Execution-grounded evaluation reveals hidden failures in language-model calculations for environmental science

SciCode is the standard measure of the scientific-coding ability of language models: research-level problems that demand both frontier scientific theory and its implementation as working numerical code. It is a component of the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index and a standing evaluation in government and national-laboratory suites. Yet its scores have recently plateaued: the strongest 2026 models cluster tightly around 60% subproblem accuracy, and a successor model ties its predecessor. We trace this stagnation to defects in the benchmark itself. A per-problem, domain-expert audit of all 65 test problems uncovers 263 defects; 192 of them, spread across 91% of the main problems, cause correct, instruction-following solutions to be wrongly rejected---through non-reproducible gold answers, over-tight tolerances, or self-contradictory specifications. Critically, 78% of these score-suppressing defects require specialized physics or mathematics knowledge to detect, not mere clerical proofreading. We corrected every confirmable defect to produce SciCode-Verified. The corrections add only the specifications a well-posed problem requires, repair grading, and tighten the tests that were too lenient; every change is recorded with its justification and independently re-checked by a second domain expert. We re-evaluate twelve frontier model snapshots on the corrected benchmark and find a substantial recovery: subproblem accuracy rises from 45--60% to 84--98%, and main-problem accuracy from 9--27% to 69--92%. State-of-the-art models are far more proficient in scientific coding than SciCode has suggested---the bottleneck was not model capability, but the quality of the evaluation instrument. We release SciCode-Verified with its complete audit trail as the corrected public standard.

Large language models (LLMs) often achieve strong performance on reasoning benchmarks, but final-answer accuracy alone does not show whether they faithfully execute the procedure specified in a prompt. We introduce a controlled diagnostic benchmark for procedural execution, where models are given a step-wise arithmetic procedure and two numeric inputs, and must return the final computed value. Complexity is varied through procedure length and look-back dependencies over intermediate variables. Average first-answer accuracy drops from 63% on 5-step procedures to 20% on 95-step procedures. Generation-level analysis shows that failures often involve missing answers, premature answers, self-correction after an initial error and under-executed traces. These findings suggest that apparent reasoning ability can mask substantial weaknesses in faithful long-horizon procedural execution.

Language-model benchmarks collapse two distinct measurement questions into a single accuracy score: whether a response reached an evaluable state, and whether its answer was judged correct. We introduce a two-layer evaluation framework that separates scorer-independent execution evidence, including termination, answer exposure, parseability, and completion length, from scorer-dependent correctness. Across 2,550 outputs from five fixed Qwen and DeepSeek configurations on MATH and ARC-Challenge, matched 2,048-token limits produce sharply different execution mixtures: 49 of 450 Qwen MATH outputs terminate without a final answer, compared with 5 of 300 DeepSeek MATH outputs and none of the 750 ARC outputs. Among the same 300 DeepSeek MATH question-model pairs, no missing-final length termination is observed at 8,192 tokens. A coverage-audited targeted verification study further shows that candidate-selection and aggregation policies can substantially alter comparative accuracy estimates. These results demonstrate that accuracy conflates execution case mix with verification policy. Evaluations of test-time methods should therefore report pre-intervention execution states, verification coverage, and scorer provenance alongside accuracy.