus 4.6 with web search, OpenAI o3-deep-research, and Google Gemini 3.1 Pro deep-research, on 42 SME-authored prompts. Each of the 126 responses is scored on two layers: deterministic ground-truth verifiers (mean 13.8 per task) and a five-criterion 0-3 SME rubric, composed into a Verifier-Rubric Score (VRS) on 0-100. Most prompts embed cognitive traps that penalize surface-pattern matching. Acceptance under our joint threshold (rubric mean >= 2.5 and verifier rate >= 80%) is uniformly low: Gemini 21.4%, o3 9.5%, Claude 9.5%. Mean VRS scores agree with published rubric-based benchmarks (our top 62.6 vs. APEX-v1 64.2, ProfBench 65.9, ResearchRubrics < 68%), validating the rubric construct. ACCEPT rates sit below APEX-Agents' MC-segment Pass@1 band (12.3-22.7%) on dedicated DR agents; our floor is three points lower despite the harness advantage, opened by stricter conjunctive grading and trap design. Each agent fails distinctively. Claude produces the deliverable most reliably (4.5x the others' rate on file-required tasks) but carries the highest fabrication signature. o3 has the cleanest reasoning average yet drops required sections and propagates arithmetic errors. Gemini is bimodal, with the highest acceptance rate alongside the most zero-scored rubric cells.

Deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms are predominantly evaluated by comparing their relative performance on a large suite of tasks. Most published results on deep RL benchmarks compare point estimates of aggregate performance such as mean and median scores across tasks, ignoring the statistical uncertainty implied by the use of a finite number of training runs. Beginning with the Arcade Learning Environment (ALE), the shift towards computationally-demanding benchmarks has led to the practice of evaluating only a small number of runs per task, exacerbating the statistical uncertainty in point estimates. In this paper, we argue that reliable evaluation in the few run deep RL regime cannot ignore the uncertainty in results without running the risk of slowing down progress in the field. We illustrate this point using a case study on the Atari 100k benchmark, where we find substantial discrepancies between conclusions drawn from point estimates alone versus a more thorough statistical analysis. With the aim of increasing the field's confidence in reported results with a handful of runs, we advocate for reporting interval estimates of aggregate performance and propose performance profiles to account for the variability in results, as well as present more robust and efficient aggregate metrics, such as interquartile mean scores, to achieve small uncertainty in results. Using such statistical tools, we scrutinize performance evaluations of existing algorithms on other widely used RL benchmarks including the ALE, Procgen, and the DeepMind Control Suite, again revealing discrepancies in prior comparisons. Our findings call for a change in how we evaluate performance in deep RL, for which we present a more rigorous evaluation methodology, accompanied with an open-source library rliable, to prevent unreliable results from stagnating the field.

We present EBench, a simulation benchmark that diagnoses generalist mobile manipulation policies beyond a single success-rate scalar. EBench comprises 26 diverse and challenging manipulation tasks annotated along 5 capability dimensions and 4 generalization dimensions. We evaluate state-of-the-art generalist manipulation models including π_0, π_{0.5}, XVLA, and InternVLA-A1, and reveal that models with near success rates exhibit strikingly different capability profiles: π_{0.5} achieves the highest test success rate and the best train--test retention, whereas InternVLA-A1 dominates mobile manipulation but collapses on dexterous tasks, and XVLA exhibits strengths on a disjoint set of atomic skills compared to other policies. Beyond capability profiling, EBench analyzes the generalization ability from 4 representative perspectives, identifying the impact of different distribution shift factors. The results reveal strengths and weaknesses of models behind an overall score. We hope this benchmark offers a broad set of diagnostic signals to guide iteration on generalist manipulation models.

Evaluating whether multimodal large language models truly understand long-form scientific papers remains challenging: answer-only metrics and synthetic "Needle-In-A-Haystack" tests often reward answer matching without requiring a causal, evidence-linked reasoning trace in the document. We propose the "Fish-in-the-Ocean" (FITO) paradigm, which requires models to construct explicit cross-modal evidence chains within native scientific documents. To operationalize FITO, we build SIN-Data, a scientific interleaved corpus that preserves the native interleaving of text and figures. On top of it, we construct SIN-Bench with four progressive tasks covering evidence discovery (SIN-Find), hypothesis verification (SIN-Verify), grounded QA (SIN-QA), and evidence-anchored synthesis (SIN-Summary). We further introduce "No Evidence, No Score", scoring predictions when grounded to verifiable anchors and diagnosing evidence quality via matching, relevance, and logic. Experiments on eight MLLMs show that grounding is the primary bottleneck: Gemini-3-pro achieves the best average overall score (0.573), while GPT-5 attains the highest SIN-QA answer accuracy (0.767) but underperforms on evidence-aligned overall scores, exposing a gap between correctness and traceable support.

Scientific problem-solving involves synthesizing information while applying expert knowledge. We introduce CURIE, a scientific long-Context Understanding,Reasoning and Information Extraction benchmark to measure the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in scientific problem-solving and assisting scientists in realistic workflows. This benchmark introduces ten challenging tasks with a total of 580 problems and solution pairs curated by experts in six disciplines - materials science, condensed matter physics, quantum computing, geospatial analysis, biodiversity, and proteins - covering both experimental and theoretical work-flows in science. We evaluate a range of closed and open LLMs on tasks in CURIE which requires domain expertise, comprehension of long in-context information,and multi-step reasoning. While Gemini Flash 2.0 and Claude-3 show consistent high comprehension across domains, the popular GPT-4o and command-R+ fail dramatically on protein sequencing tasks. With the best performance at 32% there is much room for improvement for all models. We hope that insights gained from CURIE can guide the future development of LLMs in sciences. Evaluation code and data are in https://github.com/google/curie

The evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) increasingly relies on other LLMs acting as judges. However, current evaluation paradigms typically yield a single score or ranking, answering which model is better but not why. While essential for benchmarking, these top-level scores obscure the specific, actionable reasons behind a model's performance. To bridge this gap, we introduce CLEAR, an interactive, open-source package for LLM-based error analysis. CLEAR first generates per-instance textual feedback, then it creates a set of system-level error issues, and quantifies the prevalence of each identified issue. Our package also provides users with an interactive dashboard that allows for a comprehensive error analysis through aggregate visualizations, applies interactive filters to isolate specific issues or score ranges, and drills down to the individual instances that exemplify a particular behavioral pattern. We demonstrate CLEAR analysis for RAG and Math benchmarks, and showcase its utility through a user case study.

