Science Edge Evaluation: SEE the Missing Step Toward Real Scientific Discovery

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in scientific discovery, yet it remains unclear whether they can support complex real laboratory science. Here we introduce Science Edge Evaluation (SEE), a multimodal benchmark of expert-curated questions grounded in peer-reviewed literature and experimental practice in chemistry, biology, and materials science. Evaluation of 19 multimodal large language models (MLLMs) shows that even the best-performing model reaches only 48.7% accuracy. Moreover, general-purpose models outperform science-specialized models on average. In the visual-agent evaluation, the use of tools increases the best accuracy to 52.7%. Tool use can expand the information available to models, but more information does not necessarily lead to reliable scientific reasoning. The key challenge is whether models can manage tool-derived information within the boundaries of the original experimental evidence. Together, these findings reveal that current MLLMs still cannot reliably make justified and evidence-bounded inferences from experimental results, which is an essential capability in real scientific discovery. Bridging this gap requires MLLMs to transition from explaining established scientific concepts to deriving novel and evidence-based insights from experimental data.

Before the Action: Benchmarking LLMs on Prospective Hypothesis Discovery

Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured. We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discriminative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence, including anomalous observations and fragmented records, to guide subsequent investigation. To evaluate this capability, we introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets. To construct HypoData at scale, we propose Retrospective Context Regression, a Forge--Audit pipeline that reconstructs pre-conclusion contexts from completed expert documents by removing explicit conclusions, target hypotheses, and retrospective causal attributions while preserving the factual substrate. Because PHD admits multiple valid outputs, HypoEval combines bidirectional pairwise judgments with Bradley--Terry--Davidson aggregation for ranking and six-dimensional rubric scoring for diagnosis. Experiments on 15 frontier LLMs reveal clear capability stratification and model-dependent effects of structured analytical skills, with gains for several lower-performing models on HypoArena but regressions for other systems, including a top-performing model. Compared with absolute rubric scoring, arena evaluation resolves finer-grained differences among models, with aggregated rankings showing strong agreement with human experts and an independent judge. Together, these results support treating PHD as a distinct target for evaluating how LLMs formulate investigative directions when final conclusions are withheld. Our code and data are publicly available at github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HypoArena and github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HypoArena.

IndustryCode: A Benchmark for Industry Code Generation

Code generation and comprehension by Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as core drivers of industrial intelligence and decision optimization, finding widespread application in fields such as finance, automation, and aerospace. Although recent advancements have demonstrated the remarkable potential of LLMs in general code generation, existing benchmarks are mainly confined to single domains and languages. Consequently, they fail to effectively evaluate the generalization capabilities required for real-world industrial applications or to reflect the coding proficiency demanded by complex industrial scenarios. To bridge this gap, we introduce IndustryCode, the first comprehensive benchmark designed to span multiple industrial domains and programming languages. IndustryCode comprises 579 sub-problems derived from 125 primary industrial challenges, accompanied by rigorous problem descriptions and test cases. It covers a wide range of fields, including finance, automation, aerospace, and remote sensing-and incorporates diverse programming languages such as MATLAB, Python, C++, and Stata. In our evaluation, the top-performing model, Claude 4.5 Opus, achieved an overall accuracy of 68.1% on sub-problems and 42.5% main problems. The benchmark dataset and automated evaluation code will be made publicly available upon acceptance.

MolQuest: A Benchmark for Agentic Evaluation of Abductive Reasoning in Chemical Structure Elucidation

Large language models (LLMs) hold considerable potential for advancing scientific discovery, yet systematic assessment of their dynamic reasoning in real-world research remains limited. Current scientific evaluation benchmarks predominantly rely on static, single-turn Question Answering (QA) formats, which are inadequate for measuring model performance in complex scientific tasks that require multi-step iteration and experimental interaction. To address this gap, we introduce MolQuest, a novel agent-based evaluation framework for molecular structure elucidation built upon authentic chemical experimental data. Unlike existing datasets, MolQuest formalizes molecular structure elucidation as a multi-turn interactive task, requiring models to proactively plan experimental steps, integrate heterogeneous spectral sources (e.g., NMR, MS), and iteratively refine structural hypotheses. This framework systematically evaluates LLMs' abductive reasoning and strategic decision-making abilities within a vast and complex chemical space. Empirical results reveal that contemporary frontier models exhibit significant limitations in authentic scientific scenarios: notably, even state-of-the-art (SOTA) models achieve an accuracy of only approximately 50%, while the performance of most other models remains below the 30% threshold. This work provides a reproducible and extensible framework for science-oriented LLM evaluation, our findings highlight the critical gap in current LLMs' strategic scientific reasoning, setting a clear direction for future research toward AI that can actively participate in the scientific process.

HLE-Verified: A Systematic Verification and Structured Revision of Humanity's Last Exam

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified