Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

14 papers in the last four weeks, against 2 the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 34

Oct 8, 2026cs.AI

OpenProblemBench: Benchmarking AI on Open Problems in the Foundational Theoretical Sciences

The next frontier for artificial general intelligence is tackling unresolved scientific problems, calling for benchmarks that assess progress beyond established knowledge. We introduce OpenProblemBench, a benchmark of 82 unresolved problems drawn from the mathematics and theoretical physics literature. Each problem supplies the research context, assumptions, and prior progress needed to investigate the question. We select problems whose proposed solutions admit comparatively clear checks of their decisive mathematical or computational claims. Four evaluator models independently assess the correctness, completeness, and degree of progress of each submission without reference solutions. Across seven evaluated configurations, GPT-6-Astra achieves the highest mean judged solve rate of 14.0%, compared with 5.5-6.7% for the evaluated full-size open models and 2.4-3.7% for Flash models. Case comparisons connect stronger outcomes to changes in problem representation, general arguments that extend beyond finite evidence, and proofs of the steps needed to complete a solution. By grounding evaluation in questions arising from the research literature, OpenProblemBench provides a setting for investigating the capabilities and limitations of AI as a contributor to foundational theoretical science.

Zhiyi Li, Sihan Hu, Tianning Xiao +4

Department of Modern Physics, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China · CAS Key Laboratory of Theoretical Physics, Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100190, China · Hefei National Laboratory, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei 230088, China +3

AI for Science Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Mathematical Reasoning Benchmarks

Sep 30, 2026cs.AI

Ontology-Grounded, Reasoner-Verified Benchmarks for Evaluating LLM Reasoning in Scientific AI

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly underpin scientific AI applications that reason over structured knowledge, from biomedical question answering to materials informatics. However, their logical reasoning often falls short, producing factual inaccuracies unacceptable in these settings. Reliable evaluation remains challenging: manual dataset construction scales poorly, and LLM-based generation risks embedding the very flaws it aims to measure. High-quality benchmarks must ground both correct and incorrect labelled examples in explicit background knowledge, formally verifiable by a standard reasoner. We propose a pipeline that automatically generates ontology-grounded multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks from any sufficiently axiomatised OWL 2 ontology, with correct answers grounded in the ontology by design. Distractors are generated by perturbing the right-hand-side class expressions of class definition axioms, and their incorrectness is formally verified by an OWL reasoner via entailment checks. We evaluate the pipeline on three ontologies: Pizza (small, academic), PMDco (complex, materials science), and DOID (large, biomedical), generating 112, 2,491, and 15,216 MCQs respectively. Distractors span four semantic categories from class unsatisfiability to weakened subsumptions, enabling diagnostic evaluation of specific reasoning failures. Items meet natural language quality standards: mean LLM judge scores of 4.02, 4.36, and 3.36 out of 5 confirm fluency, and correct-answer-to-distractor similarity above 0.8 shows that wrong options cannot be dismissed on surface form alone. Six LLMs evaluated zero-shot achieve 41.1-76.8% accuracy, well above the 25% random-guessing baseline, indicating the benchmarks are challenging and discriminative. This work is a step towards more reliable benchmarks for assessing logical reasoning in scientific AI.

Nishtha N. Vaidya, Stephan Grimm, Thomas Hubauer +1

Siemens AG · Technical University of Munich

LLM Evaluation Synthetic Benchmark Generation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Sep 30, 2026cs.AI

Science or Slop?: Benchmarking and Mitigating Scientific Slop in AI-Generated Papers

AI-generated content, often called AI slop, is increasingly common everywhere, particularly in academia. Slop in AI-generated scientific papers, however, has more complex patterns that cannot be easily detected by existing token-based AI detectors. Each part of such a paper looks plausible while the scientific reasoning that connects the parts breaks down, which can mislead how readers assess the work. We benchmark these failures as scientific slop through six measures across Structure, Argument, and Artifacts. We construct SciSlopBench with 390 AI-generated papers, mostly in computer science but spanning the life, social, and natural sciences, each paired with a human-written paper matched by research problem and contribution type. Our measures identify the AI paper in each pair with 85.9% accuracy, compared with 68.7% for Binoculars. Higher scientific slop accompanies lower ICLR ratings and distinguishes rejected from accepted papers above chance in every year from 2017 to 2025. Reducing these patterns, however, is not as simple as directly optimizing the measures. We therefore propose SciSlopHarness, a harness-level framework that guides a fixed LLM to revise slop only where the experiment records support the change. While standard revisions leave residual slop and direct slop-aware prompting triggers reward hacking, SciSlopHarness reduces the remaining AI-human gap by 63% over the strongest revision baseline without requiring human reference targets. Overall, we demonstrate that AI-generated scientific papers leave fundamental traces in their global reasoning, and that responsible mitigation demands strict evidentiary grounding rather than mere prose refinement.

Yerim Oh, Young-Jun Lee, Jaewoo Ahn +2

Seoul National University · University of Minnesota

AI-Generated Text Detection Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Generative AI Evaluation

Sep 30, 2026cs.LG

Does Learning Protein Folding Generalize to Broader Reasoning?

