Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

The field studies whether language models can do more than recall scientific facts: interpret data, connect evidence, design tests, explain mechanisms, and generate useful hypotheses. Common approaches include chain-of-thought and structured reasoning traces, retrieval and tool use, multi-agent collaboration, and training with expert examples, simulators, or reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards. Evaluation spans scientific question answering, mathematics and physics problems, papers and tables, multimodal data, and interactive experimental workflows. Models are improving on specialized tasks, but reliable evidence use, robust execution, and mechanistic understanding remain difficult, and correct answers do not always show that a model reasoned scientifically.

Latest papers

144 papers40 papers in the last four weeks, up 233% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

Aug 25, 2026

PhysElite: How Far Are LLMs from Solving Olympiad-Level Physics Problems?

Understanding how (multimodal) large language models perform on physics problems requires benchmarks that reflect the difficulty and breadth of expert-level physical reasoning. Existing physics benchmarks remain limited in the following two important ways: (1) short of high-difficulty datasets, and (2) lack of comprehensive coverage of visual forms, knowledge points, and step-by-step solution processes. As a result, model performance on current datasets may not be fully representative of their ability to solve complex physics problems. To address these issues, we present PhysElite, a large-scale bilingual multimodal benchmark for Olympiad-level physics reasoning. PhysElite contains 11,586 Olympiad-tier problems. For each problem, we provide corresponding visual diagrams, step-by-step bilingual Chinese-English solution derivations, and the final answer. We benchmark 18 open-source and closed-source MLLMs, and find that even the strongest model reaches only 33.7% answer accuracy. We additionally conduct step-level process evaluation to diagnose where models fail in the reasoning chain. Our datasets are released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/physelite/PhysElite.

Ruoran Xu, Wending Gao, Liyunfeng Chen +5

Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University

Physical Reasoning Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Multimodal Model Evaluation

Aug 25, 2026

EMRB: A Multi-Level Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Reasoning over Raw Electromagnetic Signals

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as code agents for scientific and engineering analysis, but their ability to analyze raw physical-layer measurements remains untested. We introduce EMRB (Electromagnetic Reasoning Benchmark), which evaluates whether LLMs can analyze raw I/Q data by writing and running code. EMRB contains 200 problems across five difficulty levels and 27 question types, from signal detection to OFDM design, generated from 11 signal types with verified ground truth. Unlike benchmarks built on preprocessed features or structured tables, EMRB provides only the raw capture; the quantities each question refers to must first be discovered through code. We evaluate 14 LLMs spanning proprietary, open-weight, and reasoning-oriented families. Scores range from 24.1% to 78.9%, with the mean dropping from 84.9% on basic measurement to 21.2% on system design. We also propose ReconPilot, a structured method that separates signal reconnaissance, targeted analysis, and self-verification. Across three backbones, ReconPilot raises the overall score by 3.8 to 17.6 points and improves 13 of 15 backbone-level combinations tested. All data and code are publicly released in blue{our GitHub repository}.

Mingxu Zhang, Ying Sun, Yuhan Li +4

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · The 63rd Research Institute, National University of Defense Technology · Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics

LLM Evaluation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models LLM Reasoning

Aug 25, 2026

AFDBench: A Reasoning-First AI Scientist for NationalWeather Service Forecast Discussions

Large language models (LLMs) hallucinate numerical values when generating high-stakes meteorological text, posing risks for weather communication. We present AFDBench, an AI meteorologist that generates professional Area Forecast Discussions (AFDs) by reasoning through structured AI weather forecast data from Google's WeatherNext 2. We introduce AFDBench, the first benchmark for evaluating generative meteorological reasoning, comprising 7,732 expert written discussions from 13 National Weather Service (NWS) offices paired with real AI weather forecast inputs, and three complementary metrics: Met-Align (numerical accuracy), Style-Align (professional dialect adherence), and Input-Grounding (fidelity to source weather data). Zero-shot evaluations reveal that open-source LLMs achieve low Style-Align (~0.33) and moderate Input-Grounding (~0.88), failing to write in the professional NWS register or faithfully use their input data. We apply Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) with domain-specific rewards targeting temperature accuracy, synoptic correctness, and format compliance. On 1,033 held-out samples from two unseen NWS offices, GRPO nearly doubles Style-Align from 0.318 to 0.619 and improves Input-Grounding from 0.881 to 0.940, demonstrating that reinforcement learning teaches a 7B-parameter model to write like a professional meteorologist and faithfully interpret AI weather data.

