SPARK: Skeleton-Guided Reasoning Synthesis from Large-Scale Scientific Literature

Self-play reinforcement learning has shown strong performance in domains with formally verifiable structure, such as mathematics and coding, where both problem generation and reward computation can be grounded in explicit rules. Extending this paradigm to scientific literature is more challenging: the relationships among multi-modal elements within and across documents are rarely made explicit in text, which makes automatic generation of relational reasoning questions difficult and weakens the reliability of reward signals. We propose SPARK (Self-Play with Asymmetric Reward from Knowledge Graphs), a framework that automatically constructs a unified knowledge graph (KG) from multi-document scientific literature and uses it as the structural basis for self-play. KG paths over multimodal nodes serve as a source for generating relational reasoning questions, and structured facts stored in the KG provide a basis for verifiable reward computation. A single small vision-language model (sVLM) alternates between Proposer and Solver roles under information asymmetry against a fixed KG, a design that we believe can be naturally extended toward online adaptation in future work. We evaluate SPARK on public benchmarks and a self-constructed cross-document multi-hop QA dataset. Results show that SPARK consistently outperforms flat-corpus-based self-play baselines, and the performance gap widens as hop count increases, suggesting that KG-structure grounding contributes to relational multi-hop reasoning beyond what unstructured corpus grounding can provide.

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.

Although LLMs have made substantial progress in reasoning, systematically producing frontier-level reasoning data remains difficult. Existing synthesis methods often have limited visibility into the structural factors that govern problem difficulty, which can result in narrow diversity and unstable difficulty control. In this work, we view the difficulty of a reasoning problem as arising from the accumulation of atomic knowledge-reasoning transformations, which we term thought modes. Building on this perspective, we propose MindLoom, a framework for synthesizing frontier-level reasoning data through compositional thought mode engineering. Given a collection of hard problems with verified solutions, MindLoom first decomposes those solutions into thought mode chains that reveal each problem's construction logic. It then trains a retrieval model that matches problem states to compatible thought modes, providing guidance on which reasoning challenges to introduce during synthesis. New problems are composed by iteratively applying retrieved thought modes to seed questions, with distribution-aligned sampling to encourage diverse reasoning coverage. Finally, a rollout-based judging stage labels generated questions by difficulty and supplies judged-correct responses for supervised fine-tuning. We evaluate MindLoom on nine benchmarks covering five STEM disciplines and four mathematical reasoning tasks across multiple model families and sizes. Models fine-tuned on MindLoom-generated data achieves favorable performances over base models, distillation, and external-data baselines across the reported benchmarks. Ablation studies indicate the contribution of each component, and further analysis suggests that MindLoom covers a broad range of reasoning patterns while maintaining useful difficulty control. We have open-sourced our implementation at https://github.com/EachSheep/MindLoom.