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.

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.

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.