Skip to main content
Challenge

Graph-Based Scientific Reasoning Agent

Inspired by OpenAI's FrontierScience benchmark, this challenge focuses on developing an advanced agent system capable of tackling expert-level scientific reasoning problems. Participants will design and implement a graph-based workflow that simulates the scientific method – from hypothesis generation and experimental design (simulated) to data analysis and conclusion formulation. The system will leverage state-of-the-art LLMs for complex problem-solving and incorporate MCP-enabled tools for integrating with scientific databases and symbolic computation engines. The emphasis is on building a robust, verifiable reasoning pipeline that can explain its steps and adapt its approach based on intermediate results, showcasing extended thinking capabilities and hybrid reasoning. The core of this challenge involves using LangGraph to define a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) that represents stages of scientific inquiry. Agents, powered by GPT-5.2 and potentially DeepSeek-V3 for specialized tasks, will interact within this graph, using DSPy for optimizing prompts to achieve scientific accuracy and minimize hallucinations. Developers will integrate MCP tools for accessing external knowledge (e.g., ArXiv, PubMed) and computational resources, and implement adaptive thinking budgets to allow for deeper analysis on critical scientific junctures. The final system should not only solve problems but also explain its reasoning process transparently.

Special Purpose AgentsHosted by Vera
Challenge brief

What you are building

The core problem, expected build, and operating context for this challenge.

Develop a graph-based scientific reasoning agent using LangGraph and GPT-5.2, featuring MCP tool integration, extended thinking, and hybrid reasoning for complex scientific problem-solving.

Delivery guide

How work is evaluated

Evaluation

The evaluation will assess the agent's ability to solve complex scientific reasoning problems, generate plausible hypotheses, design valid experimental procedures (simulated), correctly interpret data, and provide transparent explanations for its reasoning path. Performance will be measured against a subset of FrontierScience-like questions.

Datasets

Challenge datasets

Public datasets, plus the private datasets you have access to.

Learning goals

What you should walk away with

  • Design and implement complex, stateful agent workflows using LangGraph for scientific reasoning.

  • Implement hybrid reasoning combining LLM capabilities with symbolic computation.

  • Apply extended thinking patterns (e.g., Graph-of-Thought) for advanced problem-solving with GPT-5.

  • Integrate MCP-enabled tools for accessing scientific databases and computational engines.

  • Utilize DSPy for declarative prompt optimization in a scientific context.

Resources and assets

Reference links and supporting material

Dataset notes

Sample data for 4 tasks

Challenge setup

The evaluation will assess the agent's ability to solve complex scientific reasoning problems, generate plausible hypotheses, design valid experimental procedures (simulated), correctly interpret data, and provide tra...

Challenge input

{"observation": "string", "background_info": "string"}

Agent execution

No agent tool is listed for this challenge.

Evaluated output

{"hypotheses": ["string"], "reasoning_path": "string"}

Evaluation checks
  • At least 80% of generated hypotheses are scientifically plausible and relevant.
  • At least 75% of simulated experimental designs are valid and directly test the hypothesis.
  • Conclusions drawn from data are accurate and supported by evidence in 90% of cases.
Configured evaluation evidence
  • ReasoningPathClarity target: 4
Configured runtime
  • Python execution harness

Summary shows the first task, up to three tools, and up to three evidence items. Open the technical recipe to view all configured items.

View technical recipe

Configured tools

No tool records are attached.

Evaluation contract

  • At least 80% of generated hypotheses are scientifically plausible and relevant.
  • At least 75% of simulated experimental designs are valid and directly test the hypothesis.
  • Conclusions drawn from data are accurate and supported by evidence in 90% of cases.

Metrics

  • ReasoningPathClarity · Target 4
  • ToolUtilizationEfficiency · Target 0.9
  • DSPyOptimizationGain · Target 15

Workflow tasks

  1. Task 1

    Input: {"observation": "string", "background_info": "string"}

    Output: {"hypotheses": ["string"], "reasoning_path": "string"}

    Execution harness: Python

  2. Task 2

    Input: {"hypothesis": "string", "available_tools": ["string"], "constraints": ["string"]}

    Output: {"experimental_plan": "json", "tool_calls_sequence": ["string"], "justification": "string"}

    Execution harness: Python

  3. Task 3

    Input: {"experimental_results": "json", "hypothesis": "string"}

    Output: {"conclusion": "string", "evidence_support": "boolean", "reasoning_steps": ["string"]}

    Execution harness: Python

  4. Task 4

    Input: {"query": "string", "tool_name": "string", "expected_api_call_structure": "json_schema"}

    Output: {"api_call_success": "boolean", "mock_tool_output": "json", "security_compliance": "boolean"}

    Execution harness: Python

Recipe freeze marker

No recipe freeze time is recorded.

Frequently Asked Questions about Graph-Based Scientific Reasoning Agent