Large language models rely heavily on human text, which often conveys surface answers rather than the spatial and structural logic behind them. Protein folding is a natural testbed, because one solved structure yields thousands of exactly checkable spatial and topological statements. We ask: can learning to fold proteins teach general models reusable reasoning capabilities? To answer this, we build FoldingCorpus, a protein-derived question-answer dataset, and Fold2Reason, a recipe that post-trains on it through two complementary signals: discrete structural answers predicted via the model's native language head, and continuous 3D geometry decoded from the same shared representations. On FoldBench, Fold2Reason achieves structure prediction scores 2.7 to 3.5 times those of Qwen3.5-9B. Beyond protein structure prediction, it improves performance on all 10 benchmarks spanning spatial, graph, scientific, and general reasoning, raising macro-average accuracy from 45.09% to 48.33% (+3.23 pp), with positive gains on all 10 benchmarks, while matched controls built from random, synthetic, and shuffled structure yield substantially smaller or negative gains. Our work shows that non-linguistic, structure-dense scientific data can systematically improve broad reasoning in language models, making a solved scientific problem a practical source of post-training supervision.

Yong Liu, Zhanpeng Shi, Yizhou Dang +4

Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Fudan University · Shanghai Innovation Institute +1

Protein Structure Prediction Structured Reasoning Language Model Post-Training Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

When Scientific Contradictions Are Lost in Translation

Two scientific findings can disagree without contradicting each other. Determining whether they conflict requires knowing whether they describe comparable measurements. We study how language models behave at this decision point. In a controlled task, we generate an unsatisfiable XOR constraint system and translate its constraints into scientific reports from different laboratories. One assignment satisfies more constraints, while another satisfies fewer but better matches expected biology. This creates a simple dilemma: does the model choose the assignment that best fits the constraints, or the one that better matches biological expectations? When the constraints are stated directly, GPT-5.6 Sol and Claude Opus 5 recover the best-supported assignment in 90% and 96% of cases, respectively. In scientific prose, however, the models behave differently. Claude Opus 5 often prefers the biologically expected assignment. Removing that biological preference increases recovery of the better-supported assignment from 27% to 79% (p<.001); recovery reaches 92% when the same Biology-favored record is accompanied by a formalization request and an explicit paired-design cue (p<.001). GPT-5.6 Sol is less sensitive, with neither corresponding change reaching statistical significance. These results suggest that reliable scientific verification depends not only on formal reasoning, but also on how models decide which findings should be compared and what relations they imply.

Tal Zeevi, Trey W. Jensen, Maxwell Strome

Reasoning Consistency in Language Models Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

Can AI Scientists Change Their Minds? Prior-Evidence Conflict in Synthetic Universes

Can a scientific agent distinguish a law it inferred from evidence from one it merely recognizes? We introduce Synthetic Universes, a controlled benchmark that pairs canonical famous worlds with matched twisted twins governed by nearby noncanonical mechanisms. We evaluate each reported law twice: by executing it on held-out continuations and transfer settings, and by independently checking whether it recovers the generating mechanism. In the current checkpoint of a pre-specified 60-cell study, 22 trials were graded and one additional run ended in infrastructure failure. Among 20 twin trials, 8 pass predictive verification while 5 recover the generator. The dissociation is bidirectional: six parsable outputs predict successfully while missing the mechanism, whereas three recover the mechanism but fail predictive rollout. Drag exhibits the first pattern (5/5 predictive pass, 1/5 mechanism recovery); Gravity exhibits the second (1/5 predictive pass, 4/5 mechanism recovery). Because matched famous controls, the corrected identifiability sweep, and the Evidence Ladder remain incomplete, we do not claim a confirmatory causal prior-conflict effect. Instead, the completed runs establish a narrower verification result: predictive adequacy and mechanism recovery are distinct scientific claims and require distinct tests.

Kargi Chauhan

University of California, Santa Cruz

Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models Mechanistic Interpretability Synthetic Benchmark Generation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

MechBench: Can AI Scientific Agents Discover Mechanisms Beyond Phenomenal Laws?

Scientific discovery requires not only recovering mathematical laws that describe observable behavior, but also identifying the mechanisms that generate them. Existing benchmarks for symbolic regression and scientific agents primarily evaluate phenomenal-law recovery, leaving mechanism discovery largely untested. We introduce MechBench, a benchmark that explicitly separates these two capabilities. Each task is defined by a mechanistic model, a structured set of scientifically meaningful relations whose joint consequences entail an observable phenomenal law, while agents receive only observational data and scientific context. We evaluate mechanism recovery through mechanism probes, which query internal scientific consequences that cannot be inferred from the phenomenal law alone. To reduce reliance on memorized textbook mechanisms, we construct unfamiliar variants through controlled, scientifically interpretable mutations of canonical mechanisms, and screen for mechanistic indistinguishability to exclude ambiguous instances admitting comparable competing mechanisms. Experiments across representative scientific agents reveal a substantial phenomenal--mechanism recovery gap: for Codex with GPT-5.6-sol, phenomenal-law accuracy reaches 35.00% on the Core-set while mechanism accuracy is only 13.75%, with mechanism recovery failing in 64.29% of cases where the phenomenal law is correctly recovered. The gap widens as mechanisms become increasingly mutated, and even providing the correct phenomenal law leaves mechanism recovery below 50%. These results reveal a substantial generalization gap in mechanistic reasoning and establish mechanism discovery as a distinct challenge beyond recovering observable scientific laws.

