Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches

Three paradigmatic forms of inference recur across scientific reasoning: deduction, induction, and causal abduction. Reliably evaluating LLMs on these in scientific settings is currently out of reach: scientific benchmarks built on human annotations are costly and lack mechanistic ground truth, while synthetic logical-reasoning benchmarks do not resemble real scientific documents. We introduce SciR, a benchmark that combines multi-paradigm reasoning with controllable scientific rendering, anchored on three paradigmatic scientific problems. Tasks are generated from formal objects (deduction tree, inductive rule hypothesis, causal graph) to guarantee verifiable answers, then rendered into multi-document scientific discourse via per-track domain-tuned genres. The construction lets us independently vary two difficulty axes: how hard it is to extract the key information needed for inference, and how hard the principled inference itself is. We test six models. Both axes hurt every model, and their effects compound. The rendering even hurts neurosymbolic pipelines, which hand inference to a verified solver. The two axes yield a per-model extraction-vs-inference profile: for instance, reasoning models like deepseek-r1 mostly surpass non-reasoning instruct models on the inference axis. To our knowledge, SciR is the first multi-paradigm scientific-reasoning benchmark with parametric control on both extraction and inference difficulty.

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

Accumulated scientific knowledge advances inquiry when prior findings help researchers choose new questions, design investigations, and interpret results. Realizing this value at scale requires access to the reasoning that connects research problems, scientific procedures, conclusions, and evidence. We introduce the Large Knowledge Model (LKM), a scientific knowledge infrastructure that transforms the literature into a shared, computationally accessible reasoning resource. LKM represents papers as source-grounded reasoning graphs, couples structural traversal with semantic retrieval over the same objects, and aligns related questions, claims, and reasoning chains across papers. This representation forms a Scientific Reasoning Landscape with three connected views: a Question Landscape that organizes research problems and open directions, a Workflow Landscape that exposes reusable scientific procedures, and an Evidence Landscape that connects conclusions to their support, disagreement, and conditions. The unified substrate supports reasoning-aware scientific search, evidence-grounded question answering, comparative evidence analysis, and research planning. Researchers and agents can retrieve relevant work through its scientific intent, synthesize answers with inspectable supporting arguments, and develop research plans informed by established workflows and unresolved evidence. We describe a corpus-scale system and evaluate scientific retrieval and knowledge-intensive question answering. With the answering model fixed, LKM retrieval improves accuracy by 9.30%, 4.20%, and 14.69% on ChemBench, PubMedQA, and SciBench, respectively. By connecting knowledge access to scientific reasoning and action, LKM provides a common foundation for discovering relevant research, reusing scientific knowledge, and coordinating cumulative inquiry across researchers, agents, and research cycles.