CompMat-Bench is introduced, a benchmark of 94 tasks derived from recently published computational materials studies, each asking agents to complete a step toward achieving the study's scientific goal, and provides a basis for comparing agents on the steps of real materials research and for analyzing agent failure modes.
Abstract
Evaluating AI agents on scientific research tasks is constrained by the time and resources required for the underlying experiments or calculations. In computational materials research, repeating the same expensive simulations across agents and trials can make evaluation impractical. We introduce CompMat-Bench, a benchmark of 94 tasks derived from recently published computational materials studies, each asking agents to complete a step toward achieving the study's scientific goal. We reproduce the research steps in advance and assess agents on preparing inputs and analyzing outputs for expensive simulations, so expensive simulations can be avoided during evaluation. The reproduced inputs and results serve as ground truth for grading agents with fixed rules, without an LLM judge. The benchmark supports four evaluation conditions: single tasks and workflows composed of related tasks, each with full or reduced methodological guidance. With full guidance on single tasks, agents based on three LLMs demonstrate the ability to complete individual materials research steps, with pass rates of 66.0-90.4% across 94 tasks. Both longer workflows and reduced guidance can limit agent performance, but in different ways for different agents: they lower the pass rates of the weaker agents, whereas the strongest agent falls only when a long workflow is combined with reduced guidance. Failure analysis attributes most failures to scientific errors rather than to errors in software usage. CompMat-Bench provides a basis for comparing agents on the steps of real materials research and for analyzing agent failure modes.
BixBench3, a benchmark that measures the capacity of AI agents to process raw biological data through to scientific results, reveals that LLMs vary substantially in their ability to execute multiple sequential analysis steps coherently, manage large quantities of raw data, and work across scientific domains.
Zane Koch, A. Wassie, Javier Valdes-Aleman et al.· 5 citations· ⚡3
AI agents for autonomous scientific discovery must decide which experiments to run under a limited budget. Most benchmarks for science agents provide fixed datasets, while others that support active experimentation largely rely on simulation. We introduce Autonomous Science Bench, an initial release comprising six budg...
This review examines how current systems translate materials questions into computational tasks, identifies the settings in which reliability and recovery have been demonstrated, and explains why runnable calculations should be distinguished from scientifically justified conclusions.
As agents rapidly evolve, existing benchmarks can become saturated, limiting their ability to distinguish capabilities and reveal remaining failure modes. Particularly in scientific domains, constructing and updating benchmarks requires substantial time, labor, and domain expertise, making it difficult to keep evaluati...
Dongki Kim, Namkyeong Lee, Surag Nair et al.· 0 citations
Can AI agents organize scientific investigations that lead to well-supported conclusions? To evaluate this capability, we introduce PhysClosureBench, a benchmark of 50 expert-verified, goal-specified research tasks spanning strong-field, attosecond, and neighboring physics areas. Each task specifies the research object...
Yi-Jia Mao, Song-Bin Dai, Tao Chen et al.· 0 citations
Can AI agents carry out research on open scientific problems? We introduce Into the Unknown, a benchmark that provides an agent with a science paper along with a research direction to pursue and tasks it to write a follow-up paper. We work with scientists at US Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, who each...
Seungone Kim, Jia-Yi Geng, Young-Jun Lee et al.· 1 citation
Related blog posts
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduOct 13, 2026
Machine-learning networks can learn without detailed instructions from a designer. Those that do may offer insight into how the brain reorganizes itself during learning.
MIT News · Artificial Intelligence· news.mit.eduSep 29, 2026
Professor Sherry Turkle’s new book, “Artificial Intimacy,” offers a withering critique of chatbots and the antisocial dynamics she believes they encourage.