Manmeet Singh, Somnath Luitel, Prabhjot Singh +3

Department of Earth, Environmental, and Atmospheric Sciences, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA · Department of Computer Science, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA · RediMinds Inc., Southfield, MI, USA.

Forecasting Benchmarks Language Model Generation Evaluation Weather Forecasting Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Aug 24, 2026

BenchBench-Protocol: Evaluating Real-World Wet-Lab Protocol Reasoning and Modification

We introduce BenchBench-Protocol, a benchmark for large language models of 149 protocol-modification tasks recovered from modifications that scientists made to published protocols during real experimental work. Adapting a published protocol to a new experiment is a routine task for a wet-lab scientist, and a correct modification requires accounting for prior choices and downstream steps. Recent life-science benchmarks have moved toward open-ended, rubric-graded tasks, but tasks are typically elicited from experts rather than reconstructed from real-world modifications. BenchBench-Protocol tasks are derived from differences between a published protocol and a version a scientist modified, which provides the basis for the query and the weighted rubric elements for a correct response. The benchmark draws from 96 source protocols across nine domains of wet-lab biology and only includes tasks rated highly after review by domain experts. We evaluate nine closed and open models; Claude Opus 5 scores highest at 59.2% normalized rubric score, with other models between 34.1% and 47.1%, and the benchmark remains unsaturated when taking the best of ten attempts. As models are increasingly helpful in life-sciences research, evaluating them on routine wet-lab tasks becomes correspondingly important. We present BenchBench-Protocol as both a grounded assessment of wet-lab reasoning and evidence for the utility of real-world experiments to construct benchmark tasks.

Aditya Sivakumar, Ashu Singhal, Nicholas Larus-Stone +1

Benchling

LLM Evaluation Benchmark Design Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Aug 24, 2026

Beyond Verdicts: A Graph-Based Analysis of Human and LLM Reasoning in Scientific Fact-Checking

Misinformation that cites legitimate papers can be especially harmful when it distorts what those studies actually report. While existing automatic fact-checking systems based on large language models (LLMs) can assess whether a model assigns an Incorrect verdict and can gen- erate explanations for that decision, they typi- cally do not indicate whether the model follows the same reasoning path as human experts or arrives at the verdict through a different but still valid path. In this work, we introduce a graph- based framework (typed reasoning graph) for comparing human and LLM reasoning paths in scientific fact-checking. Building on prior work on fallacious reasoning in biomedical misinformation, MISSCIPLUS (Glockner et al., 2025), we model each explanation as a rea- soning graph that links the false claim to the relevant study context, study findings, fallacy- supporting premises, and fallacy labels. This representation enables one-to-one alignment of human and LLM reasoning at the level of fallacy-specific sub-graphs. For non-human- aligned LLM paths, we validate grounding in the cited study, relevance to the claim, and suf- ficiency for the verdict. Using 84 false claims from MISSCIPLUS, we evaluate GPT-5, Claude Opus 4.7, and Qwen3-32B across prompt and evidence settings. Results show distinct perfor- mance dimensions: Qwen3-32B has the lowest verdict failure rate, GPT-5 the highest human alignment, and Claude Opus 4.7 weak verdict prediction but often valid reasoning in success- ful cases

Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Arslan Manzoor, Yufang Hou

Interdisciplinary Transformation University Austria (ITU)

Automated Fact-Checking Scientific Reasoning in Language Models LLM Reasoning with Graphs

Aug 24, 2026

What Proves You Wrong: Benchmarking Language Models on Falsifiable Research Ideation

