This work investigates the ability of large language models (LLMs) to generate mathematical equations from scientific texts. Prior work faces challenges in unstructured grounding, multi-equation dependency, and humanaligned evaluation. To this end, we construct a dataset of AI research papers, pairing contextual passages with ground-truth equations and variable descriptions. We develop an explainable equation generation workflow and evaluate it across diverse open- and closed-source LLM backbones. We introduce an evaluation protocol combining automatic metrics, LLM-based rubrics, and human judgments to assess accuracy, explainability, and human-LLM alignment. Results indicate that LLMs perform moderately on lexical- and syntactic-based similarity, while struggling with semantic accuracy. Comparisons between LLM-based evaluations and human judgments reveal limited alignment, highlighting challenges in using LLMs to assess equation quality. These findings offer insights for improving equation generation models and developing more reliable evaluation methods for scientific text. We provide code and data for reproducibility.
Scientific equation discovery has long been central to scientific progress, proceeding through iterative cycles of hypothesis generation, observational testing, and refinement under scientific constraints. As LLM capabilities advance and their role in AI for Science expands, it remains an open problem whether they can genuinely discover scientific laws and how this ability should be evaluated. Existing evaluations, however, often either simplify discovery through synthetic settings or reuse published targets that may already be familiar to LLMs. We therefore introduce SCILAWS-BENCH, a benchmark for scientific law discovery built from published research and real scientific data. It comprises 118 problems drawn from 381 scientific papers, covering 291 candidate laws and roughly 8M real data points across six scientific disciplines. Each problem is instantiated in two complementary settings: (1) SCILAWS-REAL asks models to propose laws from fixed real observations and evaluates held-out predictive fit and scientific validity derived from the source literature, and (2) SCILAWS-PARALLEL asks models to actively query residual-calibrated worlds and recover synthesized hidden laws derived from published forms. This two-setting task design preserves each problem's scientific context while separately evaluating fixed-record law discovery and active recovery of a newly synthesized hidden law. We find that predictive fit can diverge from scientific validity, memorization shapes whether models reproduce or move beyond published formulas, and our best-of-N study reveals a selection bottleneck. Our work provides a paper-grounded benchmark and new empirical perspectives for evaluating AI for scientific discovery. Project page: https://yiyihum.github.io/SciLaws-Bench
Scientific equation discovery must combine broad domain priors with strict numerical testing. Symbolic regression supplies numerical grounding but faces a combinatorial search space, whereas many language-model systems ask the model to propose or select formulas directly. We test a different division of labour. We compare role specifications in which the language model acts as equation author, candidate decider or search controller, alongside end-to-end language-model and purely numerical baselines. In the controller setting we propose here, implemented as LLM-PySR, language models specify variables, operators, transformations and search depth; symbolic regression enumerates and fits expressions; and deterministic metrics govern retention. Across 74 AI-Feynman equations and seven complex formula-recovery tasks, search control achieved the strongest observed balance of accuracy, complexity, stability and cost. On an independent battery dataset, LLM-PySR identified a compact piecewise-linear relation between early voltage-curve displacement and cycle life. The results suggest that language models should shape hypothesis exploration rather than decide which equations survive.
While Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved near-perfect performance in \emph{solving} high-school mathematics, their ability to \emph{evaluate} the diverse reasoning processes of real human students remains under-examined. To bridge this gap, we introduce \textbf{RealMath-Eval}, a rigorously annotated benchmark of 224 real-world exam responses from high schools. Our initial evaluation reveals that even state-of-the-art LLM judges struggle significantly on this task, exhibiting a high Mean Squared Error (∼2.96) against expert human grading. To probe a plausible explanation, we contrast this performance with a control setting where the same judges evaluate synthetic LLM-generated solutions. We identify a stark Evaluation Gap'': judges are considerably more accurate and consistent on synthetic text (MSE $\sim$1.17) but struggle to generalize to authentic student reasoning. Through semantic embedding analysis, we find that synthetic errors suffer from a structural collapse'' into predictable, low-dimensional linear subspaces, whereas human errors form a more diverse error space. Furthermore, generative probability probes suggest that human reasoning involves significantly higher information-theoretic surprisal, indicating that student reasoning transitions are more out-of-distribution for current models. Finally, we find that surface-level style transfer fails to close this gap. Our findings suggest that current LLM evaluation pipelines relying heavily on synthetic data may not adequately capture the diversity of authentic student mathematical reasoning.