PHREEQC-MCQ-200: A Diagnostic Benchmark for Tool-Augmented Scientific Simulator Agents
On the map: LLM agents and tool use → Web, search, and research agents
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language model agents are increasingly connected to scientific software, yet it remains unclear when tool access makes scientific computation more reliable rather than merely more complex. We introduce PHREEQC-MCQ-200, a benchmark for evaluating tool-augmented agents on deterministic aqueous-geochemistry simulations. The benchmark contains 200 multiple-choice questions derived from 21 validated PHREEQC scenarios, requiring agents to construct simulator inputs, execute PHREEQC, inspect structured outputs, and commit to final answers. Across multiple frontier and mid-tier model families, simulator access substantially improves aggregate accuracy, confirming that grounded execution is necessary for many scientific-computation tasks. However, the gains are not monotonic: tool-augmented agents also lose items they answered correctly without tools, revealing regressions that average accuracy alone hides. We further show that output-access protocol matters. A table-of-contents interface can reduce token cost while preserving or improving accuracy for stronger models, but it degrades performance for mid-tier models that cannot reliably navigate structured simulator outputs. PHREEQC-MCQ-200 therefore frames scientific tool use as an end-to-end diagnostic problem rather than a simple tool-calling capability. We argue that evaluations of scientific agents should report not only accuracy, but also item-level retention, output-access sensitivity, trajectory failures, and where the computation chain breaks.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Placed in Web, search, and research agents, one of 16 directions in LLM agents and tool use. Builds on 11 of its 23 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 1 Jul 2026.
Builds on
11 of 23 references.
Closest ancestors · 1
Same direction, newest first
Other references · 10
- 2022Chain-of-Thought Prompting Elicits Reasoning in Large Language Modelscited by 12,302
- 2022ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Modelscited by 8,355
- 2023Toolformer: Language Models Can Teach Themselves to Use Toolscited by 4,072
- 2023SWE-bench: Can Language Models Resolve Real-World GitHub Issues?cited by 3,193
- 2023GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmarkcited by 2,748
- 2018Datasheets for Datasetscited by 1,371
- 2023ChemCrow: Augmenting large-language models with chemistry toolscited by 609
- 2026Are Tools All We Need? Unveiling the Tool-Use Tax in LLM Agentscited by 11
- 2025How Good Are LLMs at Processing Tool Outputs?cited by 4
- 2026Beyond the Mean: Within-Model Reliable Change Detection for LLM Evaluationcited by 4
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026KISS - Knowledge Infrastructure for Scientific Simulation: A Scaffolding for Agentic Earth Science
- 2026Agentic Scientific Simulation: Execution-Grounded Model Construction and Reconstruction
- 2026ST-Bench: A Spatial-Temporal Benchmark for Multi-Agent System Generation on Scientific Research Tasks
- 2026El Agente Gr'afico: A Semantic Execution Runtime for Scientific Agents
- 2026Agent-MD: Selective LLM Intervention with Event-Driven Escalation for Stateful GCMC--MD Campaigns
- 2026Auto-Configuring Scientific Simulators with Lightweight Coding-Agent Adapters
- 2025AInsteinBench: Benchmarking Coding Agents on Scientific Repositories
- 2026SciAgentGym: Benchmarking Multi-Step Scientific Tool-use in LLM Agents