Evaluating long-form responses to research queries heavily relies on expert annotators, restricting attention to areas like AI where researchers can conveniently enlist colleagues. Yet, research expertise is widespread: survey articles synthesize knowledge distributed across the literature. We introduce ResearchQA, a resource for evaluating LLM systems by distilling survey articles from 75 research fields into 21K queries and 160K rubric items. Each rubric, derived jointly with queries from survey sections, lists query-specific answer evaluation criteria, i.e., citing papers, making explanations, and describing limitations. Assessments by 31 Ph.D. annotators in 8 fields indicate 96% of queries support Ph.D. information needs and 87% of rubric items should be addressed in system responses by a sentence or more. Using our rubrics, we are able to construct an automatic pairwise judge obtaining 74% agreement with expert judgments. We leverage ResearchQA to analyze competency gaps in 18 systems in over 7.6K pairwise evaluations. No parametric or retrieval-augmented system we evaluate exceeds 70% on covering rubric items, and the highest-ranking agentic system shows 75% coverage. Error analysis reveals that the highest-ranking system fully addresses less than 11% of citation rubric items, 48% of limitation items, and 49% of comparison items. We release our data to facilitate more comprehensive multi-field evaluations.

Evaluation of large language models (LLMs) for code has primarily relied on static benchmarks, including HumanEval (Chen et al., 2021), which measure the ability of LLMs to generate complete code that passes unit tests. As LLMs are increasingly used as programmer assistants, we study whether gains on existing benchmarks translate to gains in programmer productivity when coding with LLMs, including time spent coding. In addition to static benchmarks, we investigate the utility of preference metrics that might be used as proxies to measure LLM helpfulness, such as code acceptance or copy rates. To do so, we introduce RealHumanEval, a web interface to measure the ability of LLMs to assist programmers, through either autocomplete or chat support. We conducted a user study (N=213) using RealHumanEval in which users interacted with six LLMs of varying base model performance. Despite static benchmarks not incorporating humans-in-the-loop, we find that improvements in benchmark performance lead to increased programmer productivity; however gaps in benchmark versus human performance are not proportional -- a trend that holds across both forms of LLM support. In contrast, we find that programmer preferences do not correlate with their actual performance, motivating the need for better, human-centric proxy signals. We also open-source RealHumanEval to enable human-centric evaluation of new models and the study data to facilitate efforts to improve code models.

Many benchmarks for automated causal inference evaluate a system's performance based on a single numerical output, such as an Average Treatment Effect (ATE). This approach conflates two distinct steps in causal analysis: identification-formulating a valid research design under stated assumptions-and estimation-implementing that design numerically on finite data. We introduce CausalReasoningBenchmark, a benchmark of 173 queries across 138 real-world datasets, curated from 85 peer-reviewed research papers and four widely-used causal-inference textbooks. For each query a system must produce (i) a structured identification specification that names the strategy, the treatment, outcome, and control variables, and all design-specific elements, and (ii) a point estimate with a standard error. By scoring these two components separately, our benchmark enables granular diagnosis: it distinguishes failures in causal reasoning from errors in numerical execution. Baseline results with a state-of-the-art LLM show that, while the model correctly identifies the high-level strategy in 84 % of cases, full identification-specification correctness drops to only 30 %, revealing that the bottleneck lies in the nuanced details of research design rather than in computation. CausalReasoningBenchmark is publicly available on Hugging Face and is designed to foster the development of more robust automated causal-inference systems.

Benchmarks are essential for quantitatively tracking progress in AI. As AI agents become increasingly capable, researchers and practitioners have introduced agentic benchmarks to evaluate agents on complex, real-world tasks. These benchmarks typically measure agent capabilities by evaluating task outcomes via specific reward designs. However, we show that many agentic benchmarks have issues task setup or reward design. For example, SWE-bench Verified uses insufficient test cases, while TAU-bench counts empty responses as successful. Such issues can lead to under- or overestimation agents' performance by up to 100% in relative terms. To make agentic evaluation rigorous, we introduce the Agentic Benchmark Checklist (ABC), a set of guidelines that we synthesized from our benchmark-building experience, a survey of best practices, and previously reported issues. When applied to CVE-Bench, a benchmark with a particularly complex evaluation design, ABC reduces the performance overestimation by 33%.

Recent advancements have seen Large Language Models (LLMs) and Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) surpassing general human capabilities in various tasks, approaching the proficiency level of human experts across multiple domains. With traditional benchmarks becoming less challenging for these models, new rigorous challenges are essential to gauge their advanced abilities. In this work, we present OlympiadBench, an Olympiad-level bilingual multimodal scientific benchmark, featuring 8,476 problems from Olympiad-level mathematics and physics competitions, including the Chinese college entrance exam. Each problem is detailed with expert-level annotations for step-by-step reasoning. Evaluating top-tier models on OlympiadBench, we implement a comprehensive assessment methodology to accurately evaluate model responses. Notably, the best-performing model, GPT-4V, attains an average score of 17.97% on OlympiadBench, with a mere 10.74% in physics, highlighting the benchmark rigor and the intricacy of physical reasoning. Our analysis orienting GPT-4V points out prevalent issues with hallucinations, knowledge omissions, and logical fallacies. We hope that our challenging benchmark can serve as a valuable resource for helping future AGI research endeavors. The data and evaluation code are available at https://github.com/OpenBMB/OlympiadBench

Scientific reasoning models for biology combine language models with foundation models trained on multimodal biological data, including DNA, RNA, and proteins. These models are built through post-training, yet how each stage shapes reasoning and generalization remains poorly understood. We study when post-training improves performance and when it induces over-specialization. Across genomics, transcriptomics, and proteins, we train and evaluate more than 100 biological reasoning models under controlled variation in backbone, continued pre-training (CPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and reinforcement learning (RL), measuring both in-domain (ID) and out-of-domain (OOD) performance. We find that each post-training stage reshapes generalization in a distinct way rather than contributing uniform gains. CPT improves downstream performance by aligning models with biological language. SFT consistently increases ID performance but causes OOD performance to peak early and decline as models fit the training distribution. RL, when applied to strong SFT checkpoints with aligned rewards, improves OOD performance and partially recovers generalization. These results show that biological reasoning does not improve monotonically with additional supervision or compute. Instead, performance depends on how training stages are composed. Under fixed post-training budgets, the strongest ID-OOD trade-off comes from brief SFT, larger RL allocations, and asymmetric adaptation capacity across stages.

