Into the Unknown
Agents get a science paper and an unpublished follow-up direction from a DOE national lab scientist, then write the follow-up paper. Rubrics built from the scientist's conditions grade it, plus an integrity check.
Nine agents wrote 15 follow-ups each. None of the 135 papers met all conditions, and 114 failed the integrity check. 152 HF paper upvotes.
In the authors’ words
Can AI agents carry out research on open scientific problems? We introduce Into the Unknown, a benchmark that provides an agent with a science paper along with a research direction to pursue and tasks it to write a follow-up paper. We work with scientists at US Department of Energy (DOE) national laboratories, who each contribute an unpublished follow-up direction from their own work together with the necessary conditions a submission must meet. While assessing the quality of a follow-up paper is challenging in general, using these conditions to form a rubric makes evaluation more tractable for research problems that have no reference answer. We have nine frontier agents write 15 follow-ups each, spanning quantum computing, plasma physics, computational chemistry, materials science, and scientific machine learning domains. None of the 135 submissions satisfies all the conditions, and 114 fail our integrity check, most often because the paper claims work that was never done or reports numbers that contradict the recorded evidence. Overall, agents readily produce papers that look like follow-ups, but none meets the standard of the domain scientist, leaving substantial headroom. Our code and data are publicly available.
- 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
- Open-ended Free-form text, documents, designs or media judged as a whole.
No scores here yet
No lab, leaderboard or Epoch AI run has reported a score for Into the Unknown 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
- 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%