Benchmark Almanac

EurekaBench

Not in model cards

Agents run long experiments and propose mechanisms that explain observations in six sciences. Mechanisms are scored on known constraints, predictive accuracy and the 306 expert-listed insights they should support.

26 expert-verified tasks across neuroscience, computer science, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics and plasma physics. Grading of insights is assumed model-judged and should be checked. Repo has 35 stars.

In the authors’ words

When Isaac Newton discovered the law of gravitation, he did so through an iterative process of analyzing observed data such as planetary patterns, finding the underlying mechanisms by describing patterns in mathematical equations, and refining his theory against the Moon's orbit, revealing the startling insight that the same force governs both falling apples and orbiting planets. Would it be possible for AI agents to make similar discoveries? To measure this ability, we introduce EurekaBench, a cross-domain benchmark that tests AI agents' ability to conduct long-horizon experiments and discover mechanisms that explain observations. We evaluate these mechanisms by the scientific insights that can be derived from them. EurekaBench contains an expert-verified set of 26 long-horizon tasks across neuroscience, computer science, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics, and plasma physics, with a total of 306 scientific insights that the discovered mechanisms are expected to support. Our evaluation framework tests three axes of scientific discovery: agents' ability to follow known scientific constraints, the predictive accuracy of the discovered mechanisms, and whether these mechanisms yield scientific insights or inform future research. Our results show that current AI agents often overly fixate on predictive accuracy optimization, surpassing human scientists, while falling substantially short in deriving scientific insights.

Abstract of EurekaBench: Measuring Agentic Ability to Discover New Scientific Insights (arXiv:2610.00492, CC0)
Made by Carnegie Mellon University + Stanford + collaborators Released Sep 2026 Research science All tasks public
Level
Research frontier Researchers, on open problems or tasks that take days
Scored
Graded by a model A language model scores each response, usually against a rubric.
Answers
Agent task Many steps in a terminal, browser, desktop, app, game or robot.

No scores here yet

No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for EurekaBench yet.

No lab model card reports it yet

We read the headline results of 479 launch posts from 51 labs, and none of them list this benchmark.

More in Science and reasoning

All 88 in Science and reasoning
  • GPQA Diamond In use 198 graduate-level 'Google-proof' multiple-choice questions in biology, chemistry and physics. Gemini 4 Argon 96.4%
  • 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 Opus 5 90.1%
  • 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%