Large language models are increasingly used to propose research ideas, yet the prevailing ways of judging such ideas supply no shared decision rule: free-form judging sways with style and position, and scoring against a later paper rewards recovery of one realized trajectory. We introduce a benchmark that carries a proposal from Literature to Test: the Lit2Test benchmark centers on a six-field contract organized around a falsifying outcome, so that every proposal precommits the observation that would prove it wrong, making its quality decidable in the first place rather than merely arguable. Built prospectively from 200 real-paper neighborhoods, Lit2Test elicits proposals from four frontier models and compares them through 1,200 pairwise comparisons judged blind in both presentation orders. The protocol audits its own reliability through diagnostic controls and bounded human calibration, with three annotators corroborating the conclusions within explicitly stated reliability bounds. Lit2Test recovers a strict ranking of the four models in all 10,000 bootstrap replicates, and the separation comes from the quality of the proposed tests and metrics rather than from surface fluency. We release the benchmark, construction pipeline, and audit artifacts for public use.

Ziyue Wang, Aomufei Yuan, Yiran Yao +10

State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University · Peking University · Tianjin University +2

LLM Evaluation Language Model Generation Evaluation Research Idea Generation Scientific Hypothesis Generation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Aug 24, 2026

Ethical LLM-Assisted Research: A Framework for Responsible Delegation, Verification, and Epistemic Value

Large language models (LLMs) are becoming routine instruments of scientific research, assisting with literature synthesis, hypothesis development, coding, and formal reasoning. Their use raises a central epistemic question: when parts of scientific reasoning are delegated to an artificial system, what conditions must remain under human control for the resulting knowledge claims to retain epistemic legitimacy and accountable authorship? This paper develops a normative and conceptual framework for analyzing such delegation. Scientific reasoning is treated as a distributed process in which the origin of a contribution may vary between human and machine, while responsibility for its acceptance into the scientific record remains human. The framework distinguishes content origin

O(g)

, completion of human verification

V(g)

, responsibility assignment

R(g)

, accountable human ownership

M(g)

, and epistemic outcome

E(g)

. These constructs separate the provenance of a claim from the process by which it is checked, the epistemic outcome of that checking, and the human responsibility attached to its disposition. The central proposition is that the ethical boundary of LLM-assisted research is determined primarily by adequate verification and accountable human ownership rather than by the degree of machine involvement itself. On this basis, the paper develops the notion of an epistemic audit: a structured record of delegation, verification, provenance, and responsibility intended to make AI-assisted reasoning transparent and reviewable. The resulting framework provides a formal vocabulary for distinguishing responsible cognitive delegation from the transfer or neglect of epistemic responsibility in scientific research.

Kalin Stoyanov, Nina Ilieva

Department of Automation, University of Chemical Technology and Metallurgy

AI-Assisted Scientific Research Human Oversight of AI AI Accountability Scientific Reasoning in Language Models LLM Auditing

Aug 18, 2026

Interpretable Humans, Alien LLMs: Expert Analysis of Latent Structures in Assessment Responses

The evaluation of large language models (LLMs) relies heavily on human-designed assessments, implicitly assuming that AI and humans employ similar underlying cognitive constructs. Challenging this assumption, we investigate whether the latent factors governing LLM performance carry the same substantive, human-interpretable meaning as the cognitive constructs governing human learners. Using responses from humans and six LLMs across quantitative reasoning and chemistry assessments, we conducted Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) separately for both groups. Subject-Matter Experts (SMEs) then blindly evaluated the resulting factor graphs to ascribe pedagogical meaning to the emerged constructs. SMEs successfully interpreted most of the human-derived factors. Conversely, they could not ascribe meaning to any LLM-derived factors in quantitative reasoning and interpreted only half of the LLM factors in chemistry. By combining data-driven EFA with blind expert interpretation, this framework shows that LLMs frequently operate on statistically opaque mechanisms distinct from human reasoning.