Zihan Yu, Jiadong Zhang, Jialin Cheng +2

Department of Electronic Engineering, BNRist, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China · Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China · Beijing Zhongguancun Academy, Beijing, China +2

Scientific Discovery AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

MechReasoner: A Simulator and Benchmark for Mechanistic Reasoning in Qualitative Physics

This work introduces MechReasoner, a mechanistic qualitative simulator grounded in confluence-based qualitative physics, together with a benchmark for mechanistic inference. Current large language models (LLMs) generate fluent mechanistic descriptions that do not reliably follow from underlying structural and causal constraints. The benchmark tests whether answers preserve simulator-licensed ambiguity, quantified claims, episode-graph transition evidence, repairs, and trace-support judgments. Its 1,120 items are generated deterministically from admissible interpretation sets, component states, scenario restrictions, confluence constraints, and derivation steps across 18 catalog mechanisms and six task families. Each mechanism undergoes converter checks of structure and topology and behavioral checks against quantitative simulations. GPT-5.5 accuracy decreases as family-specific mechanistic complexity increases, from 76.1% in the lowest-complexity bucket (B1) to 38.0% in the highest-complexity bucket (B4). The negative association remains after controls for rendered-prompt and expected-answer length. These results show that qualitative simulators can support auditable NLP benchmarks for mechanistic inference.

Danilo Gusicuma, André Freitas

Idiap Research Institute, Switzerland · École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Switzerland

Physical Reasoning Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Physics-Based Simulation

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

The Marathon of Scientific Reasoning: Robustness of Scientific Agents to Perturbations in Multi-Turn Interactions

Large language model (LLM)-based scientific agents are increasingly used for scientific problem solving, yet their robustness to imperfections arising during multi-turn interactions remains poorly understood. We introduce \textsc{SciARP} (\textbf{Sci}entific \textbf{A}gent \textbf{R}obustness to \textbf{P}erturbations), a benchmark for evaluating scientific agents under scientifically plausible perturbations throughout multi-turn problem solving. \textsc{SciARP} transforms 620 scientific problems into interdependent tasks of 3--13 turns and defines 13 perturbation types spanning problem understanding, evidence processing, reasoning, and conclusion formation. Clean and perturbed versions of each task are independently executed under matched settings, producing paired live trajectories for evaluating both task success and process reliability. Experiments across eight LLMs from four model families reveal three key robustness characteristics. First, different classes of scientific perturbations exhibit distinct robustness profiles and can decouple task progression from scientific reliability: agents may continue advancing through the task even after their information or reasoning has become unreliable. Second, stronger clean-task performance does not necessarily translate into stronger robustness, as models with higher clean-task accuracy can exhibit larger degradation under perturbation. Third, perturbation effects exhibit strong temporal dynamics: they may remain latent for multiple turns before emerging and subsequently propagate through downstream dependencies. Together, these findings show that current scientific agents remain insufficiently robust to scientifically plausible perturbations, with failures often remaining undetected, propagating, and resisting recovery.

Xiaoting Lyu, Xinbo Ma, Yufei Han +5

Xi’an Jiaotong University, China · Inria, France · Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR), Singapore +1

AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reasoning in Language Models LLM Agent Reliability

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

PhysFieldBench: Can Multimodal Models Understand Physical Fields?

Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) are increasingly envisioned as core components of scientific and engineering agents, yet their ability to interpret physical fields remains poorly understood. Existing physics benchmarks largely emphasize textbook problem solving or intuitive physical reasoning, leaving open whether MLLMs can infer physically meaningful information from continuous field observations. We introduce PhysFieldBench, a benchmark comprising 24 tasks and 1,160 evaluation examples across controlled equation fields, simulated physical fields, and observed physical fields. The tasks assess three forms of inference: identifying physical mechanisms, comparing latent control variables, and predicting outcome properties. Across representative open-source and proprietary MLLMs, zero-shot performance is low: the best model achieves a chance-normalized score of 29.3, while several open-source models remain near chance. In contrast, a task-specific supervised vision transformer performs substantially better, demonstrating that the inputs contain learnable physical information. To diagnose these failures, a structured self-explanation analysis attributes most errors to missed visual patterns and incorrect visual-to-physical mappings. Further, to explore whether post-training can improve physical inference and generalize to unseen tasks, we compare supervised fine-tuning with final answers or chain-of-thought supervision and reinforcement learning. Final-answer supervision performs best overall but transfers less effectively, whereas reinforcement learning after chain-of-thought supervision achieves the best generalization. Together, these findings highlight the need to improve visual-to-physical grounding and cross-task generalization for MLLMs to reliably interpret physical fields in scientific and engineering workflows.

Yuezhou Ma, Huikun Weng, Jialong Wu +5

School of Software, BNRist, Tsinghua University, China

Physical Reasoning Multimodal Large Language Models Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Multimodal Model Evaluation

Sep 27, 2026cs.CV

SciGen-Verifier: A Multimodal Reasoner for Explainable Verification in Scientific Image Generation

In realistic education, a solution is often expressed not only in words but in a drawing--a circuit, a geometric construction, a function plot--and a teacher must grade the drawing as carefully as the text. Recent advances in unified multimodal models have enabled scientific image generation, yet verifying the correctness of these specialized visual outputs remains a critical bottleneck: errors often arise from intricate domain knowledge, structural reasoning, and multi-step instruction rather than surface-level artifacts. Existing verifiers mainly target natural images and compress judgement into scalar scores, leaving scientific coverage and explainable feedback for error correction underexplored. To bridge this gap, we make three main contributions. (1) We construct SciGen-Verify, a benchmark dedicated to explainable verification of scientific image generation, spanning instruction following, multidisciplinary reasoning, and world knowledge domains. It contains a three-tier hierarchical protocol over the binary judgement, supporting explanation, and corrective editing instruction. (2) We develop SciGen-Verifier, a reasoning-driven multimodal verifier trained via cold-start supervised fine-tuning followed by a curriculum-based two-stage reinforcement learning pipeline. The rubric-guided process rewards first strengthen scientific reasoning exploration and outcome rewards subsequently align output with ground-truth annotation. (3) On SciGen-Verify, SciGen-Verifier achieves competitive performance against much larger proprietary models. It further serves as a practical online critic for iterative image rectification.

