A physics agent can produce a plausible result and still fail at research: it may overlook a key paper, validate its own mistaken assumption, or miss which experimental error matters. FrontierPhysics makes those gaps visible by evaluating the entire research process, not just the final answer.
Key Findings
- The benchmark contains 56 tasks contributed by 42 physicists, spanning nine areas of theoretical, computational, and experimental physics. Tasks draw on real research projects rather than isolated textbook questions.
- Agents must review literature, plan and conduct research, produce structured artifacts, and write a scientific manuscript. This tests whether results and their written claims agree.
- Evaluation pairs deterministic checks of outputs with expert-authored rubrics for research quality. Across 22 models in 26 configurations, the best reported pass rate was 27.4% (46 of 168 rollouts).
- In trajectory reviews, failures were more often associated with insufficiently rigorous reasoning, missing expert intuition, and weak literature synthesis than with basic physics knowledge or execution errors. That shifts attention from what agents know to how they investigate and verify.
Who It’s For—and the Trade-off
Great fit for researchers studying scientific agents, benchmark designers, and anyone asking whether AI can contribute to real physics workflows rather than solve self-contained problems. Look elsewhere if you need a broad measure of general scientific ability: these 56 expert-designed tasks provide a demanding, physics-focused evaluation, not a complete proxy for open-ended research.