Post
2586
Hey all β our ResearchClawBench leaderboard just updated π₯
We let AI do real science: 40 tasks across 10 disciplines, compared to human papers. Hard example? ποΈ Glacier mass change β AI must integrate 233 datasets from 35 teams, 4 methods, reproduce 6542Β±387 Gt ice loss vs IPCC. No toy problems.
Latest leaderboard (2026-06-09) π:
Agents: π₯ Claude Code 21.5 (50 = match human), $5.3; π₯ EvoScientist 18.8, $4.1; π₯ Codex CLI 18.4, just $2.0
LLMs+Harness: π₯ Claude-Opus-4.8 21.1, $4.0; π₯ Claude-Opus-4.7 20.7; π₯ MiniMax-M3 19.8, only $0.45; Qwen3.7-Max 18.7, $0.42, 11min π₯
Claude still king, but MiniMax/Qwen/DeepSeek are crazy cheap and competitive. Expensive isn't always better.
π Code & star: https://github.com/InternScience/ResearchClawBench
π Website: https://internscience.github.io/ResearchClawBench-Home/
π€ Upvote paper: ResearchClawBench: A Benchmark for End-to-End Autonomous Scientific Research (2606.07591)
We let AI do real science: 40 tasks across 10 disciplines, compared to human papers. Hard example? ποΈ Glacier mass change β AI must integrate 233 datasets from 35 teams, 4 methods, reproduce 6542Β±387 Gt ice loss vs IPCC. No toy problems.
Latest leaderboard (2026-06-09) π:
Agents: π₯ Claude Code 21.5 (50 = match human), $5.3; π₯ EvoScientist 18.8, $4.1; π₯ Codex CLI 18.4, just $2.0
LLMs+Harness: π₯ Claude-Opus-4.8 21.1, $4.0; π₯ Claude-Opus-4.7 20.7; π₯ MiniMax-M3 19.8, only $0.45; Qwen3.7-Max 18.7, $0.42, 11min π₯
Claude still king, but MiniMax/Qwen/DeepSeek are crazy cheap and competitive. Expensive isn't always better.
π Code & star: https://github.com/InternScience/ResearchClawBench
π Website: https://internscience.github.io/ResearchClawBench-Home/
π€ Upvote paper: ResearchClawBench: A Benchmark for End-to-End Autonomous Scientific Research (2606.07591)