Jiali Chen, Zhengteng Lin, Zuqi Wang +6

South China University of Technology, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University · South China University of Technology · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University

Image Generation Evaluation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Multimodal Model Evaluation

Sep 27, 2026cs.AI

DISCERN: Can AI Agents Work Like Scientists and Guide Discovery?

Reliable automated research requires agents to vet data, verify analyses, and generate hypotheses grounded in trustworthy evidence, potentially reducing routine scientific workload while allowing scientists to focus on interpretation and discovery. Existing benchmarks often only assess analytical task completion or hypothesis generation separately rather than testing whether reliable evidence supports valid and novel claims. We introduce DISCERN (Data Integrity and Scientific Capability: Evidence, Reasoning, and Novelty), a controlled benchmark on real, publicly available datasets that evaluates three key levels of an automated research workflow. The first two levels test data integrity and analysis verification under confounds and tool traps, while the third tests hypothesis generation and revision under adversarial review, including counterfactual cases in which evidence consistent with real data and documented scientific phenomena conflicts with established expectations, motivating alternative explanations and testable hypotheses. Across 203 tasks, eight life-science tracks, and eight models, DISCERN shows that strong aggregate performance can mask level-specific weaknesses. Agents earn perfect scores in only 60.8% of Level 1, 34.2% of Level 2, and 0.6% of Level 3 evaluations, with penalties attributed to rejection of sound data, failure to carry recognized limitations into conclusions, and wide variation in hypothesis production. Cross-track rankings by token and code use are substantially more stable than rankings by evidence judgment, suggesting greater consistency in computational effort than in evidence-based reasoning. These profiles identify opportunities for supervised scientific assistance, but current agents do not yet demonstrate reliable autonomous analysis or discovery. Code and data: https://huggingface.co/datasets/discern-bench-anon/discern-benchmark

Nan Huang, Mario Tapia-Pacheco, Kun Zhou +4

University of California San Diego · Independent Researcher

AI Agent Reliability Scientific Hypothesis Generation AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Data Analysis Agents

Sep 21, 2026cs.CL

Jev for Scientific Decisions: Evaluating Semantic Choices and Their Consequences

Scientific workflows often require choosing among known relations before a deterministic calculation can proceed. Whether observations share a culture, treatment or reference standard can change the scientific meaning of the resulting count or comparison. We evaluate Jev as a semantic decision component using a harness that follows its documented guidance and assigns arithmetic to code. The study compares twelve model configurations on twenty source-grounded Choices across ten scientific cases, each repeated five times. We measure semantic selections, downstream outputs and final claim labels separately. Jev matched five other configurations at complete semantic correctness and achieved the lowest observed median latency among successful responses. Across three comparison models, seven wrong selections on one culture-history question changed downstream counts while preserving the correct final label. These results identify a useful role for Jev in prepared scientific decision tasks and show why evaluating that role requires checking the relations and quantities that a workflow will reuse.

Boyuan Deng, Shuyi Fan, Hongyang Zhang +1

Johns Hopkins University · Columbia University · The Hong Kong Polytechnic University +1

AI-Assisted Scientific Research LLM Decision-Making Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Sep 20, 2026cs.LG

Tool-Augmented On-Policy Distillation for LLM Domain Adaptation in Sequence-Based Omics Tasks

Multi-omics sequences contain complex biological patterns, yet deciphering their mechanisms for automated scientific discovery remains challenging. As large language models (LLMs) interpret these sequences, evaluating both predictions and scientific reasoning is critical. However, existing benchmarks for multi-omics sequence tasks rely on classification and regression metrics, neglecting whether models grasp the underlying biological evidence. We introduce OmicsBench, the first reasoning benchmark for multi-omics sequences, comprising 1,160 expert-validated questions across six tasks spanning DNA regulation, RNA processing, and protein function. OmicsBench requires traceable evidence chains, evaluated using instance-specific rubrics developed with domain experts. Evaluating 17 LLMs reveals an inverse relationship: while scientific LLMs outperform general-purpose LLMs in sequence classification accuracy, they fail to provide valid evidence to support their predictions. One plausible interpretation is shortcut learning: specialized models may rely on statistical patterns rather than the biological mechanisms needed for scientific discovery. Motivated by this finding, we introduce tool-augmented on-policy distillation (TA-OPD), a post-training method to align sequence prediction with evidence-grounded biological reasoning. Across five Qwen3.5 models spanning 0.8B to 27B parameters, TA-OPD consistently strengthens biological evidence grounding while improving predictive performance on most tasks. These gains persist across model scales, indicating that stronger sequence reasoning does not arise solely from increased model capacity, but can be improved through evidence-aware training. Together, OmicsBench and TA-OPD provide a framework for diagnosing reasoning failures in multi-omics LLMs and a path toward models whose predictions are better grounded in biologically meaningful evidence.

