From Papers to Mechanisms: An Evidence-Grounded Knowledge Substrate for Scientific Language Models

Agentic science envisions many autonomous agents investigating concurrently while building on a shared, evolving body of scientific knowledge. This requires a knowledge foundation that supports high-concurrency access, preserves traceable and reusable reasoning, and grows incrementally. We propose the Large Knowledge Model (LKM), a growing, agent-native knowledge foundation that provides a general representation of scientific knowledge across disciplines. LKM organizes the scientific literature into reasoning graphs, with claims as the core nodes and associated reasoning chains that make explicit how premises and evidence support conclusions. These source-grounded objects are persistent and addressable; cross-paper links organize them into aligned question, workflow, and evidence views. Newly extracted papers extend the foundation incrementally while preserving existing object identities. Building on this foundation, we develop an agent-native, reasoning-aware scientific retrieval system that retrieves claims together with their reasoning chains and sources, enabling agents to inspect and reuse the evidence underlying scientific conclusions. Across benchmarks, agents using LKM retrieve more evidence, cite more faithfully, and answer scientific questions more accurately: LKM nearly doubles the known supporting and contradicting evidence retrieved on SciFact-Open (818 versus 443 claim-paper pairs), reasoning graphs raise citation F1 on ScholarQABench by more than 5 points over the same retrieved papers, and LKM retrieval improves a fixed answering model by 9.3, 4.2, and 14.7 points over no retrieval on ChemBench, PubMedQA, and SciBench. LKM lays the foundation for a scientific ecosystem in which AI scientists not only recall accumulated knowledge but also extend it, returning new questions, workflows, and evidence to a memory that every subsequent investigation can build on.

Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists. Such deployment assumes the model can distinguish reliable scientific literature from unreliable literature, a capability that has not yet been directly measured. Existing benchmarks evaluate factuality on questions with known answers; the failure mode we target here is different. We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing. Each probe pairs a preamble extracted near-verbatim from the target paper with a scientifically plausible study-design request. The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment. Two complementary scores measure whether a model rejects the flawed premise outright (IFR-a) and whether it recognizes the unreliability while still engaging (IFR-i). A depth score, the Engagement Depth Index (EDI), quantifies reproduction of paper- or field-specific withheld details. Across 30 models and 10 repeated runs, aggregate IFR-a is 0.93 $\pm$ 0.004 and aggregate IFR-i is 0.809 $\pm$ 0.009. Models engaged with untenable premises in 95% of all non-empty responses. Every evaluated model fails more than 71% of agentic probes, and 22 of 30 models fail more than 90% of the time. Rejections are concentrated on a small number of high-notoriety topics and specific probes, and disappear under matched-structure controls. These results are consistent with topic-keyed safety behavior rather than robust epistemic competence, and indicate an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

Scientific literature is increasingly used as a knowledge source for language models, retrieval-augmented generation systems, and research assistants, but answering research questions from papers requires more than fluent generation. A reliable system must identify the relevant papers, locate the concrete evidence that supports the answer, and produce a response that is faithful to that evidence. We present LitTraceQA, a benchmark for literature-grounded question answering over scientific papers. Given a research question and a metadata pool of papers, a system must return three connected outputs: canonical paper identifiers, supporting evidence locations, and answers in one or more requested formats, including free-form text, multiple-choice answers, and structured tables. LitTraceQA targets evidence types common in scientific reading: tables, figures, text spans, equations or algorithms, and citation contexts. The public development split contains 55 examples, including 26 hidden-source single-paper questions and 29 multi-paper questions, and provides gold papers, evidence annotations, and answers for local validation. We also analyze a larger final annotation collection with 4,978 unique-question records over 4,859 unique gold papers. By evaluating paper retrieval, evidence grounding, and answer accuracy separately, LitTraceQA provides a testbed for scientific QA systems that produce verifiable answers rather than unsupported summaries.