Recently, large language models (LLMs) have outperformed human experts in predicting the results of neuroscience experiments (Luo et al., 2024). What is the basis for this performance? One possibility is that statistical patterns in that specific scientific literature, as opposed to emergent reasoning abilities arising from broader training, underlie LLMs' performance. To evaluate this possibility, we trained (next word prediction) a relatively small 124M-parameter GPT-2 model on 1.3 billion tokens of domain-specific knowledge. Despite being orders of magnitude smaller than larger LLMs trained on trillions of tokens, small models achieved expert-level performance in predicting neuroscience results. Small models trained on the neuroscience literature succeeded when they were trained from scratch using a tokenizer specifically trained on neuroscience text or when the neuroscience literature was used to finetune a pretrained GPT-2. Our results indicate that expert-level performance may be attained by even small LLMs through domain-specific, auto-regressive training approaches.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in educational technologies for a variety of tasks, from generating instructional materials and assisting with assessment design to tutoring. While prior work has investigated how models can be adapted or optimized for specific tasks, far less is known about how well LLMs perform at interpreting authentic educational scenarios without significant customization. As LLM-based systems become widely adopted by learners and educators in everyday academic contexts, understanding their out-of-the-box capabilities is increasingly important for setting expectations and benchmarking. We compared six LLMs to estimate their baseline performance on a simple but important task: classifying instructional moves in authentic classroom transcripts. We evaluated typical prompting methods: zero-shot, one-shot, and few-shot prompting. We found that while zero-shot performance was moderate, providing comprehensive examples (few-shot prompting) significantly improved performance for state-of-the-art models, with the strongest configuration reaching Cohen's Kappa = 0.58 against expert-coded annotations. At the same time, improvements were neither uniform nor complete: performance varied considerably by instructional move, and higher recall frequently came at the cost of increased false positives. Overall, these findings indicate that foundation models demonstrate meaningful yet limited capacity to interpret instructional discourse, with prompt design helping to surface capability but not eliminating fundamental reliability constraints.

Rigorous performance evaluation is essential for developing robust algorithms for high-throughput computational chemistry. Traditional benchmarking, however, often struggles to account for system-specific variability, making it difficult to form actionable conclusions. We present a Bayesian hierarchical modeling framework that rigorously quantifies performance metrics and their uncertainty, enabling a nuanced comparison of algorithmic strategies. We apply this framework to analyze the Dimer method, comparing Conjugate Gradient (CG) and L-BFGS rotation optimizers, with and without the removal of external rotations, across a benchmark of 500 molecular systems. Our analysis confirms that CG offers higher overall robustness than L-BFGS in this context. While the theoretically-motivated removal of external rotations led to higher computational cost (>40% more energy and force calls) for most systems in this set, our models also reveal a subtle interplay, hinting that this feature may improve the reliability of the L-BFGS optimizer. Rather than identifying a single superior method, our findings support the design of adaptive "chain of methods" workflows. This work showcases how a robust statistical paradigm can move beyond simple performance rankings to inform the intelligent, context-dependent application of computational chemistry methods.

Autonomous scientific research is significantly advanced thanks to the development of AI agents. One key step in this process is finding the right scientific literature, whether to explore existing knowledge for a research problem, or to acquire evidence for verifying assumptions and supporting claims. To assess AI agents' capability in driving this process, we present AutoResearchBench, a dedicated benchmark for autonomous scientific literature discovery. AutoResearchBench consists of two complementary task types: (1) Deep Research, which requires tracking down a specific target paper through a progressive, multi-step probing process, and (2) Wide Research, which requires comprehensively collecting a set of papers satisfying given conditions. Compared to previous benchmarks on agentic web browsing, AutoResearchBench is distinguished along three dimensions: it is research-oriented, calling for in-depth comprehension of scientific concepts; literature-focused, demanding fine-grained utilization of detailed information; and open-ended, involving an unknown number of qualified papers and thus requiring deliberate reasoning and search throughout. These properties make AutoResearchBench uniquely suited for evaluating autonomous research capabilities, and extraordinarily challenging. Even the most powerful LLMs, despite having largely conquered general agentic web-browsing benchmarks such as BrowseComp, achieve only 9.39% accuracy on Deep Research and 9.31% IoU on Wide Research, while many other strong baselines fall below 5%. We publicly release the dataset and evaluation pipeline to facilitate future research in this direction. We publicly release the dataset, evaluation pipeline, and code at https://github.com/CherYou/AutoResearchBench.

In contrast to their remarkable performance on general knowledge QA, the true abilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in tasks demanding deep, specialized reasoning, such as in protein biology, have yet to be thoroughly investigated. Current benchmarks suffer from critical deficiencies, such as data contamination due to outdated test sets, insufficient focus on essential protein-specific tasks, and a neglect of multimodal assessments. To resolve these issues, we introduce LiveProteinBench, a contamination-free, multimodal benchmark of 12 tasks for evaluating LLM performance on protein property and function prediction. Its central innovation lies in a test set composed exclusively of proteins validated after the start of 2025, guaranteeing that the data is novel to all tested models. We benchmarked a suite of prominent general-purpose LLMs and specialized biological LLMs using both unimodal and multimodal input schemes. Our results show that: 1) General-purpose proprietary large models demonstrate superior zero-shot performance when encountering new protein data, outperforming their open-source and domain-specific counterparts by over 20\% accuracy. 2) The effective use of multi-view structural information remains a significant challenge, as the inclusion of structural images often fails to provide a consistent benefit and can even degrade performance. This highlights the limitations of current models in effectively fusing information across different modalities. 3) Models' performance scales more directly with the computational cost during inference than with its parameter count, underscoring the critical role of Chain-of-Thought reasoning capabilities for protein-specific tasks. LiveProteinBench delineates the current performance frontiers for LLMs in bioinformatics and presents new challenges for the development of future multimodal foundation models for biology

The automatic evaluation of instruction following typically involves using large language models (LLMs) to assess response quality. However, there is a lack of comprehensive evaluation of these LLM-based evaluators across two dimensions: the base LLMs and the evaluation protocols. Therefore, we present a thorough meta-evaluation of instruction following, including 25 base LLMs and 15 recently proposed evaluation protocols, on 4 human-annotated datasets, assessing the evaluation accuracy of the LLM-evaluators. Our evaluation allows us to identify the best-performing base LLMs and evaluation protocols with a high degree of robustness. Moreover, our large-scale evaluation reveals: (1) Base LLM performance ranking remains largely consistent across evaluation protocols, with less capable LLMs showing greater improvement from protocol enhancements; (2) Robust evaluation of evaluation protocols requires many base LLMs with varying capability levels, as protocol effectiveness can depend on the base LLM used; (3) Evaluation results on different datasets are not always consistent, so a rigorous evaluation requires multiple datasets with distinctive features. We release our meta-evaluation suite ReIFE, which provides the codebase and evaluation result collection for more than 500 LLM-evaluator configurations, to support future research in instruction-following evaluation.