Jie Ying, Zhefan Wang, Zihong Chen +11

Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Yazhouwan National Laboratory · Shanghai Innovation Institute +2

LLM Evaluation On-Policy Distillation Genomics Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Sep 14, 2026cs.AI

Who Teaches Which Token? Verifier-Gated Multi-Expert On-Policy Distillation for Scientific Reasoning

Multi-teacher on-policy distillation (OPD) is becoming the standard way to integrate specialist capabilities into one model: train experts with RL, then distill them into the student on its own rollouts. Existing recipes assign supervision at the sequence level - each prompt goes to one domain teacher and every token receives the same weight - which implicitly assumes that a teacher is uniformly useful across a response. We find instead that useful teacher signal is sparse and heterogeneous along a reasoning trajectory, which raises a finer question: who should teach which token? Verifier-Gated Multi-Expert On-Policy Distillation (VG-OPD) answers it by verification: the counterfactual gain of an expert on a specific answer criterion licenses that expert to teach, its disagreement with the student localizes the supervision, and criterion importance sets its weight; the gated KL enters GRPO as an additive token-level advantage. Instantiated for scientific reasoning with RL-trained capability experts, VG-OPD attains the best overall performance on seven benchmarks for 4B and 8B students, ranking first on five at both scales, with the largest gains on knowledge-intensive scientific reasoning tasks. Further analysis shows that the gains come from localizing verified supervision rather than from adding teachers or distillation loss: misplacing the same supervision budget is the single most damaging change, and indiscriminate distillation drags RL below its own floor where gated distillation lifts it.

Xun Xu, Zaixi Zhang

1Fudan University · 2Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

RL for Language Model Reasoning Multi-Teacher Knowledge Distillation On-Policy Distillation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Knowledge Distillation

Sep 5, 2026cs.LG

VERPO: Verified Evidence Regularized Policy Optimization

Verifiable rewards improve language models through reliable task-level feedback, but methods based on Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) apply a sequence-level advantage uniformly across all tokens. This coarse credit assignment reinforces or penalizes entire responses without identifying which local decisions to preserve, reinforce, or revise. Conversely, evidence-conditioned self-distillation provides denser token-level supervision, yet teacher imitation can transfer stylistic artifacts and miscalibrated confidence that destabilize training when misaligned with task success. We introduce VERPO, which converts evidence-conditioned guidance into reward-aligned token-level credit assignment while retaining the outcome objective. VERPO decomposes teacher guidance into an evidence-free reference term and signed, evidence-induced corrections at each token. A stopped controller combines selective acceptance, token-wise localization, and cost-aware scaling by balancing alignment with the local GRPO update direction against Fisher movement cost. Furthermore, we introduce Fisher Evidence Contrast (FEC), which attenuates nuisance shifts along an estimated evidence-presence direction through a regularized projection. Across five scientific reasoning and tool-use tasks, VERPO prevents optimization collapse and consistently achieves the highest multi-task average across model backbones, yielding marked improvements particularly on smaller models over strong baselines. Qualitative diagnostics confirm that token acceptance selectively targets reasoning bottlenecks consistent with local reward alignment and Fisher movement cost.

Haijiang Li, Chengyu Lv, Yi Zhang +8

Independent · Tongji University · Fudan University +3

RL for Language Model Reasoning Credit Assignment in RL Step-Level Credit Assignment in RL Language Model Distillation Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Aug 11, 2026cs.IR

TRACES: A Benchmark for Epistemic Reliability in Scientific Reasoning by LLMs

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.

Valentin Rodionov, Shamil Assylbekov

Intellicat Cleveland, OH 44106

LLM Evaluation LLM Reliability Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Aug 7, 2026cs.AI

Science Edge Evaluation: SEE the Missing Step Toward Real Scientific Discovery

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly involved in scientific discovery, yet it remains unclear whether they can support complex real laboratory science. Here we introduce Science Edge Evaluation (SEE), a multimodal benchmark of expert-curated questions grounded in peer-reviewed literature and experimental practice in chemistry, biology, and materials science. Evaluation of 19 multimodal large language models (MLLMs) shows that even the best-performing model reaches only 48.7% accuracy. Moreover, general-purpose models outperform science-specialized models on average. In the visual-agent evaluation, the use of tools increases the best accuracy to 52.7%. Tool use can expand the information available to models, but more information does not necessarily lead to reliable scientific reasoning. The key challenge is whether models can manage tool-derived information within the boundaries of the original experimental evidence. Together, these findings reveal that current MLLMs still cannot reliably make justified and evidence-bounded inferences from experimental results, which is an essential capability in real scientific discovery. Bridging this gap requires MLLMs to transition from explaining established scientific concepts to deriving novel and evidence-based insights from experimental data.

Taolin Han, Yuchen Zhang, Jinghang Wang +22

1Alibaba Group · University of Chinese Academy of Sciences · Taolin Han1,3* +28

Scientific Reasoning Scientific Discovery Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Multimodal Model Evaluation

Jul 28, 2026cs.AI

Divergence Decoding: Training-Free Capability Fusion

While large language models excel in reasoning, these generalists often lack knowledge for specialized scientific domains. Conversely, domain models~(specialists), while knowledgeable, suffer from specialization side-effects including diminished logic and reduced robustness.To address this dilemma, we introduce Divergence Decoding, a training-free framework for capability fusion. It reconstructs the "draft-and-verify" skeleton of speculative decoding into an adaptive routing mechanism. The core is using Jensen-Shannon divergence to monitor the distributional disagreement between the two models at each token. When the specialist exhibits significant divergence, our method identifies it as a potential reasoning risk and instantaneously routes control to the generalist. This allows the dynamic injection of general reasoning while preserving domain expertise, achieving inference-time policy composition of the generalist and the specialist.We evaluate Divergence Decoding across diverse model families (Qwen and Llama series) on challenging scientific benchmarks (GPQA, ChemBench, and ChemCoTBench). Experimental results demonstrate that Divergence Decoding outperforms both the domain-specialized and general-purpose models, effectively surpassing the performance of most single-model baseline. This suggests that Divergence Decoding provides a general, training-free paradigm for fusing diverse LLM capabilities through adaptive inference-time collaboration.

