Benchmark Almanac

TheoPhysEval

Not in model cards

Agents solve 50 unpublished research-level theoretical physics problems on their own, with literature search and scripts. Each final answer is checked against an expert answer, and the score is the pass rate.

Problems span 11 areas, from classical physics to holography. A realistic track allows web search and an isolated track does not. GPT-6 Astra passed 49 of 50 with search. Some expert reference answers were found wrong.

Released
October 2026
Kind
Research science
Level
Research frontier
Scored
Checked automatically
Answers
Agent task
Tasks
All public

In the authors’ words

We present a suite of 50 unpublished research-level theoretical physics problems with verifiable answers. Without AI assistance, a typical problem in our collection could be solved by a world expert in about a day or less but would take considerably longer for experts in adjacent specialties. We test the ability of off-the-shelf AI agents to tackle these problems autonomously, without human hints. When given access to tools available in a realistic setting, including the ability to search the literature and write scripts for numerical and symbolic work, the best-performing agent, GPT-6-Astra harnessed in Codex, obtains the final answers with a near-perfect accuracy of 98% at an average cost under USD 3 per problem. On average, agents show only small changes in accuracy when denied web search and access to background research papers, suggesting significant memorization of the literature. These results suggest that state-of-the-art agents can accurately perform concrete calculations required across theoretical physics research. We comment on the broader implications of these findings and discuss possible explanations for the current lack of agent-led breakthroughs in theoretical physics despite their outstanding problem-solving abilities.

Abstract of TheoPhysEval: Assessing AI agents at autonomous theoretical physics problem solving (arXiv:2610.16733, CC0)

No scores here yet

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

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%