We introduce MURA, a large dataset of musculoskeletal radiographs containing 40,561 images from 14,863 studies, where each study is manually labeled by radiologists as either normal or abnormal. To evaluate models robustly and to get an estimate of radiologist performance, we collect additional labels from six board-certified Stanford radiologists on the test set, consisting of 207 musculoskeletal studies. On this test set, the majority vote of a group of three radiologists serves as gold standard. We train a 169-layer DenseNet baseline model to detect and localize abnormalities. Our model achieves an AUROC of 0.929, with an operating point of 0.815 sensitivity and 0.887 specificity. We compare our model and radiologists on the Cohen's kappa statistic, which expresses the agreement of our model and of each radiologist with the gold standard. Model performance is comparable to the best radiologist performance in detecting abnormalities on finger and wrist studies. However, model performance is lower than best radiologist performance in detecting abnormalities on elbow, forearm, hand, humerus, and shoulder studies. We believe that the task is a good challenge for future research. To encourage advances, we have made our dataset freely available at https://stanfordmlgroup.github.io/competitions/mura .

Benchmarks are fundamental for evaluating and advancing LLMs and MLLMs by providing standardized and explicit measures of performance. However, their construction is labor-intensive and hard to reuse, raising concerns about sustainability and scalability. Moreover, existing benchmarks often quickly reach performance saturation after their release, resulting in insufficient discrimination among state-of-the-art models. To address these challenges, we introduce Benchmark Agent, a fully autonomous agentic system designed for benchmark building. Our framework orchestrates the complete benchmark construction pipeline, from user query analysis and subtask design to data annotation and quality control. To assess Benchmark Agent, we implement it to produce 15 representative benchmarks, spanning diverse evaluation scenarios, including text understanding, multimodal understanding, and domain-specific reasoning. Extensive experiments, including human evaluation, LLM-as-a-judge assessment, and consistency checks, demonstrate Benchmark Agent can generate high-quality benchmark samples with minimal human involvement. More importantly, through continual evaluation, we observe several insightful findings, including that current models struggle with certain domain-specific reasoning tasks. We believe that rapidly evolving benchmarks can contribute significantly to the research community. The preview and code will be publicly available at the demo page and code repository.

The rise of large language models (LLMs) has created a significant disparity: industrial research labs with their computational resources, expert teams, and advanced infrastructures, can effectively fine-tune LLMs, while individual developers and small organizations face barriers due to limited resources. In this paper, we aim to bridge this gap by presenting a comprehensive study on supervised fine-tuning of LLMs using instruction-tuning datasets spanning diverse knowledge domains and skills. We focus on small-sized LLMs (3B to 7B parameters) for their cost-efficiency and accessibility. We explore various training configurations and strategies across four open-source pre-trained models. We provide detailed documentation of these configurations, revealing findings that challenge several common training practices, including hyperparameter recommendations from TULU and phased training recommended by Orca. Key insights from our work include: (i) larger batch sizes paired with lower learning rates lead to improved model performance on benchmarks such as MMLU, MTBench, and Open LLM Leaderboard; (ii) early-stage training dynamics, such as lower gradient norms and higher loss values, are strong indicators of better final model performance, enabling early termination of sub-optimal runs and significant computational savings; (iii) through a thorough exploration of hyperparameters like warmup steps and learning rate schedules, we provide guidance for practitioners and find that certain simplifications do not compromise performance; and (iv) we observed no significant difference in performance between phased and stacked training strategies, but stacked training is simpler and more sample efficient. With these findings holding robustly across datasets and models, we hope this study serves as a guide for practitioners fine-tuning small LLMs and promotes a more inclusive environment for LLM research.

We introduce the first version of KWBench (Knowledge Work Bench), a benchmark for unprompted problem recognition in large language models: can an LLM identify a professional scenario before attempting to solve it. Existing frontier benchmarks have saturated, and most knowledge-work evaluations to date reduce to extraction or task completion against a specification. KWBench targets the step before that: recognizing the governing structure of the situation from raw inputs alone. The benchmark contains 223 tasks sourced from practitioners across acquisitions, contract negotiations, clinical pharmacy, organizational politics, fraud analysis, and incentive design. Each task encodes a formal game-theoretic pattern (principal-agent conflict, signaling, mechanism design failure, strategic omission, coalitional dynamics, strategic interdependence) and carries structured ground truth recording the expert reading of the situation and the anticipated failure modes. Models receive raw data and a task prompt with no indication of problem type. Scoring is a three-tier rubric gated by a mandatory conjunctive check. Mandatory criteria encode the predicted wrong paths. We evaluate 16 models. The best model passes on 27.9% of tasks. The top two models agree on only 31.7% of their passes. Among the top 8, 44 tasks are solved by exactly one model; routing across the top 8 covers 50.7% of the benchmark, nearly double the best single model. Conditional on passing, quality scores converge (approx 83% across models); unconditional scores do not. Same models articulate the relevant game-theoretic concept correctly when asked, then fail to apply it unprompted. We release KWBench to shift how frontier models are evaluated on knowledge work, scoring them on whether they recognize the right problem from the situation alone, not only on how well they execute once the problem has been framed for them.

Medical large language models (LLMs) research often makes bold claims, from encoding clinical knowledge to reasoning like a physician. These claims are usually backed by evaluation on competitive benchmarks; a tradition inherited from mainstream machine learning. But how do we separate real progress from a leaderboard flex? Medical LLM benchmarks, much like those in other fields, are arbitrarily constructed using medical licensing exam questions. For these benchmarks to truly measure progress, they must accurately capture the real-world tasks they aim to represent. In this position paper, we argue that medical LLM benchmarks should (and indeed can) be empirically evaluated for their construct validity. In the psychological testing literature, "construct validity" refers to the ability of a test to measure an underlying "construct", that is the actual conceptual target of evaluation. By drawing an analogy between LLM benchmarks and psychological tests, we explain how frameworks from this field can provide empirical foundations for validating benchmarks. To put these ideas into practice, we use real-world clinical data in proof-of-concept experiments to evaluate popular medical LLM benchmarks and report significant gaps in their construct validity. Finally, we outline a vision for a new ecosystem of medical LLM evaluation centered around the creation of valid benchmarks.