Yimi Wang, Hao Li, Shuo Yang +6

Peking University · International Digital Economy Academy (IDEA) · The University of Hong Kong

LLM Routing Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Multi-LLM Collaboration

Jul 23, 2026cs.CE

Chemical Chain-of-Thought Functions as a Hallucination-Prone Molecular Scratchpad

Chemical reasoning language models are expected to derive molecular answers through faithful chain-of-thought (CoT). However, across four reasoning model families and twelve chemistry tasks, hallucination is widespread and largely decoupled from answer correctness: correct answers often coexist with fabricated structural claims absent from the relevant molecules. Yet this does not make the reasoning trace computationally irrelevant. Attribution analyses suggest a shared scratchpad function expressed in model-specific forms: Chem-R and ether-0 rely on fragmented SMILES drafts, whereas ChemDFM-R emphasizes scaffold, positional, and naming cues. Notably, perturbing Chem-R's SMILES sketches degrades generation, showing that structural drafts can be causally load-bearing even when verbal structural claims are largely inert. Together, these results show that chemical CoT is neither a faithful explanation nor merely a post-hoc rationalization, but a hallucination-prone molecular scratchpad. This finding cautions against treating CoT as direct evidence of faithful reasoning and motivates process-level supervision beyond answer-only evaluation.

Jiatong Li, Yuxuan Ren, Weida Wang +2

Blue Whale Lab, National University of Singapore · Fudan University · Hong Kong Polytechnic University

CoT Faithfulness Scientific Reasoning Hallucination in Language Models Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Jul 22, 2026cs.AI

Reading and Steering Representations of Materials-Science Mechanisms in an Open-Weight Language Model

Large language models can answer scientific questions, yet a correct output does not reveal whether the model represents or uses the governing physics. Here, using three open-weight Gemma 4 models (google/gemma-4-E4B-it, google/gemma-4-12B-it, google/gemma-4-31B-it) we identify three experimentally separable signatures of materials-science mechanism information: selective concept readability, relational encoding of qualitative constitutive orientation, and causal, context-dependent control of constrained engineering answers. We combine matched direct and Jacobian vocabulary readouts, option-free state geometry, a 60-law counterfactual benchmark and causal interventions. In 50 held-out materials descriptions, three independently fitted Jacobian lenses reproduced concept ranks, and target-free word sets from both readouts enabled blinded identification of 9 of 10 mechanism families. A separate 72-prompt benchmark produced mechanism-specific hidden-state neighborhoods, but an exact graph audit showed that this apparent physical organization was equally explained by numerical comparison. We therefore compared otherwise identical prompts in which only the direction of the physical input was reversed, asking whether the resulting hidden-state movement followed the supplied constitutive law. These state transformations ordered direct, physically neutral and inverse laws across 60 frozen relations and correctly oriented 39 of 40 directional laws, whereas lexical controls were near chance. Bidirectional interventions shifted answer probabilities toward or away from the physically appropriate outcome across all 12 matched cases, while counterfactual state patches transferred opposing decision signals across mechanisms and answer formats. Physical relationships were therefore more visible in controlled state changes than in absolute states alone.

Markus J. Buehler

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering · Department of Mechanical Engineering · Schwarzman College of Computing +1

Mechanistic Interpretability Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Representation Geometry in Language Models

Jul 18, 2026cs.CL

Though Language Models Err While They Strive: Conformal Prediction for Self-Correcting Scientific Generation

Large language models frequently violate fundamental scientific principles when generating technical content, undermining their reliability in scientific applications. We introduce Scientific Feasibility Control SFC, a graph-structured conformal prediction framework that provides statistical guarantees for scientific reasoning validity through progressive absolute-coherent-factuality validation. Our approach decomposes scientific reasoning into atomic absolute-coherent-factuality units requiring both individual correctness against physical laws and logical substantiation from preceding context, addressing the cascade effect where early scientific errors contaminate subsequent reasoning steps. Unlike independence-based methods that treat claims in isolation, SFC models logical dependencies as approximate deducibility graphs and operates through real-time validation with dynamic branching when scientific violations are detected, the system branches to alternative generation paths using verified context as foundation. We demonstrate SFC across established scientific reasoning benchmarks including PhyX multimodal physics, MATH, ScienceQA, and ARC Challenge, achieving 50.1 percent accuracy on PhyX physics reasoning, substantially outperforming recent reasoning models including DeepSeek-R1 49.8 percent and GPT-4 45.8 percent while providing 91.7 percent scientific validity with formal conformal coverage guarantees at alpha equals 0.10 confidence level and reducing scientific law violations by 73 percent across multiple model architectures.

