ContributePeer-reviewed · 10 domains

Submit a task & the workflow you actually used

Most tasks come from research with no answer yet — a follow-up you are chasing, work running in your lab now, or a problem you would hand to an agent. Reproductions of recent published work are welcome too. After a multi-round peer review it becomes a University of Scientific Workflow benchmark task.

New here? Load the HACS flagship example to see the expected shape.

Task basics

The open-ended discovery goal and how it is framed.

Task title*

Domain*

Sub-domain· science macro · optional

Task type· coverage · verifiability class

Both axes verifiable — the outcome is quantitatively checkable and every step is scored against the scientist's ground-truth targets.

Difficulty

Medium

Estimated duration· optional

Task description· 2–3 sentences · hub-card blurb

Extended description· optional · full procedure context

End goal*· the open-ended objective

Tags· comma-separated

Constraints — software· comma-separated · optional

Constraints — hardware· comma-separated · optional

Datasets· one per line · name — description · optional

Source paper

A real, peer-reviewed paper grounds the task.

Paper title

Year

Venue· e.g. Nature Methods

URL / DOI· optional

Paper PDF· optional · max 24 MB

Authors

Who proposed the task — we credit and contact you.

Author name

Email· for review contact

Department

Affiliation

Job title / position

Allowed tools & simulations

Name the simulations essential to this task. Agents also get a larger pool at eval time — so include only the tools the experiment genuinely requires.

Connecting to SimulationHub…0 selected

Workflow builder

The scientist's procedure — atomic steps, each with verifiable target metrics.

1Step 1

Step title*

Description

Substeps· one per line

Target metrics1

Submission guidelines

What makes a good task

Strong proposals follow our task-construction guideline — the same rubric reviewers apply in the multi-round loop.

Novel & frontier
Worth publishing in a Nature-family journal or at a top-tier conference.
A rubric you would stand behind
Your own criteria for whether a result counts as a genuine discovery.
A verifiable outcome
A threshold the result can be checked against — discrete or continuous.
Real tools & simulations
Pick from the SimulationHub catalog — or add any tool that isn't listed yet.

What happens next

01
Propose
Domain scientist
A scientist — a Ph.D. student or a professor — proposes a practical, meaningful task following the task-construction guideline.
02
Peer review
Invited peer
A peer the proposer invites — an advisor or a collaborator from the same lab or line of research — judges whether the direction is promising enough to anchor a paper.
03
Revise for agents
Task manager
The lead student assigned to the task lightly revises the proposal — dataset paths, the main workspace path — so an agent can execute it in a computer environment.
04
Baseline & rubric
Agent run
An agent runs the task to establish a human baseline score and help the proposer develop the rubric it will be judged by.

See the full review process

Contributors may be invited as co-authors

Researchers who contribute high-quality tasks — especially Ph.D. candidates and faculty at recognized institutions — may be invited to join the benchmark as co-authors. Add your affiliation and position above so we can reach you.

Title, domain, end goal & one named step required