This study investigates GPT-4's assessment of its performance in healthcare applications. A simple prompting technique was used to prompt the LLM with questions taken from the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) questionnaire and it was tasked to evaluate its confidence score before posing the question and after asking the question. The questionnaire was categorized into two groups-questions with feedback (WF) and questions with no feedback(NF) post-question. The model was asked to provide absolute and relative confidence scores before and after each question. The experimental findings were analyzed using statistical tools to study the variability of confidence in WF and NF groups. Additionally, a sequential analysis was conducted to observe the performance variation for the WF and NF groups. Results indicate that feedback influences relative confidence but doesn't consistently increase or decrease it. Understanding the performance of LLM is paramount in exploring its utility in sensitive areas like healthcare. This study contributes to the ongoing discourse on the reliability of AI, particularly of LLMs like GPT-4, within healthcare, offering insights into how feedback mechanisms might be optimized to enhance AI-assisted medical education and decision support.

Scientific and engineering progress is fundamentally a long-horizon iterative process: proposing changes, running experiments, measuring outcomes, and continuously refining artifacts. Yet existing benchmarks for frontier models primarily evaluate either single-turn responses or short-horizon agent trajectories, failing to capture the challenges of sustained iterative improvement over extended time horizons. To address this gap, we introduce AutoLab, a new benchmark for ultra long-horizon closed-loop optimization. AutoLab consists of 36 realistic, expert-curated tasks spanning four diverse domains: system optimization, puzzle & challenge, model development, and CUDA kernel optimization. Each task begins with a correct but deliberately suboptimal baseline and challenges agents to improve it within a strict wall-clock budget. Evaluating 17 state-of-the-art models reveals the dominant predictor of success is not the quality of an agent's initial attempt, but its persistence in repeatedly benchmarking, editing, and incorporating empirical feedback. While claude-opus-4.6 exhibits strong long-horizon optimization capabilities, most frontier models, including several proprietary ones, either terminate prematurely or exhaust their budgets with minimal progress. These results underscore the importance of time awareness and persistent iteration in autonomous agents. We open-source the full benchmark, evaluation harness, and task artifacts, to accelerate research toward truly capable long-horizon agents.

We introduce PhysicianBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on physician tasks grounded in real clinical setting within electronic health record (EHR) environments. Existing medical agent benchmarks primarily focus on static knowledge recall, single-step atomic actions, or action intent without verifiable execution against the environment. As a result, they fail to capture the long-horizon, composite workflows that characterize real clinical systems. PhysicianBench comprises 100 long-horizon tasks adapted from real consultation cases between primary care and subspecialty physicians, with each task independently reviewed by a separate panel of physicians. Tasks are instantiated in an EHR environment with real patient records and accessed through the same standard APIs used by commercial EHR vendors. Tasks span 21 specialties (e.g., cardiology, endocrinology, oncology, psychiatry) and diverse workflow types (e.g., diagnosis interpretation, medication prescribing, treatment planning), requiring an average of 27 tool calls per task. Solving each task requires retrieving data across encounters, reasoning over heterogeneous clinical information, executing consequential clinical actions, and producing clinical documentation. Each task is decomposed into structured checkpoints (670 in total across the benchmark) capturing distinct stages of completion graded by task-specific scripts with execution-grounded verification. Across 13 proprietary and open-source LLM agents, the best-performing model achieves only 46% success rate (pass@1), while open-source models reach at most 19%, revealing a substantial gap between current agent capabilities and the demands of real-world clinical workflows. PhysicianBench provides a realistic and execution-grounded benchmark for measuring progress toward autonomous clinical agents.

AI agents hold the potential to revolutionize scientific productivity by automating literature reviews, replicating experiments, analyzing data, and even proposing new directions of inquiry; indeed, there are now many such agents, ranging from general-purpose "deep research" systems to specialized science-specific agents, such as AI Scientist and AIGS. Rigorous evaluation of these agents is critical for progress. Yet existing benchmarks fall short on several fronts: they (1) fail to provide holistic, product-informed measures of real-world use cases such as science research; (2) lack reproducible agent tools necessary for a controlled comparison of core agentic capabilities; (3) do not account for confounding variables such as model cost and tool access; (4) do not provide standardized interfaces for quick agent prototyping and evaluation; and (5) lack comprehensive baseline agents necessary to identify true advances. In response, we define principles and tooling for more rigorously benchmarking agents. Using these, we present AstaBench, a suite that provides the first holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research, comprising 2400+ problems spanning the entire scientific discovery process and multiple scientific domains, and including many problems inspired by actual user requests to deployed Asta agents. Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools that enable controlled, reproducible evaluation, better accounting for confounders. Alongside, we provide a comprehensive suite of nine science-optimized classes of Asta agents and numerous baselines. Our extensive evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings, most importantly that despite meaningful progress on certain individual aspects, AI remains far from solving the challenge of science research assistance.

A well-calibrated model should express confidence that matches its actual accuracy -- when it claims 80\% confidence, it should be correct 80\% of the time. While large language models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable performance across diverse tasks, their epistemic calibration remains poorly understood. We introduce KalshiBench, a benchmark of 300 prediction market questions from Kalshi, a CFTC-regulated exchange, with verifiable real-world outcomes occurring after model training cutoffs. Unlike traditional benchmarks measuring accuracy on static knowledge, KalshiBench evaluates whether models can appropriately quantify uncertainty about genuinely unknown future events. We evaluate five frontier models -- Claude Opus 4.5, GPT-5.2, DeepSeek-V3.2, Qwen3-235B, and Kimi-K2 -- and find systematic overconfidence across all models. Even the best-calibrated model (Claude Opus 4.5, ECE=0.120) shows substantial calibration errors, while reasoning-enhanced models like GPT-5.2-XHigh exhibit worse calibration (ECE=0.395) despite comparable accuracy. Critically, only one model achieves a positive Brier Skill Score, indicating most models perform worse than simply predicting base rates. Our findings suggest that scaling and enhanced reasoning do not automatically confer calibration benefits, highlighting epistemic calibration as a distinct capability requiring targeted development.

Benchmarks increasingly guide deployment, procurement and scientific screening, yet a score supports only the response it records, not necessarily the deployment action. We introduce deployment-complete benchmarking, which tests whether benchmark evidence determines a deployment action. A benchmark is complete for a claim exactly when the action is constant on each evidence fiber; mixed fibers expose missing deployment information, and completion curves quantify the evidence required to resolve ambiguity. In controlled response spaces, benchmark-channel conformal coverage of 94.98% transferred poorly to an unmeasured deployment channel (10.07%), whereas response-rank intervals achieved 94.91% coverage; even zero benchmark error certified only 45.4% of candidates at the largest residual size. Public audits revealed incompleteness, including 97.9% mixed Tox21 fibers and zero median certifiable fraction in main Matbench and JARVIS audits. In held-out replays, certify-then-acquire reduced false decisions from 1.19% to 0.027% in Tox21 and from 20.3% to 0.128% in JARVIS, while changing model choice and identifying deployment-relevant probes. Deployment-ready benchmarks should report evidence, supported actions, ambiguity and completion cost rather than scores alone.

