Explore/benchmark/Can LLM design high-quality experiments? A Comprehensive and Systematic Benchmark on Autonomous Experimental Design
C

Zejun Liu, Jian Wu, Ru Peng, Yuliang Ji, Dongyuan Li, Renhe Jiang, Yue Zhang/Can LLM design high-quality experiments? A Comprehensive and Systematic Benchmark on Autonomous Experimental DesignUnknown

AI for Research (AI4Research) leverages AI to automate and improve scientific workflows. While experimental design is a critical stage of the research process, prior work has focused primarily on code implementation and execution, overlooking the importance of this stage, and no benchmark exists to evaluate AI's ability to conduct systematic experiment design. To bridge this gap, we propose SCOPE, a Scientific COmprehensive Planning Evaluation Benchmark constructed from 300 high-quality latest papers across 19 research domains from top-tier venues (e.g., ICML, NeurIPS, and ICLR),evaluating LLMs on two dimensions: High-Level planning completeness (main, ablation, and analysis experiments) and Low-Level configuration accuracy and rationality (datasets, baselines, and metrics). Benchmarking reveals three findings: (1) most LLMs cannot directly design high-quality experiments; (2) all LLMs exhibit a performance bottleneck in low-level configuration; and (3) search mode does not improve design quality. Furthermore, to address these challenges, we propose OptED, a novel agentic workflow to optimize LLM-based experimental design, that enhances LLM-based experimental planning through stage isolation, tool augmentation, and rule-based constraints, effectively alleviating the configuration bottleneck.

benchmark
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 3h ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads30d
Last commit
Refreshed3h ago
Project healthUnknownNo activity data.
Production readinessResearch / EarlyBest for exploration and prototyping.
Risk notesUnknown licenseVerify license before production use.
AgentHub Score
55 / 100
Composite score from 6 signals. How we score →
Active project
55Score
Growth
40C
Activity
30C
Documentation
70C+
Maturity
45C
Community
42C
Production
58C
GitHub stars · 1 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
Repository activity · 1 days observedReal snapshots from pushed_at
inactivepushed
2026-08-062026-08-07
Practical assessment
Should you use it?

✓ Best for

  • Research and experimentation
  • Prototype development
  • Learning agentic patterns

◎ Strengths

  • Active community
  • Open source
  • Well-documented API

✕ Not ideal for

  • Untested at scale without validation
  • Teams without AI/ML expertise

⚠ Watch-outs

  • Review changelog before updating
  • Verify license for commercial use
Technical details
What's inside
Language
License
Sourcearxiv
Open source✗ No
Commercial use
Docs
Demo

AgentHub Score

55
Score 55/100
Below average

Alternatives

A
AgentBench
3.7k · benchmark
61
W
WebArena
1.6k · benchmark
61
V
VisualAgentBench
274 · benchmark
60
A
ALFWorld
822 · benchmark
55
Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit —
Indexed by AgentHub crawler3h ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing