AstaBench
Agents work through more than 2,400 scientific research problems in 11 benchmarks across four areas: literature understanding, code and execution, data analysis, and end-to-end discovery. Many problems come from real requests to Ai2's deployed Asta agents. Agents use a fixed set of production-grade search tools, and the leaderboard plots score against cost per problem.
Ai2 built both the benchmark and Asta, one of the agents it tests. The launch tested 57 agents across 22 classes, and only 18 could attempt every category. Many problems are graded by a model judge against rubrics, and Ai2 says the discovery grading is still being refined. Version 0.3.1 changed the paper-search instructions and about doubled the cost of those tasks. About 140 GitHub stars.
- Made by
- Allen Institute for AI (Ai2)
- Released
- August 2025
- Kind
- Research science
- Level
- Expert
- Scored
- Graded by a model
- Answers
- Agent task
- Tasks
- All public
- Strongest model tested
- GPT-5.5 #20 on the capability index
- Last model added
- April 2026
- Scores refreshed
- November 12th, 2026
In the authors’ words
AI agents hold the potential to revolutionize scientific productivity by automating literature reviews, replicating experiments, analyzing data, and even proposing new directions of inquiry; indeed, there are now many such agents, ranging from general-purpose "deep research" systems to specialized science-specific agents, such as AI Scientist and AIGS. Rigorous evaluation of these agents is critical for progress. Yet existing benchmarks fall short on several fronts: they often (1) lack reproducible agent tools necessary for a controlled comparison of core agentic capabilities; (2) do not account for confounding variables such as model cost and tool access; (3) do not provide standardized interfaces for quick agent prototyping and evaluation; (4) fail to provide holistic, product-informed measures of real-world use cases such as science research; and (5) lack comprehensive baseline agents necessary to identify true advances. In response, we define principles and tooling for more rigorously benchmarking agents. Using these, we present AstaBench, a suite that provides a holistic measure of agentic ability to perform scientific research, comprising 2400+ problems spanning the entire scientific discovery process and multiple scientific domains, and including many problems inspired by actual user requests to deployed Asta agents. Our suite comes with the first scientific research environment with production-grade search tools that enable controlled, reproducible evaluation, better accounting for confounders. Alongside, we provide a comprehensive suite of nine science-optimized classes of Asta agents and numerous baselines. Our extensive evaluation of 57 agents across 22 agent classes reveals several interesting findings, most importantly that despite meaningful progress on certain individual aspects, AI remains far from solving the challenge of science research assistance.
Claude Opus 4.7 leads with 58% among models released by April 2026
Best score per entry from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best. Every run is in the next chart. Names in gray aren't in our model list: fine-tunes, agent systems, products and older models. They don't count toward leaders.
The newest model with a score here came out in April 2026, and nobody has tested a newer one. Among the 20 highest-ranked models on the capability index, these have no score yet:
- Claude Fable 5.2
-
Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6 Astra
- Claude Opus 5.5
- and 15 more
- 58.0 Claude Opus 4.7
- 55.3 Claude Opus 4.6
- 54.5 Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 52.9 GPT-5.5
- 50.9 Asta v0 (multiple models)
- 49.6
Gemini 3.1 Pro
- 46.5 GPT-5.4
- 43.3 GPT-5
- 37.8 o3
- 37.5 Claude Sonnet 4
- 31.4 GPT-5 mini
- 30.4 GPT-4.1
- 24.5 Gemini 2.5 Flash (board date inconsistent)
- 21.4 Claude 3.5 Haiku
- 16.2 GPT-4o
- 7.74 Llama 4 Scout 17B (unpinned)
- 1 Claude Opus 4.7 58%
- 2 Claude Opus 4.6 55.3%
- 3 Claude Sonnet 4.6 54.5%
- 4 GPT-5.5 52.9%
- 5 Asta v0 (multiple models) 50.9%
- 6
Gemini 3.1 Pro 49.6%
- 7 GPT-5.4 46.5%
- 8 GPT-5 43.3%
- 9 o3 37.8%
- 10 Claude Sonnet 4 37.5%
- 11 GPT-5 mini 31.4%
- 12 GPT-4.1 30.4%
- 13 Gemini 2.5 Flash (board date inconsistent) 24.5%
- 14 Claude 3.5 Haiku 21.4%
- 15 GPT-4o Aug 2024 16.2%
- 16 Llama 4 Scout 17B (unpinned) 7.74%
Source: Official AstaBench leaderboard
| # | Entry | Score | Setting | Date | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 4.7 | 58% | ReAct | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 2 | Claude Opus 4.6 | 55.3% | ReAct | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 3 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | 54.5% | ReAct | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 4 | GPT-5.5 | 52.9% | ReAct | Apr 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 5 | Asta v0 (multiple models) | 50.9% | Asta v0 | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 6 | | 49.6% | ReAct | Feb 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 7 | GPT-5.4 | 46.5% | ReAct | Mar 2026 | Official leaderboard |
| 8 | GPT-5 | 43.3% | ReAct | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 9 | o3 | 37.8% | ReAct | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 10 | Claude Sonnet 4 | 37.5% | ReAct | May 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 11 | GPT-5 mini | 31.4% | ReAct | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 12 | GPT-4.1 | 30.4% | ReAct | Apr 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 13 | Gemini 2.5 Flash (board date inconsistent) | 24.5% | Smolagents Coder | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
| 14 | Claude 3.5 Haiku | 21.4% | ReAct | Oct 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 15 | GPT-4o Aug 2024 | 16.2% | ReAct | Aug 2024 | Official leaderboard |
| 16 | Llama 4 Scout 17B (unpinned) | 7.74% | ReAct | Aug 2025 | Official leaderboard |
Score against cost
The line joins the runs that no other run beats on both measures. We redrew this chart from the numbers on the official leaderboard.