Alona Strugatski, Licol Zeinfeld, Jason Cooper +3

Weizmann Institute of Science

LLM Evaluation LLM Interpretability Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Aug 18, 2026

SGHA: Evidence-Grounded Research Problem Discovery with Local Language Models

Recent efforts toward fully automated AI scientists have demonstrated that language-model agents can generate hypotheses, execute experiments, and draft scientific manuscripts. However, during the early stages of research, when research problems are formulated, these AI scientists often rely heavily on proprietary frontier models. Their proposals are shaped by opaque parametric knowledge and by literature searches conditioned on the proposals themselves. Such knowledge is effectively a black box, and this dependence makes the evidential basis and validity of generated research problems difficult to audit and leaves the process vulnerable to model-specific hallucinations and biases. Furthermore, if proprietary research materials are transmitted to external APIs, the use of these models creates confidentiality, privacy, and data-governance concerns. We introduce the Structural Gap Hypothesis Agent (SGHA), a fully automated, corpus-first research-problem discovery system that runs entirely on a local LLM. SGHA structures a scientific literature corpus into evidence-linked paper objects and a typed evidence graph, detects unresolved structural patterns across papers, screens candidate gaps before formulation, and produces traceable research-problem families. In particular, it is able to output assumptions, objectives, success criteria, and remaining ambiguities. All LLM-based components of SGHA are executed using a locally served open-weight 9B language model, without requiring proprietary frontier-model APIs. We compare SGHA with the AI Scientist-v2 idea formulation module in five machine-learning domains. Our results suggest that explicit corpus structure and evidence-constrained reasoning can support promising, inspectable research-problem formulation without relying on frontier models during generation or verification.

Sarvesh Gharat, Junpei Komiyama

C-MInDS, IIT Bombay · Machine Learning Department, MBZUAI

AI Agents for Scientific Discovery Research Idea Generation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Aug 17, 2026

Reconstruction: A Blind Benchmark for Recovering Research Ideas from Pre-Publication Bibliographies

Can a language model recover the true research idea of a published paper when given only that paper's pre-publication bibliography? We introduce Reconstruction, a blind idea-recovery benchmark that withholds the seed paper and all contemporaneous or future literature, and asks models to propose hypotheses that an independent large language model judge matches against the held-out ground-truth idea. A strict anti-leakage protocol-temporal citation cutoff, anonymous reference IDs, and frozen per-paper bibliographies, which prevents prompt-time leakage of the seed idea. Across six scientific domains and 643 evaluated papers, seven frontier models achieve only modest Match rates (approx. 3-15%). We then evaluate a reference-only multi-agent (top 4) pipeline that combines cross-model review with a Swiss tournament over aligned hypothesis slots, without external web search. Cross-model review plus tournament selection raises Match rates to approx. 23-42% across all six domains, which is an observed approx. 2.4x lift over the best single-model baseline. This draft reports the protocol, anti-leakage design, and current results as an arXiv timestamp.

Shaolong Chen, Yanlin Fei, Nazhou Liu +7

Prentis AI, San Francisco, CA · Stanford University, Stanford, CA · Titan Holdings, San Francisco, CA

Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Large Language Model-Guided Scientific Discovery Research Idea Generation Multi-Agent LLMs

Aug 14, 2026

LLMs Don't Pay for the Jump

Zahavy [2026] argues that Large Language Models, despite their capabilities in induction and deduction, cannot perform the abductive "Jump" that produced Einstein's equivalence principle, and attributes this limitation to the absence of embodied simulation. Zheng-Xin [2026] and Farmer [2026] question whether embodiment is necessary for abduction, pointing to alternative routes to General Relativity and forms of abduction that require no sensorimotor grounding. Max Planck resolved the blackbody radiation problem in 1900. Planck's move to E = hν required no embodied simulation. It was motivated by a mathematical consequence of classical theory, an infinite predicted energy for a finite measured quantity, that could not be physically accepted. We show that neither induction nor deduction could have produced the postulate and argue that its adoption required a coupling between epistemic error and physical cost. We formalize this distinction through thermodynamic coupling and show that fixed-weight transformer inference lacks such coupling, regardless of model scale. This is consistent with empirical results showing that output entropy remains nearly unchanged across tasks with sharply increasing causal difficulty, even as accuracy falls from 100% to 17%. We therefore argue that the missing ingredient in machine abduction may lie deeper than embodiment: a system must have some physical mechanism through which epistemic error becomes costly enough to force revision.