Mingqiao Mo, Yunlong Tan, Hao Zhang

University of Chinese Academy of Sciences

LLM Self-Correction Scientific Reasoning Conformal Prediction LLM Reliability Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Scientific Claim Verification

Jul 15, 2026cs.LG

Consensus as Privileged Context for Label-Free Self-Distillation

Sampling multiple solutions and returning the majority answer is among the most reliable ways to improve the reasoning accuracy of large language models without labels, and a growing family of methods converts this consensus signal into training supervision. However, existing approaches use consensus only in restricted forms: as a filter that selects solutions for fine-tuning, as a preference between answers, or as a scalar reward for reinforcement learning, discarding most of the information that the agreeing solutions contain. We present CANON (Consensus-ANchored self-distillatiON), a label-free training method that turns consensus into dense, token-level supervision. For each unlabeled prompt, CANON samples multiple solutions, extracts the majority answer, and conditions a frozen snapshot of the model on a solution that reaches it; this consensus-anchored teacher then supervises the model on its own rollouts at every token. Experiments on mathematical and scientific reasoning benchmarks show that CANON improves pass@1 by up to 12 points, outperforming label-free reinforcement learning by 6 points at a seventh of its compute and approaching a teacher conditioned on gold solutions; trained on pooled unlabeled data, it transfers to held-out benchmarks, matching training methods that use gold labels. Analysis suggests that the improvements are not pure distribution sharpening: after training, the model solves problems it previously never solved in 32 attempts, and its majority vote itself becomes more accurate.

John Gkountouras, Josip Jukić, Ivan Titov

1ILLC, University of Amsterdam · 2ILCC, University of Edinburgh

Self-Training for Language Models Language Model Distillation Self-Distillation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Self-Improvement LLM Reasoning

Jun 28, 2026cs.AI

Evidence-Informed LLM Beliefs for Continual Scientific Discovery

Open-ended scientific discovery with large language models (LLMs) increasingly operates as a long-horizon loop of hypothesis search and verification, where a reward signal guides which hypotheses to test next. A notable recent example is AutoDiscovery, which uses "Bayesian surprise" - the belief shift an LLM undergoes after observing evidence for a hypothesis - as both a discovery metric and a reward for search. We first observe that AutoDiscovery treats surprisal as a static quantity, while surprisal in human reasoning is non-stationary - it is defined relative to beliefs that evolve with experience, a prerequisite for continual scientific discovery. We address this mismatch with evidence-informed LLM beliefs: priors updated with evidence from previous hypotheses to compute non-stationary surprisal for new hypotheses. We compare in-context belief-updating mechanisms and find that embedding-based retrieval-augmented generation over prior discoveries best anticipates eventual posteriors, identifying 37.5% of static surprisals as spurious. We then modify search to avoid these spurious rewards and prioritize hypotheses that remain surprising under non-stationary beliefs. Concretely, we introduce two complementary changes to the original search procedure: belief-update filtering and diversity maximization. Across five discovery domains, our method increases accumulated non-stationary surprisal by 30.62% on average compared to the original search procedure, demonstrating that continual scientific discovery with LLMs requires not only better belief measurement but also search procedures that avoid redundancy and encourage diversity.

Dhruv Agarwal, Reece Adamson, Andrew McCallum +3

University of Massachusetts Amherst · Allen Institute for AI

Scientific Hypothesis Generation Belief Updating in LLMs Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Large Language Model-Guided Scientific Discovery

Jun 14, 2026cs.CL

SciOrch: Learning to Orchestrate Expert LLMs for Solving Frontier Multimodal Scientific Reasoning Tasks

Frontier scientific reasoning remains a major challenge for large language models (LLMs), where even the strongest commercial systems fall short of expert-level performance. A closer look at model behavior reveals substantial complementarity that single-model evaluation hides: different frontier models excel on different question types, and no single model captures the full picture. We present SciOrch, a framework that trains a lightweight 8B model to orchestrate frontier LLMs for scientific reasoning. The orchestrator decomposes each question, delegates sub-problems to selected commercial models through API calls, and synthesizes a final answer. Training such an orchestrator is fundamentally harder than conventional agentic RL: each action triggers an API call that is expensive in both dollar cost and latency, making standard online rollouts infeasible. We address this with MCTS-based approach, producing diverse orchestration trajectories, extracting per-node single-turn samples, and optimizing the orchestrator with GRPO-style training. On a 240-question test set spanning SGI-Reasoning and Scientists' First Exam, SciOrch reaches 56.66% average accuracy, outperforming the strongest single commercial model by 3.74% and the strongest multi-agent baseline by 3.33%. It also attains the best accuracy on both SGI and SFE with less than half the API cost of typical multi-agent methods.

Jingru Guo, Xiangyuan Xue, Lian Zhang +6

1Imperial College London · 2The Chinese University of Hong Kong · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign +4

LLM Agent Orchestration Multimodal Reasoning Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Large Language Model-Guided Scientific Discovery RL for LLM Agents

Jun 11, 2026cs.AI

SciR: A Controllable Benchmark for Scientific Reasoning in LLMs

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.

