Fengyu Xie

Zhangde Song, Jieyu Lu, Yuanqi Du et al.

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.

Taoyuze Lv, Alexander Chen, Fengyu Xie et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) excel at textual reasoning and are beginning to develop spatial understanding, prompting the question of whether these abilities can be combined for complex, domain-specific tasks. This question is essential in fields like materials science, where deep understanding of 3D atomic structures is fundamental. While initial studies have successfully applied LLMs to tasks involving pure crystal generation or coordinate understandings, a standardized benchmark to systematically evaluate their core reasoning abilities across diverse atomic structures has been notably absent. To address this gap, we introduce the AtomWorld benchmark to evaluate LLMs on tasks based in Crystallographic Information Files (CIFs), a standard structure representation format. These tasks, including structural editing, CIF perception, and property-guided modeling, reveal a critical limitation: current models, despite establishing promising baselines, consistently fail in structural understanding and spatial reasoning. Our experiments show that these models make frequent errors on structure modification tasks, and even in the basic CIF format understandings, potentially leading to cumulative errors in subsequent analysis and materials insights. By defining these standardized tasks, AtomWorld lays the ground for advancing LLMs toward robust atomic-scale modeling, crucial for accelerating materials research and automating scientific workflows.