| Model | Setting | Overall score | Average cost per problem |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.7 | ReAct | 58% | $3.54 |
| Claude Opus 4.6 | ReAct | 55.3% | $2.19 |
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | ReAct | 54.5% | $2.08 |
| GPT-5.5 | ReAct | 52.9% | $1.61 |
| Asta v0 (multiple models) | Asta v0 | 50.9% | $3.4 |
| | ReAct | 49.6% | $1.25 |
| GPT-5.4 | ReAct | 46.5% | $0.7 |
| GPT-5 | ReAct | 43.3% | $0.31 |
| o3 | ReAct | 37.8% | $0.16 |
| Claude Sonnet 4 | ReAct | 37.5% | $0.4 |
| GPT-5 | Smolagents Coder | 35.4% | $0.13 |
| Claude Sonnet 4 | Smolagents Coder | 34.9% | $1.02 |
| GPT-5 mini | ReAct | 31.4% | $0.04 |
| GPT-4.1 | ReAct | 30.4% | $0.2 |
| GPT-4.1 | Smolagents Coder | 30% | $0.32 |
| GPT-5 mini | Smolagents Coder | 27% | $0.06 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash (board date inconsistent) | Smolagents Coder | 24.5% | $0.71 |
| Claude 3.5 Haiku | ReAct | 21.4% | $0.04 |
| GPT-4o Aug 2024 | ReAct | 16.2% | $0.12 |
| Gemini 2.5 Flash (board date inconsistent) | ReAct | 15.2% | $0.71 |
| GPT-4o Aug 2024 | Smolagents Coder | 13.1% | $0.36 |
| Claude 3.5 Haiku | Smolagents Coder | 12.1% | $0.3 |
| Llama 4 Scout 17B (unpinned) | ReAct | 7.7% | $0.68 |
The best score, 58%, costs $3.54 a task
Runs on the cost frontier score higher than any run that's cheaper. The costs are the leaderboard's own estimates, so compare them only within this benchmark.
Source: Official AstaBench leaderboard
| Model | Effort | Harness | Score | Cost per task | Output tokens |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.7 | ReAct | 58% | $3.54 | ||
| Claude Opus 4.6 | ReAct | 55.3% | $2.19 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | ReAct | 54.5% | $2.08 | ||
| GPT-5.5 | ReAct | 52.9% | $1.61 | ||
| | ReAct | 49.6% | $1.25 | ||
| GPT-5.4 | ReAct | 46.5% | $0.70 | ||
| GPT-5 | ReAct | 43.3% | $0.31 | ||
| o3 | ReAct | 37.8% | $0.16 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | ReAct | 37.5% | $0.40 | ||
| GPT-5 | Smolagents Coder | 35.4% | $0.13 | ||
| Claude Sonnet 4 | Smolagents Coder | 34.9% | $1.02 | ||
| GPT-5 mini | ReAct | 31.4% | $0.04 | ||
| GPT-4.1 | ReAct | 30.4% | $0.20 | ||
| GPT-4.1 | Smolagents Coder | 30% | $0.32 | ||
| GPT-5 mini | Smolagents Coder | 27% | $0.06 | ||
| Claude 3.5 Haiku | ReAct | 21.4% | $0.04 | ||
| GPT-4o Aug 2024 | ReAct | 16.2% | $0.12 | ||
| GPT-4o Aug 2024 | Smolagents Coder | 13.1% | $0.36 | ||
| Claude 3.5 Haiku | Smolagents Coder | 12.1% | $0.30 |
4 models have held number one on the official leaderboard since its release in August 2025
Lab claims count from the day the card came out, independent runs from the model’s release.
Source: Official AstaBench leaderboard
Scores over time
All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.
Source: Official AstaBench leaderboard
No lab model card reports it yet
We read the headline results of 522 launch posts from 52 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.
More in Science and reasoning
- GPQA Diamond In use 198 graduate-level 'Google-proof' multiple-choice questions in biology, chemistry and physics.
Gemini 4 Carbon 96.5%
- Terminal-Bench-Science In use 70 scientific research-workflow tasks across five science areas, run in Harbor containers. Hidden tests give the resolution rate. GPT-6 Astra 68.1%
- FrontierScience In use Models solve physics, chemistry, and biology problems in an Olympiad track graded by short answer and a Research track graded by 10-point rubrics.
Intern-S2-397B 87%
- BioMysteryBench In use Bioinformatics problems on anonymized real datasets that require real analysis with tools. Rubric-graded, with human-solvable and human-difficult splits. Claude Fable 5.2 83.7%
- HiPhO In use Models solve theory problems from 2024 and 2025 physics olympiad exams, some with diagrams. Official marking schemes grade answers and steps, mapped to medal levels.
Gemini 3 Pro 78.3%
- LABBench2 In use 11 biology research sub-tasks (literature, figures, tables, patents, trials and more) with tool access. Macro-averaged accuracy. GPT-5.2 60.9%