Pierre Beckmann, Marco Valentino, Andre Freitas

Idiap Research Institute, Switzerland · EPFL, Switzerland · School of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, UK +2

LLM Evaluation Scientific Reasoning Synthetic Benchmark Generation Structured Reasoning Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Jun 7, 2026cs.AI

DN-Hypo-Pipeline: An AI-Driven Workflow for Generating Hypotheses using Large Language Models and Scientific Explanations

Modern artificial intelligence excels at prediction but cannot explain. From large language models to AI-for-science systems, today's machines answer what by recombining patterns already present in the human literature, yet they cannot reason out why a phenomenon must arise from underlying principles even though explanation, not prediction, lies at the heart of scientific discovery. Here we ask whether the structure of scientific explanation can be operationalized to guide how a machine generates hypotheses. We introduce DN-Hypo-Pipeline, a hypothesis-generation framework that adopts a layered, explanation-theoretic scaffold: Hempel's deductive-nomological (DN) model supplies the output form and deductive validity of a hypothesis, Salmon's causal-process account supplies an organizing constraint on where to search for the governing laws, and Armstrong's view of laws as relations between universals supplies the bridge from a phenomenon's constituent processes to the laws that may be associated with it. Rather than searching the space of what has been written, the framework searches the space of what principles govern a phenomenon: given an explanandum, it abstracts the universals instantiated in the phenomenon's formation process, retrieves the laws relating those universals, and deductively reconstructs a new, testable explanation. Evaluated in data-science modeling and judged by both LLMs and human experts, hypotheses generated through this principled reasoning significantly outperform those from direct prompting. Crucially, we translated the two highest-scoring hypotheses into novel algorithms one that reduces the Transformer's theoretical complexity with only minimal performance loss, and another that achieves competitive accuracy with substantially fewer parameters.

Lei Lin, Ronghao Wang, Chunbao Zhou +2

Computer Network Information Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences, China

Scientific Reasoning Scientific Hypothesis Generation Research Idea Generation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Large Language Model-Guided Scientific Discovery

Jun 3, 2026cs.AI

FALSIFYBENCH: Evaluating Inductive Reasoning in LLMs with Rule Discovery Games

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed as autonomous agents in scientific tasks. Yet whether these systems can effectively engage in forms of inductive reasoning relevant to scientific discovery remains an open question. In this work, we introduce FALSIFYBENCH, an evaluation framework for hypothesis-driven reasoning inspired by the classic Wason 2-4-6 task, in which agents must discover hidden semantic properties by iteratively proposing examples and receiving feedback. This task captures key elements of scientific reasoning: hypothesis generation, evidence gathering, and belief revision in response to both confirming and disconfirming evidence. Our evaluation of 12 LLMs across model families and scales shows that reasoning models are generally stronger scientific reasoners than instruction-tuned models, although no model comes close to optimal performance. The primary driver of success is the capacity for negative testing: models that actively seek to falsify their hypotheses consistently outperform those that primarily seek confirmation. Moreover, a fine-grained turn-level analysis, neglected in previous work, reveals that failure is tied to identifiable patterns in how models navigate the hypothesis space.

Leonardo Bertolazzi, Katya Tentori, Raffaella Bernardi

University of Trento · Free University of Bozen-Bolzano

LLM Evaluation AI Agent Benchmarks Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Large Reasoning Models

Jun 3, 2026cs.LG

SocraticPO: Policy Optimization via Interactive Guidance

Reinforcement learning (RL) for large language models usually supervises reasoning with scalar outcome rewards, such as binary correctness. Such rewards provide an optimization direction but rarely explain how a model should revise its mistaken reasoning, which can encourage shortcut learning and brittle policies. We propose \textbf{SocraticPO} (Socratic Policy Optimization), a policy-optimization framework that augments RL rollouts with Socratic-style natural-language guidance. During rollout, the student first answers independently; if the answer is incorrect, a teacher diagnoses the attempt and provides concise corrective guidance, after which the student continues under the expanded context. Crucially, this guidance is paired with reward decay: correct answers obtained after teacher intervention only receive decayed rewards, preventing the policy from treating teacher help as a free path to reward. Since SocraticPO only modifies the rollout process while leaving the standard expected-reward objective intact, it can be plugged into existing policy-gradient backends such as Reinforce++. Moreover, because the teacher provides only text-level guidance, SocraticPO can leverage stronger black-box teacher models without requiring access to logits or distribution matching. On undergraduate-level scientific reasoning benchmarks from SciKnowEval, SocraticPO improves over strong RL and self-distillation baselines. Ablations show that both targeted guidance and reward decay are necessary, with reward decay mitigating reliance on assisted correction.

Zirui Liu, Jie Ouyang, Qi Liu +8

State Key Laboratory of Cognitive Intelligence, University of Science and Technology of China · iFLYTEK AI Research (Central China), iFLYTEK Co., Ltd

RL for Language Model Reasoning LLM-Guided RL Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Teacher-Student Learning Policy Learning

May 31, 2026cs.AI

Reasoning4Sciences: Bridging Reasoning Language Models to All Scientific Branches

While Reasoning Language Models (RLMs) are rapidly emerging as powerful tools for scientific research, their impact is primarily concentrated in "hard science" fields. The slow -- or lack of -- adoption of RLMs in other branches of science is causing a widening gap in research productivity. In this survey, we provide the first comprehensive analysis of RLM adoption across 28 scientific disciplines following the classification used by the European Research Council (ERC), spanning the Social Sciences and Humanities, Physical Sciences and Engineering, and Life Sciences. We examine how RLMs are developed, evaluated, and applied across disciplines. Furthermore, we introduce a maturity-oriented assessment framework based on available domain-specific development and evaluation resources, revealing substantial disparities in RLM maturity that become even more pronounced when only publicly available resources are considered. Finally, we highlight current implementation paradigms that are gaining popularity across disciplines, current challenges, and future directions in enabling RLM adoption across science.

Teddy Ferdinan, Bartłomiej Koptyra, Mikołaj Langner +42

AI for Science Scientific Reasoning Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Large Language Model-Guided Scientific Discovery Large Reasoning Models