Benchmark Almanac

MaCBench

GPT-5.2 72.6%
Not in model cards

Vision language models answer chemistry and materials questions from images. Tasks cover reading data, understanding experiments and interpreting results.

Over 1,100 multimodal questions in 34 subsets, written by chemistry and materials experts. From the group behind ChemBench.

Released
November 2024
Kind
Lab and data work
Level
Expert
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Multiple choice
Tasks
All public
Strongest model tested
GPT-5.2 #50 on the capability index
Last model added
December 2025
Scores refreshed
November 12th, 2026

In the authors’ words

Recent advancements in artificial intelligence have sparked interest in scientific assistants that could support researchers across the full spectrum of scientific workflows, from literature review to experimental design and data analysis. A key capability for such systems is the ability to process and reason about scientific information in both visual and textual forms - from interpreting spectroscopic data to understanding laboratory setups. Here, we introduce MaCBench, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating how vision-language models handle real-world chemistry and materials science tasks across three core aspects: data extraction, experimental understanding, and results interpretation. Through a systematic evaluation of leading models, we find that while these systems show promising capabilities in basic perception tasks - achieving near-perfect performance in equipment identification and standardized data extraction - they exhibit fundamental limitations in spatial reasoning, cross-modal information synthesis, and multi-step logical inference. Our insights have important implications beyond chemistry and materials science, suggesting that developing reliable multimodal AI scientific assistants may require advances in curating suitable training data and approaches to training those models.

Abstract of Probing the limitations of multimodal language models for chemistry and materials research (arXiv:2411.16955, CC0)
2
Models scored on its own leaderboard

GPT-5.2 leads with 72.6%

Best score per model from the benchmark's own leaderboard, read on November 12th, 2026. Where a model ran with several settings or harnesses, we keep its best.

  1. 1 GPT-5.2 72.6%
  2. 2 GPT-5 nano 68.8%

Source: Official MaCBench leaderboard

#ModelScoreSettingDateSource
1 GPT-5.2 72.6% Inspect Evals Dec 2025 Official leaderboard
2 GPT-5 nano 68.8% Inspect Evals Aug 2025 Official leaderboard

Scores over time

All the scores we have, one dot each, so a model tested at several settings appears more than once.

On the benchmark’s own leaderboard Best so far
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.2 GPT-5 nano 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2026 Near the ceiling (85%) GPT-5.2

Source: Official MaCBench 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

All 92 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%