Leveraging a four-quadrant approach for evaluating Redpine Science

Large language models are increasingly used to assist scientific reading, but existing evaluation methods often fail to detect whether answers are supported by verifiable citations. We introduce ResearchQA, a benchmark of 6,211 single-paper question-answer pairs from 494 open-access papers spanning eight domains and four question types: lookup, comprehension, multi-hop, and adversarial. ResearchQA is designed for citation-grounded evaluation: it permits multiple valid supporting passages for a claim and rewards grounded refusal when the source paper does not support an answer. We evaluate eight leading closed- and open-weight models in a citation-grounded chat-with-paper setting using a deterministic citation matcher and an LLM-based rubric evaluator. Citation-based metrics separate systems more clearly than LLM-evaluator scores: section coverage and citation accuracy vary substantially across models, while evaluator scores remain tightly compressed. We further find that open-weight models approach the best closed-model citation accuracy while achieving 3 to 6 times lower per-example latency. We release the benchmark, evaluation harness, and evaluator prompt.

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.

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.