Paras Balani, Subhrakanta Panda

Department of Mathematics and Department of Computer Science, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Jawahar Nagar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal District, Telangana 500078, India · Department of Computer Science, Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Jawahar Nagar, Kapra Mandal, Medchal District, Telangana 500078, India

Abductive Reasoning in Language Models Abductive Reasoning Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Epistemic Uncertainty

Aug 14, 2026

A Pathway to General-Purpose Scientific AI: Multimodal Comprehension of Scientific Images

Scientific figures and tables encode essential experimental evidence, yet remain difficult for digital libraries and multimodal AI systems to retrieve and interpret. The ALD/E-ImageMiner benchmark and ICDAR 2026 Competition on Information Extraction from Atomic Layer Deposition/Etching Scientific Figures provide 1,951 figures from 205 publications, expert-annotated for classification, data table extraction, summarization, and visual question answering. In these companion proceedings, we present a forward-looking perspective on how the benchmark can guide future scientific-image challenges. We examine how its tasks probe capabilities from visual and quantitative reading to domain-grounded reasoning and evidential justification, and how Bloom-informed question design can support deeper scientific understanding. We propose "scientific conceptual understanding from images" as a long-term benchmark objective, with future directions including broader domains and figure types, contextual and cross-document synthesis, hypothesis evaluation, provenance, uncertainty, counterfactual grounding, and open-ended multimodal research. This perspective connects the ICDAR 2026 challenge to a broader agenda for machine-actionable scientific visual knowledge and verifiable multimodal scientific AI.

Jennifer D'Souza, Fahad Ahmed, Cecilia Andrea Bustamante Andrade +9

Data Science and Digital Libraries, TIB Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology, Hannover, Germany · Department of Applied Physics and Science Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, Netherlands · Department of Biology, Chemistry, and Pharmacy, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany +5

Scientific Figure Understanding Multimodal Model Evaluation Document Information Extraction Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Visual Question Answering

Aug 11, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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 Chemical Reasoning in LLMs Scientific Reasoning Hallucination in Language Models Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Jul 22, 2026

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, 2026

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 Conformal Prediction for Language Models LLM Reliability Scientific Reasoning in Language Models+1

Jul 15, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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, 2026

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 Inductive Reasoning in Language Models Large Reasoning Models

Jun 3, 2026

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 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 Socratic Tutoring

May 31, 2026

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

May 28, 2026

ProjectionBench: Evaluating Scientific Hypothesis Generation in LLMs Under Progressive Information Disclosure

Scientific discovery is an inherently creative and uncertain process, requiring reasoning beyond the recall of known knowledge. While many benchmarks have been proposed to evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on deep research tasks via multi-hop retrieval, their innovative reasoning abilities essential for true scientific discovery remain largely untested. We introduce a benchmark framework for evaluating model performance in scientific discovery and reasoning, building up from a raw problem to the classical null hypothesis test. In our framework, models initially receive only the topic and research question from a recent paper, with technical details progressively revealed. At each stage of information disclosure, the model is tasked with generating hypotheses that address the research question, which is compared with the conclusions from the original paper and evaluated via automated semantic similarity of constituent atomic claims. This progressive evaluation of semantic divergence from ground-truth conclusions enables assessment of a model's innovativeness (under minimal information) to grounded reasoning capabilities (under full experimental details), both critical for using LLMs for scientific discovery purposes. Our framework provides a foundation for systematically evaluating scientific reasoning and discovery capabilities in LLMs, crucial for advancing the development of next-generation AI scientist/co-scientist systems. Specifically, here we evaluate GPT-5, GPT-5.4, Gemini 2.5 pro, and Gemini 3.1 pro preview across 45 papers spanning bioactive materials, mechanical materials, and nanomaterials. We find that GPT-5.4 and Gemini 3.1 pro outperform their previous generation counterparts as expected, and GPT-5.4 in particular maintains 0.7 F1 score alignment with ground truth conclusions even under minimal context.