Rigorous and reproducible evaluation is critical for assessing the state of the art and for guiding scientific advances in Artificial Intelligence. Evaluation is challenging in practice due to several reasons, including benchmark saturation, lack of transparency in methods used for measurement, development challenges in extracting measurements for generative tasks, and, more generally, the extensive number of capabilities required for a well-rounded comparison across models. We make three contributions to alleviate the above challenges. First, we present Eureka, an open-source framework for standardizing evaluations of large foundation models beyond single-score reporting and rankings. Second, we introduce Eureka-Bench as an extensible collection of benchmarks testing capabilities that (i) are still challenging for state-of-the-art models and (ii) represent fundamental but overlooked language and multimodal capabilities. The inherent space for improvement in non-saturated benchmarks enables us to discover meaningful differences between models at a capability level. Third, using Eureka, we conduct an analysis of 12 state-of-the-art models, providing in-depth insights into failure understanding and model comparison, which can be leveraged to plan targeted improvements. In contrast to recent trends in reports and leaderboards showing absolute rankings and claims for one model or another to be the best, our analysis shows that there is no such best model. Different models have different strengths, but there are models that appear more often than others as best performers for some capabilities. Despite the recent improvements, current models still struggle with several fundamental capabilities including detailed image understanding, benefiting from multimodal input when available rather than fully relying on language, factuality and grounding for information retrieval, and over refusals.

Hampering the interpretation of benchmark scores, evaluation data contamination has become a growing concern in the evaluation of LLMs, and an active area of research studies its effects. While evaluation data contamination is easily understood intuitively, it is surprisingly difficult to define precisely which samples should be considered contaminated and, consequently, how it impacts benchmark scores. We propose that these questions should be addressed together and that contamination metrics can be assessed based on whether models benefit from the examples they mark contaminated. We propose a novel analysis method called ConTAM, and show with a large scale survey of existing and novel n-gram based contamination metrics across 13 benchmarks and 7 models from 2 different families that ConTAM can be used to better understand evaluation data contamination and its effects. We find that contamination may have a much larger effect than reported in recent LLM releases and benefits models differently at different scales. We also find that considering only the longest contaminated substring provides a better signal than considering a union of all contaminated substrings, and that doing model and benchmark specific threshold analysis greatly increases the specificity of the results. Lastly, we investigate the impact of hyperparameter choices, finding that, among other things, both using larger values of n and disregarding matches that are infrequent in the pre-training data lead to many false negatives. With ConTAM, we provide a method to empirically ground evaluation data contamination metrics in downstream effects. With our exploration, we shed light on how evaluation data contamination can impact LLMs and provide insight into the considerations important when doing contamination analysis. We end our paper by discussing these in more detail and providing concrete suggestions for future work.

Numerous studies have assessed the proficiency of AI systems, particularly large language models (LLMs), in facilitating everyday tasks such as email writing, question answering, and creative content generation. However, researchers face unique challenges and opportunities in leveraging LLMs for their own work, such as brainstorming research ideas, designing experiments, and writing or reviewing papers. In this study, we introduce AAAR-1.0, a benchmark dataset designed to evaluate LLM performance in three fundamental, expertise-intensive research tasks: (i) EquationInference, assessing the correctness of equations based on the contextual information in paper submissions; (ii) ExperimentDesign, designing experiments to validate research ideas and solutions; (iii) PaperWeakness, identifying weaknesses in paper submissions; and (iv) REVIEWCRITIQUE, identifying each segment in human reviews is deficient or not. AAAR-1.0 differs from prior benchmarks in two key ways: first, it is explicitly research-oriented, with tasks requiring deep domain expertise; second, it is researcher-oriented, mirroring the primary activities that researchers engage in on a daily basis. An evaluation of both open-source and proprietary LLMs reveals their potential as well as limitations in conducting sophisticated research tasks. We will keep iterating AAAR-1.0 to new versions.

Large language models~(LLMs) have greatly advanced the frontiers of artificial intelligence, attaining remarkable improvement in model capacity. To assess the model performance, a typical approach is to construct evaluation benchmarks for measuring the ability level of LLMs in different aspects. Despite that a number of high-quality benchmarks have been released, the concerns about the appropriate use of these benchmarks and the fair comparison of different models are increasingly growing. Considering these concerns, in this paper, we discuss the potential risk and impact of inappropriately using evaluation benchmarks and misleadingly interpreting the evaluation results. Specially, we focus on a special issue that would lead to inappropriate evaluation, \ie benchmark leakage, referring that the data related to evaluation sets is occasionally used for model training. This phenomenon now becomes more common since pre-training data is often prepared ahead of model test. We conduct extensive experiments to study the effect of benchmark leverage, and find that it can dramatically boost the evaluation results, which would finally lead to an unreliable assessment of model performance. To improve the use of existing evaluation benchmarks, we finally present several guidelines for both LLM developers and benchmark maintainers. We hope this work can draw attention to appropriate training and evaluation of LLMs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are now integral across various domains and have demonstrated impressive performance. Progress, however, rests on the premise that benchmark scores are both accurate and reproducible. We demonstrate that the reproducibility of LLM performance is fragile: changing system configuration such as evaluation batch size, GPU count, and GPU version can introduce significant difference in the generated responses. This issue is especially pronounced in reasoning models, where minor rounding differences in early tokens can cascade into divergent chains of thought, ultimately affecting accuracy. For instance, under bfloat16 precision with greedy decoding, a reasoning model like DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-7B can exhibit up to 9% variation in accuracy and 9,000 tokens difference in response length due to differences in GPU count, type, and evaluation batch size. We trace the root cause of this variability to the non-associative nature of floating-point arithmetic under limited numerical precision. This work presents the first systematic investigation into how numerical precision affects reproducibility in LLM inference. Through carefully controlled experiments across various hardware, software, and precision settings, we quantify when and how model outputs diverge. Our analysis reveals that floating-point precision -- while critical for reproducibility -- is often neglected in evaluation practices. Inspired by this, we develop a lightweight inference pipeline, dubbed LayerCast, that stores weights in 16-bit precision but performs all computations in FP32, balancing memory efficiency with numerical stability. Code is available at https://github.com/nanomaoli/llm_reproducibility.

