# SFBench: The SciFy Scientific Feasibility Benchmark

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.29630 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.29630/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 46 of its 68 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 28 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 30 of 46)

- [Judging LLM-as-a-Judge with MT-Bench and Chatbot Arena](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.05685/) (2023)
- [SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1606.05250/) (2016)
- [HotpotQA: A Dataset for Diverse, Explainable Multi-hop Question Answering](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1809.09600/) (2018)
- [SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.06770/) (2023)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [MMLU-Pro: A More Robust and Challenging Multi-Task Language Understanding Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.01574/) (2024)
- [MS MARCO: A Human Generated MAchine Reading COmprehension Dataset](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1611.09268/) (2016)
- [Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuAD](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1806.03822/) (2018)
- [FEVER: a large-scale dataset for Fact Extraction and VERification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1803.05355/) (2018)
- [What Disease does this Patient Have? A Large-scale Open Domain Question Answering Dataset from Medical Exams](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.13081/) (2020)
- [GAIA: a benchmark for General AI Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12983/) (2023)
- [The AI Scientist: Towards Fully Automated Open-Ended Scientific Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2408.06292/) (2024)
- [FinQA: A Dataset of Numerical Reasoning over Financial Data](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2109.00122/) (2021)
- [Fact or Fiction: Verifying Scientific Claims](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2004.14974/) (2020)
- [BigCodeBench: Benchmarking Code Generation with Diverse Function Calls and Complex Instructions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2406.15877/) (2024)
- [Language Models are Multilingual Chain-of-Thought Reasoners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.03057/) (2022)
- [Humanity's Last Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14249/) (2025)
- [Agent Laboratory: Using LLM Agents as Research Assistants](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.04227/) (2025)
- [The AI Scientist-v2: Workshop-Level Automated Scientific Discovery via Agentic Tree Search](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2504.08066/) (2025)
- [Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.04109/) (2024)
- [Self-Preference Bias in LLM-as-a-Judge](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.21819/) (2024)
- [ResearchAgent: Iterative Research Idea Generation over Scientific Literature with Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.07738/) (2024)
- [ARC-AGI-2: A New Challenge for Frontier AI Reasoning Systems](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11831/) (2025)
- [SciMON: Scientific Inspiration Machines Optimized for Novelty](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.14259/) (2023)
- [CLUTRR: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Inductive Reasoning from Text](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1908.06177/) (2019)
- [AbstentionBench: Reasoning LLMs Fail on Unanswerable Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2506.09038/) (2025)
- [AVeriTeC: A Dataset for Real-world Claim Verification with Evidence from the Web](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.13117/) (2023)
- [COVID-Fact: Fact Extraction and Verification of Real-World Claims on COVID-19 Pandemic](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2106.03794/) (2021)
- [Chain of Ideas: Revolutionizing Research Via Novel Idea Development with LLM Agents](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2410.13185/) (2024)
- [SciFact-Open: Towards open-domain scientific claim verification](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.13777/) (2022)

## Abstract (arXiv)

We present SFBench, a benchmark dataset for evaluating systems that assess the feasibility of scientific claims. SFBench includes 197 claims in materials science, each annotated with a ground-truth feasibility score on a five-point scale along with an explanation of that assessment. The collection differs from previous collections in several important ways: 1) it defines a complex task that requires reasoning over claims of varying scientific feasibility; 2) its claims are not extracted from existing scientific publications but are created de novo, greatly reducing the chances that LLMs have trained on them; 3) claims and ground truth are established by subject matter experts, not by artificial intelligence; and 4) unlike many benchmarks that ask about question/answer pairs, provide multiple choice answers, or ask questions requiring short, fixed answers, SFBench explanations are completely open-ended. We describe the benchmark design, data creation process, and evaluation metrics, and we report baseline results using recent GPT models.