Indrajeet Mandal

Martiño Ríos-García, Nawaf Alampara, Chandan Gupta et al.

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.

Nawaf Alampara, Mara Schilling-Wilhelmi, Martiño Ríos-García et al.

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have sparked interest in scientific assistants that could support researchers across the full spectrum of scientific workflows, from literature review to experimental design and data analysis. A key capability for such systems is the ability to process and reason about scientific information in both visual and textual forms - from interpreting spectroscopic data to understanding laboratory setups. Here, we introduce MaCBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating how vision-language models handle real-world chemistry and materials science tasks across three core aspects: data extraction, experimental understanding, and results interpretation. Through a systematic evaluation of leading models, we find that while these systems show promising capabilities in basic perception tasks - achieving near-perfect performance in equipment identification and standardized data extraction - they exhibit fundamental limitations in spatial reasoning, cross-modal information synthesis, and multi-step logical inference. Our insights have important implications beyond chemistry and materials science, suggesting that developing reliable multimodal AI scientific assistants may require advances in curating suitable training data and approaches to training those models.

Indrajeet Mandal, Jitendra Soni, Mohd Zaki et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are revolutionizing self driving laboratories (SDLs) for materials research, promising unprecedented acceleration of scientific discovery. However, current SDL implementations rely on rigid protocols that fail to capture the adaptability and intuition of expert scientists in dynamic experimental settings. We introduce Artificially Intelligent Lab Assistant (AILA), a framework automating atomic force microscopy through LLM driven agents. Further, we develop AFMBench a comprehensive evaluation suite challenging AI agents across the complete scientific workflow from experimental design to results analysis. We find that state of the art models struggle with basic tasks and coordination scenarios. Notably, Claude 3.5 sonnet performs unexpectedly poorly despite excelling in materials domain question answering (QA) benchmarks, revealing that domain specific QA proficiency does not necessarily translate to effective agentic capabilities. Additionally, we observe that LLMs can deviate from instructions, raising safety alignment concerns for SDL applications. Our ablations reveal that multi agent frameworks outperform single-agent architectures. We also observe significant prompt fragility, where slight modifications in prompt structure cause substantial performance variations in capable models like GPT 4o. Finally, we evaluate AILA's effectiveness in increasingly advanced experiments AFM calibration, feature detection, mechanical property measurement, graphene layer counting, and indenter detection. Our findings underscore the necessity for rigorous benchmarking protocols and prompt engineering strategies before deploying AI laboratory assistants in scientific research environments.