Evaluates multimodal large language models' ability to solve Olympiad-level theoretical chemistry problems requiring visual perception, chemical reasoning, and structured problem-solving. It specifically probes the visual perception bottleneck in chemistry tasks and tests the effectiveness of multi-agent orchestration and structured visual enhancement. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ChemO, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports normalized rubric-based score.
Scanned 9/11/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add qhjqhj00/research-skills-pool --skill chemo-eval --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Chemo Eval?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/qhjqhj00-chemo-eval)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: chemo-eval
description: Evaluates multimodal large language models' ability to solve Olympiad-level theoretical chemistry problems requiring visual perception, chemical reasoning, and structured problem-solving. It specifically probes the visual perception bottleneck in chemistry tasks and tests the effectiveness of multi-agent orchestration and structured visual enhancement. Use when the user wants to benchmark on ChemO, or asks about evaluating this task. Reports normalized rubric-based score.
metadata:
skill_kind: dataset_eval
source_arxiv: 2511.16205
bibtex_key: xu2025chemlabs
confidence: high
---
# chemo-eval
> ChemLabs on ChemO: A Multi-Agent System for Multimodal Reasoning on IChO 2025 — Xu et al. (2025) (arXiv:2511.16205, 2025)
## What this evaluates
Evaluates multimodal large language models' ability to solve Olympiad-level theoretical chemistry problems requiring visual perception, chemical reasoning, and structured problem-solving. It specifically probes the visual perception bottleneck in chemistry tasks and tests the effectiveness of multi-agent orchestration and structured visual enhancement.
## Datasets
- **ChemO** — total 9; splits: test (9)
## Metrics
- `normalized rubric-based score` **(primary)** — range: [0, 100]
- Raw points from a rubric-based grader (built from official IChO rubrics) are mapped to a global 100-point scale using original problem weights. The total score is the sum of weighted contributions across all 9 problems.
- `LLM-as-a-Judge similarity` — range: [0, 1]
- An external LLM judge evaluates the semantic alignment between the model response and the reference solution, outputting a score in [0,1]. Higher values indicate stronger agreement in content and reasoning.
## Input / output format
**Input**: AER reformulated problem P_AER containing text and images, optionally augmented with structured visual guidance G (e.g., SMILES extracted by OCSR).
**Output**: Answers for all sub-questions, typically in symbolic or textual formats (e.g., SMILES) that can be automatically graded or compared against reference solutions.
## Scoring recipe
```python
def compute_metrics(predictions, problems, rubrics, reference_solutions):
total_norm_score = 0.0
for pred, prob, rubric, ref in zip(predictions, problems, rubrics, reference_solutions):
raw = rubric_grader(pred, rubric)
total_norm_score += (raw / prob.original_points) * prob.normalized_max
similarity = external_llm_judge(predictions, reference_solutions)
return total_norm_score, similarity
```
## Common pitfalls
- The benchmark uses Assessment-Equivalent Reformulation (AER) to convert visual outputs to machine-readable formats; failing to apply AER makes automatic grading impossible.
- The normalized score is a weighted sum based on original IChO point allocations mapped to a 100-point scale, not a simple average across problems.
- LLM-as-a-Judge similarity is a supplementary metric for semantic alignment and should not be used as the primary performance indicator.
## Evidence (verbatim from paper)
> Evaluation Metrics. Tab. 2 reports two metrics for each problem in the format normalized rubric-based score and LLM-as-a-Judge similarity: Normalized rubric-based score. For each problem, the rubric-based grader returns the total points obtained under the unified deductive framework built from the official IChO rubrics. These raw points are mapped to a global 100-point scale using the original weights. The row Original Points lists the raw allocations for P1-P9, which sum to 385. The row Norm. shows the maximum normalized contribution of each problem on this scale. LLM-as-a-Judge similarity. In parallel, we compute an LLM-as-a-Judge similarity score in [0,1] using an external LLM judge that evaluates the semantic alignment between the model response and the reference solution.
## Citation
```bibtex
@misc{xu2025chemlabs,
title={ChemLabs on ChemO: A Multi-Agent System for Multimodal Reasoning on IChO 2025},
author={Xu et al. (2025)},
year={2025},
note={arXiv:2511.16205}
}
```
- arXiv: 2511.16205
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!