Skip to content
Live
Hugging Face Daily Papers·· 10 days ago65

FrontierPhysics: Evaluating Agents for End-to-End Physics Research

FrontierPhysics: Evaluating Agents for End-to-End Physics Research

Brief overview

FrontierPhysics is an end-to-end benchmark containing 56 expert-designed physics tasks, evaluating agents' abilities in literature review, research planning, experimentation, and paper writing, using deterministic validators and expert scoring criteria. Among 22 models and 26 configurations, no configuration passed more than 46 times out of 168 tests, with manual review showing the main weaknesses lay in insufficient rigorous reasoning and limited expert intuition, rather than physics knowledge or execution errors.

Article

Published on Nov 4

#2 Paper of the day

Authors:

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

,

Abstract

FrontierPhysics is an end-to-end benchmark of 56 expert-designed physics tasks that evaluates AI agents on literature review, research planning, experimentation, and manuscript production using deterministic verifiers and expert rubrics.

AI agents are playing an increasingly important role in physics research. However, existing physics benchmarks only evaluate fixed questions, isolated sub-tasks, or paper reproduction with given solutions, and rarely check research quality alongside correctness. We introduce FrontierPhysics, an end-to-end benchmark with 56 tasks made by 42 physicists based on their own research, covering nine domains across theoretical, computational, and experimental physics. Each task requires agents to review the literature, develop a research plan, conduct research and experiments, and produce structured outputs and scientific manuscripts. Combining deterministic verifiers with expert-authored rubrics, FrontierPhysics evaluates whether agents' research is correct and publishable. Across 22 models in 26 configurations, no configuration passes more than 46 of its 168 rollouts. Manual review of agent trajectories shows that frontier agents' main weaknesses are insufficiently rigorous reasoning and limited expert intuition, rather than gaps in physics knowledge or execution errors.

View arXiv page View PDF Add to collection

Get this paper in your agent:

hf papers read 2611.06910

Don't have the latest CLI?

curl -LsSf https://hf.co/cli/install.sh | bash

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.06910 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 0

No dataset linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.06910 in a dataset README.md to link it from this page.

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.06910 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 0

No Collection including this paper

Add this paper to a collection to link it from this page.

Source: Hugging Face Daily Papers · huggingface.co