arXiv:2512. 19799v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Advances in LLM reasoning and tool use have enabled agentic science, yet frontier theoretical and computational physics remains challenging because research requires deep domain expertise, long-horizon reasoning, and reliable numerical computation.
By Tingjia Miao, Wenkai Jin, Jinxin Tan, Muhua Zhang, Xianghe Pang, Zexi Liu, Yuwen Du, Tian Jin, Tu Guo, Zhengliang Zhang, Jingkun Liu, Yuelin Hu, Jiejun Zhang, Yunjie Huang, Yuhan Wang, Wenbo Li, Yinuo Gao, Shuo Chen, Rui Ye, Yuzhi Zhang, Linfeng Zhang, Kun Chen, Wei Wang, Weinan E, Siheng Chen
arXiv:2610.19159v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: 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...
By Seungone Kim, Jiayi Geng, Young-Jun Lee, Bo Liu, Juyoung Suk, Nicholas Lubbers, Mitchell Wood, Marcus Noack, Yong-Xin Yao, Yuan Shi, Roxana Bujack, Cristina Garcia Cardona, Austin Rodriguez, Ilon Joseph, Woojin Cho, Zora Zhiruo Wang, Chuanyang Jin, Ian Wu, Apurva Gandhi, Tianjian Li, Weiwei Sun, Carolin Lawrence, Kiril Gashteovski, Dongyeop Kang, Jay Shin, Akari Asai, Graham Neubig, Sean Welleck
The paper introduces PhysClosureBench, a benchmark of 50 expert‑verified physics research tasks that test whether AI agents can organize investigations and produce evidence‑supported conclusions. Each task specifies a research goal and constraints, while the agent must design the investigation and validate evidence. Seven leading LLMs were evaluated, with Claude‑Opus‑5 scoring highest on local scientific accomplishment but achieving full research closure (RC4) only 32.7% of the time, revealing a gap between local success and complete closure.
By Yijia Mao, Song Dai, Tao Chen, Xiangyu Lu, Linqian Zeng, Chenxi Hu, Sitong Zhou, Dongyang He, Xiaodan Mao, Linxuan Zhang, Tong Zhu, Yafu Li, Fangchen Yu, Peng Ye, Feng He, Yu Cheng, Yun Luo
arXiv:2605.26087v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Frontier LLMs now perform strongly across a wide range of physics evaluations, but it is hard to disentangle genuine reasoning from recall of...
By Matt L. Wiemann, Lindsay M. Smith, Peter Melchior, Siddharth Mishra-Sharma, Andrew Gordon Wilson, Pavel Izmailov, Carolina Cuesta-L\'azaro
PAPERBENCHX is a new benchmark that tests whether AI can reproduce scientific experiments across 12 disciplines, including electromagnetics, photonics, chemistry, materials science, biology, and robotics. It consists of 93 expert-constructed tasks, each providing a source paper, a public specification, and a domain-native scientific environment. The benchmark evaluates AI agents by having them reconstruct, execute, and diagnose key experiments, then replay submissions from scratch to score regenerated evidence against expert-validated criteria, revealing that current AI configurations fully reproduce only 14% of tasks.
By Ruoyu Wu, Zengji Tu, Aolong Sun, Tianyi Ma, Junren Li, Xinbo Xu, Li Fu, Ziyan Zhang, Pinrui Huang, Xiaochen Wang, Chengda Wu, Yutao Zhou, Jianjun Wu, Lin Chang, Baobao Chang, Liang Chen, Kuan Li
arXiv:2603. 13191v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) have transformed AI agents into proficient executors of computational materials science, performing a hundred simulations does not make a researcher.
By Haonan Huang