Memory-augmented LLM agents store and retrieve information from prior interactions, yet the relative importance of how memories are written versus how they are retrieved remains unclear. We introduce a diagnostic framework that analyzes how performance differences manifest across write strategies, retrieval methods, and memory utilization behavior, and apply it to a 3x3 study crossing three write strategies (raw chunks, Mem0-style fact extraction, MemGPT-style summarization) with three retrieval methods (cosine, BM25, hybrid reranking). On LoCoMo, retrieval method is the dominant factor: average accuracy spans 20 points across retrieval methods (57.1% to 77.2%) but only 3-8 points across write strategies. Raw chunked storage, which requires zero LLM calls, matches or outperforms expensive lossy alternatives, suggesting that current memory pipelines may discard useful context that downstream retrieval mechanisms fail to compensate for. Failure analysis shows that performance breakdowns most often manifest at the retrieval stage rather than at utilization. We argue that, under current retrieval practices, improving retrieval quality yields larger gains than increasing write-time sophistication. Code is publicly available at https://github.com/boqiny/memory-probe.

This comprehensive study evaluates the performance of OpenAI's o1-preview large language model across a diverse array of complex reasoning tasks, spanning multiple domains, including computer science, mathematics, natural sciences, medicine, linguistics, and social sciences. Through rigorous testing, o1-preview demonstrated remarkable capabilities, often achieving human-level or superior performance in areas ranging from coding challenges to scientific reasoning and from language processing to creative problem-solving. Key findings include: -83.3% success rate in solving complex competitive programming problems, surpassing many human experts. -Superior ability in generating coherent and accurate radiology reports, outperforming other evaluated models. -100% accuracy in high school-level mathematical reasoning tasks, providing detailed step-by-step solutions. -Advanced natural language inference capabilities across general and specialized domains like medicine. -Impressive performance in chip design tasks, outperforming specialized models in areas such as EDA script generation and bug analysis. -Remarkable proficiency in anthropology and geology, demonstrating deep understanding and reasoning in these specialized fields. -Strong capabilities in quantitative investing. O1 has comprehensive financial knowledge and statistical modeling skills. -Effective performance in social media analysis, including sentiment analysis and emotion recognition. The model excelled particularly in tasks requiring intricate reasoning and knowledge integration across various fields. While some limitations were observed, including occasional errors on simpler problems and challenges with certain highly specialized concepts, the overall results indicate significant progress towards artificial general intelligence.

Subjective Answer Grading (SAG) plays a crucial role in education, standardized testing, and automated assessment systems, particularly for evaluating short-form responses in Short Answer Scoring (SAS). However, existing approaches often produce coarse-grained scores and lack detailed reasoning. Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential as zero-shot evaluators, they remain susceptible to bias, inconsistencies with human judgment, and limited transparency in scoring decisions. To overcome these limitations, we introduce SAS-Bench, a benchmark specifically designed for LLM-based SAS tasks. SAS-Bench provides fine-grained, step-wise scoring, expert-annotated error categories, and a diverse range of question types derived from real-world subject-specific exams. This benchmark facilitates detailed evaluation of model reasoning processes and explainability. We also release an open-source dataset containing 1,030 questions and 4,109 student responses, each annotated by domain experts. Furthermore, we conduct comprehensive experiments with various LLMs, identifying major challenges in scoring science-related questions and highlighting the effectiveness of few-shot prompting in improving scoring accuracy. Our work offers valuable insights into the development of more robust, fair, and educationally meaningful LLM-based evaluation systems.

The scientific scale-up of large language models (LLMs) necessitates a comprehensive understanding of their scaling properties. However, the existing literature on the scaling properties only yields an incomplete answer: optimization loss decreases predictably as the model size increases, in line with established scaling law; yet no scaling law for task has been established and the task performances are far from predictable during scaling. Task performances typically show minor gains on small models until they improve dramatically once models exceed a size threshold, exemplifying the ``emergent abilities''. In this study, we discover that small models, although they exhibit minor performance, demonstrate critical and consistent task performance improvements that are not captured by conventional evaluation strategies due to insufficient measurement resolution. To measure such improvements, we introduce PassUntil, an evaluation strategy through massive sampling in the decoding phase. We conduct quantitative investigations into the scaling law of task performance. Firstly, a strict task scaling law is identified, enhancing the predictability of task performances. Remarkably, we are able to predict the performance of the 2.4B model on code generation with merely 0.05\% deviation before training starts. Secondly, underpinned by PassUntil, we observe concrete evidence of emergent abilities and ascertain that they are not in conflict with the continuity of performance improvement. Their semblance to break-through is that their scaling curve cannot be fitted by standard scaling law function. We then introduce a mathematical definition for the emergent abilities. Through the definition, we refute a prevalent ``multi-step reasoning hypothesis'' regarding the genesis of emergent abilities and propose a new hypothesis with a satisfying fit to the observed scaling curve.

We introduce ResearchGym, a benchmark and execution environment for evaluating AI agents on end-to-end research. To instantiate this, we repurpose five oral and spotlight papers from ICML, ICLR, and ACL. From each paper's repository, we preserve the datasets, evaluation harness, and baseline implementations but withhold the paper's proposed method. This results in five containerized task environments comprising 39 sub-tasks in total. Within each environment, agents must propose novel hypotheses, run experiments, and attempt to surpass strong human baselines on the paper's metrics. In a controlled evaluation of an agent powered by GPT-5, we observe a sharp capability--reliability gap. The agent improves over the provided baselines from the repository in just 1 of 15 evaluations (6.7%) by 11.5%, and completes only 26.5% of sub-tasks on average. We identify recurring long-horizon failure modes, including impatience, poor time and resource management, overconfidence in weak hypotheses, difficulty coordinating parallel experiments, and hard limits from context length. Yet in a single run, the agent surpasses the solution of an ICML 2025 Spotlight task, indicating that frontier agents can occasionally reach state-of-the-art performance, but do so unreliably. We additionally evaluate proprietary agent scaffolds including Claude Code (Opus-4.5) and Codex (GPT-5.2) which display a similar gap. ResearchGym provides infrastructure for systematic evaluation and analysis of autonomous agents on closed-loop research.

