Explore/agent app/MOF-VERIFY: A Failure-Aware Agentic Harness for MOF Hypothesis Verification
M

Donghyun Lee, Taehoon Lee, Geonhee Ahn, Jieun Kim, Jihyun Park, Suyeon Cho, Yoona Kim, Chaerim Shin, Hoi Ri Moon, Jonggeol Na, Sukho Hong, Jihwan Oh, Soo Kyung Kim/MOF-VERIFY: A Failure-Aware Agentic Harness for MOF Hypothesis VerificationUnknown

Large language models are increasingly used as reasoning components in AI-driven materials Co-Scientists, yet the reliability of the resulting verification pipeline remains unclear. Metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) provide a particularly challenging setting because structures may appear under different identifiers, synthesis outcomes depend strongly on experimental conditions, evidence is distributed across heterogeneous sources, and some hypotheses require computation rather than literature alone. We introduce a diagnostic benchmark with four task families covering structural grounding, synthesis-condition verification, evidence-sufficiency verification, and MLIP-based computational verification. T-MOF-1-3 are evaluated under closed-book, retrieval-enabled, and oracle-evidence settings to localize failures in knowledge access, evidence acquisition, and reasoning, while T-MOF-4 separately evaluates computational verification. Guided by these diagnosed failure modes, we develop MOF-Verify, a failure-aware agentic harness that targets structural, literature, evidence-sufficiency, and computational bottlenecks before producing a final verdict. Across multiple backbone LLMs, MOF-Verify substantially improves hypothesis-verification performance over direct inference and retrieval-based baselines. Benchmark datasets are released at https://github.com/IMMS-Ewha/MOF-Verify-Benchmark.

agent app
GitHubCompare
Refreshed 6h ago
OverviewActivity52wAlternativesDocs
Stars0
Forks0
HF Downloads—30d
Last commit—
Refreshed6h 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 · 0 days observed0 not enough history
snapshots
not enough history
Repository activity · 0 days observednot enough history from pushed_at
inactivepushed
not enough history
not enough history
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

C
ClinAgent: A ReAct-Based Agent for Conversational Access to Clinical Trial Information
0 · agent app
55
A
Agent2UCB: Agentic System for Generative Engine Optimization
0 · agent app
55
A
Agentic AI for Scientific Reasoning in Autonomous Quantum Sensing Experiments
0 · agent app
55
I
IDP AutoOpt: Agent-Driven Optimization of Document Processing Pipeline Configurations
0 · agent app
55Compare all →

Recent activity

Latest commit ——
Indexed by AgentHub crawler6h ago
Monitor for new releasesongoing