A. J. Lew, Y. Cao, M. J. Buehler

Unreasonable Labs · Unreasonable Labs Mountain View, CA 94043, USA

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

Apr 30, 2026

In-Context Examples Suppress Scientific Knowledge Recall in LLMs

Scientific reasoning rarely stops at what is directly observable; it often requires uncovering hidden structure from data. From estimating reaction constants in chemistry to inferring demand elasticities in economics, this latent structure recovery is what distinguishes scientific reasoning from curve fitting. Large language models (LLMs) can often recall and apply relevant scientific formulas, but we show that this ability is surprisingly easy to suppress. We show that adding in-context examples makes models rely less on pretrained domain knowledge, even when those examples are generated by the very same formula. Rather than reinforcing knowledge-driven derivation, examples shift computation toward empirical pattern fitting. We document this knowledge displacement on 60 latent structure recovery tasks across five scientific domains, 6,000 trials, and four models. This displacement is consistent across domains, but its accuracy consequences depend on how the displaced strategy compares to the one that replaces it: the same shift can lower accuracy, leave it unchanged, or appear to improve it. In all cases, however, the model shifts away from knowledge-driven reasoning. For practitioners deploying LLMs on scientific tasks, the message is cautionary: in-context examples may displace, rather than reinforce, the knowledge they are intended to support.

Chaemin Jang, Woojin Park, Hyeok Yun +2

Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology · Shanghai Jiao Tong University

Knowledge Conflicts in Language Models Scientific Reasoning In-Context Learning Factual Knowledge in Language Models Scientific Reasoning in Language Models

Apr 20, 2026

AI scientists produce results without reasoning scientifically

Large language model (LLM)-based systems are increasingly deployed to conduct scientific research autonomously, yet whether their reasoning adheres to the epistemic norms that make scientific inquiry self-correcting is poorly understood. Here, we evaluate LLM-based scientific agents across eight domains, spanning workflow execution to hypothesis-driven inquiry, through more than 25,000 agent runs and two complementary lenses: (i) a systematic performance analysis that decomposes the contributions of the base model and the agent scaffold, and (ii) a behavioral analysis of the epistemological structure of agent reasoning. We observe that the base model is the primary determinant of both performance and behavior, accounting for 41.4% of explained variance versus 1.5% for the scaffold. Across all configurations, evidence is ignored in 68% of traces, refutation-driven belief revision occurs in 26%, and convergent multi-test evidence is rare. The same reasoning pattern appears whether the agent executes a computational workflow or conducts hypothesis-driven inquiry. They persist even when agents receive near-complete successful reasoning trajectories as context, and the resulting unreliability compounds across repeated trials in epistemically demanding domains. Thus, current LLM-based agents execute scientific workflows but do not exhibit the epistemic patterns that characterize scientific reasoning. Outcome-based evaluation cannot detect these failures, and scaffold engineering alone cannot repair them. Until reasoning itself becomes a training target, the scientific knowledge produced by such agents cannot be justified by the process that generated it.

Martiño Ríos-García, Nawaf Alampara, Chandan Gupta +5

Laboratory of Organic and Macromolecular Chemistry (IOMC), Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Humboldstr. 10, 07743 Jena, Germany · Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India · School of Interdisciplinary Research, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India +3

AI Agent Reliability Scientific Reasoning LLM Agent Evaluation LLM Reliability Autonomous Scientific Discovery Scientific Reasoning in Language Models+2

Apr 20, 2026

Experiments or Outcomes? Probing Scientific Feasibility in Large Language Models

Scientific feasibility assessment asks whether a claim is consistent with established knowledge and whether experimental evidence could support or refute it. We frame feasibility assessment as a diagnostic reasoning task in which, given a hypothesis, a model predicts feasible or infeasible and justifies its decision. We evaluate large language models (LLMs) under controlled knowledge conditions (hypothesis-only, with experiments, with outcomes, or both) and probe robustness by progressively removing portions of the experimental and/or outcome context. Across multiple LLMs and two datasets, providing outcome evidence is generally more reliable than providing experiment descriptions. Outcomes tend to improve accuracy beyond what internal knowledge alone provides, whereas experimental text can be brittle and may degrade performance when the context is incomplete. These findings clarify when experimental evidence benefits LLM-based feasibility assessment and when it introduces fragility.

Seyedali Mohammadi, Manas Gaur, Francis Ferraro

University of Maryland, Baltimore County, MD, USA

LLM Evaluation Scientific Reasoning in Language Models Language Model Robustness