Majority voting over multiple LLM attempts improves mathematical reasoning, but correlated errors limit the effective sample size. A natural fix is to assign different reasoning strategies to different voters. The approach, Diverse Prompt Mixer, is tested on the AIMO 3 competition: 3 models, 23+ experiments, 50 IMO-level problems, one H100 80 GB, 5-hour limit. Every prompt-level intervention fails. High-temperature sampling already decorrelates errors; weaker strategies reduce accuracy more than they reduce correlation. Across an 8-point capability gap at equal N=8 and every optimization tested, model capability dominates. The gap between the best majority-vote score (42/50) and pass@20 (~45.5) is selection loss, not prompt loss. A verifier-based selector could close it. Prompt engineering cannot.

Despite advances in scientific AI, a coherent framework for Scientific General Intelligence (SGI)-the ability to autonomously conceive, investigate, and reason across scientific domains-remains lacking. We present an operational SGI definition grounded in the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM: Deliberation, Conception, Action, Perception) and operationalize it via four scientist-aligned tasks: deep research, idea generation, dry/wet experiments, and experimental reasoning. SGI-Bench comprises over 1,000 expert-curated, cross-disciplinary samples inspired by Science's 125 Big Questions, enabling systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs. Results reveal gaps: low exact match (10--20%) in deep research despite step-level alignment; ideas lacking feasibility and detail; high code executability but low execution result accuracy in dry experiments; low sequence fidelity in wet protocols; and persistent multimodal comparative-reasoning challenges. We further introduce Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (TTRL), which optimizes retrieval-augmented novelty rewards at inference, enhancing hypothesis novelty without reference answer. Together, our PIM-grounded definition, workflow-centric benchmark, and empirical insights establish a foundation for AI systems that genuinely participate in scientific discovery.

Synthetic data generated by large language models has become integral to modern NLP training pipelines, from bootstrapping reasoning capabilities to augmenting instruction-following datasets. While recent work demonstrates successful applications maintaining high external data ratios, systematic understanding of how synthetic data proportion affects model behavior across different scales remains limited. This paper presents a controlled empirical study examining model performance, calibration, and output characteristics when trained on varying synthetic-to-external data ratios. Using the Pythia model suite (410M-12B parameters) across five diverse tasks, we evaluate models after one to three training iterations with synthetic data proportions ranging from 0-50\%. Our key findings include: models maintain stable performance with up to 20\% synthetic data, but degradation accelerates beyond 30\%; larger models (6.9B-12B) show greater robustness to synthetic data than smaller models (410M-1.4B); calibration degradation precedes accuracy loss, providing an early warning signal; and task characteristics matter, with reasoning tasks degrading faster than retrieval tasks under synthetic data training. Importantly, we find that current best practices, such as those employed in STaR and Self-Instruct systems that maintain greater than 80\% external data, operate well within safe regimes identified by our experiments. We provide practical guidance for practitioners on synthetic data budgets based on model scale and task requirements, alongside detailed comparison with concurrent work including Shumailov et al.'s model collapse findings.

Most reported gains on agentic-LLM clinical benchmarks are often attributed to prompt engineering, yet our results suggest that larger improvements can come from architectural and engine-level design. We present MDIA, a Multi-agent Diagnostic Intelligence Agent implemented as a 7-node specialty-routed clinical reasoning graph, on the full HealthBench Professional benchmark (n = 525), on a non-fine-tuned LLM. MDIA achieves 0.6272 under OpenAI's GPT-5.4-2026-03-05, which is +3.72 pp above the performance of OpenAI's ChatGPT for Clinicians. The experimental work shows that performance lift is attributable to system architecture: specialty routing, multi-turn context preservation, drug-state safety gating, site-filtered search, length-aware synthesis, and engine-level reliability. These findings support the view that agentic clinical benchmark performance is shaped both by the underlying foundation model and the orchestration architecture. Nevertheless, we also noticed notable differences when using other models as a grader; in particular, when using Gemini 2.5 Pro, MDIA scored 0.6585, which suggests that the choice of grader is a source of variability. Robust evaluation of LLMs would therefore require assessment across several independent grader models.

Techniques for reliable rubric-based LLM evaluation -- ensemble judging, bias mitigation, few-shot calibration -- are scattered across papers with inconsistent terminology and partial implementations. We introduce Autorubric, an open-source framework that unifies these rubric-based LLM evaluation lessons with opinionated defaults: analytic rubrics with binary, ordinal, and nominal criteria; single-judge and ensemble evaluation; few-shot calibration; bias mitigations; and psychometric reliability metrics. We validate on three benchmarks: RiceChem (college chemistry grading, 80\% accuracy with 5-shot calibration), ResearcherBench (deep research evaluation, 931 criteria, cross-judge agreement analysis), and CHARM-100, a new chatbot evaluation dataset combining all three criterion types with ground truth labels (87\% binary accuracy, moderate-to-substantial κ). Beyond measurement, per-criterion scores and explanations serve as optimization signals. We demonstrate how Autorubric's rubric-evaluation explanations raise a peer review agent's score from 0.47 to 0.85 (above the 0.82 expert-curated baseline), and its scores serve as RL rewards to produce statistically significant improvement on AdvancedIF (+0.039, Wilcoxon p = 0.032) with positive transfer to IFEval. In all of these cases, Autorubric enabled us to rapidly operationalize various rubric design choices and best practices with minimal effort.

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

Repository-level performance-optimization benchmarks such as GSO, SWE-Perf and SWE-fficiency evaluate coding agents by applying patches to real repositories and comparing runtime against unoptimized baselines and official reference patches. Their leaderboard scores are increasingly used as evidence of coding-agent progress, but those scores can conflate runtime instability, benchmark-specific scoring rules, and how many tasks are already solved by at least one public submission. We audit these issues across the three benchmarks. First, we replay the official reference patches for 740 code optimization tasks across four common types of Google Cloud machines. Most benchmark tasks can be replayed, but their reference patches satisfy the original benchmark validity rules in every cross-machine replay for only 39/102 GSO tasks, 11/140 SWE-Perf tasks, and 411/498 SWE-fficiency tasks; SWE-Perf is especially fragile because many reference patches produce close-to-zero runtime changes. Second, we show that public submission rankings depend strongly on the benchmark scoring rule. Among eight public submissions shared by GSO and SWE-fficiency, the official rankings disagree on 9 of 28 pairwise submission comparisons, and SWE-fficiency's leaderboard scoring rule assigns the worst ten tasks overly high score weights of 58.5%-82.8%. Third, looking across 10 public submissions for each task, we find that at least one submission matches or beats the reference patch on 85.3% (384/450) of replay-valid GSO and SWE-fficiency tasks, and beats the unoptimized base code on 99.8% (449/450). Our study complements leaderboard scores by identifying tasks with more reliable performance signals, quantifying per-task score contributions, and exposing the remaining performance gaps that are hidden by aggregate rankings.