Scientific Reasoning

Scientific progress depends on sequences of enabling contributions, yet existing AI4Science benchmarks largely focus on citation prediction, literature retrieval, or idea generation rather than the dependencies that make progress possible. In this paper, we introduce discovery pathway forecasting: given a target scientific contribution and the prior literature available at a specified time, the task is to (1) identify the enabling contributions required to realize it and (2) ground each in prior work when such prior work exists. We present SciPaths, a benchmark of 262 expert-annotated gold pathways and 2,444 silver pathways constructed from machine learning and natural language processing papers, where each pathway records enabling contributions, roles, rationales, and prior-work groundings or unmapped decisions. Evaluating frontier and open-weight language models, we find that the best model reaches only 0.189 F1 under strict semantic matching, with core methodological dependencies hardest to recover. Prior-work grounding improves substantially when gold enabling contributions are provided, showing that decomposition quality is a major bottleneck for end-to-end pathway recovery. SciPaths therefore shifts evaluation toward a missing capability in scientific forecasting: reasoning backward from a target contribution to the enabling scientific building blocks and prior-work dependencies that make it feasible.

Scientific discovery is fundamentally a resource-constrained process that requires navigating complex trade-offs between the quality and quantity of measurements due to physical and cost constraints. Measurements drive the scientific process by revealing novel phenomena to improve our understanding. Existing benchmarks for evaluating agents for scientific discovery focus on either static knowledge-based reasoning or unconstrained experimental design tasks, and do not capture the ability to make measurements and plan under constraints. To bridge this gap, we propose Measuring and Discovering Physics (MaD Physics), a benchmark to evaluate the ability of agents to make informative measurements and conclusions subject to constraints on the quality and quantity of measurements. The benchmark consists of three environments, each based on a distinct physical law. To mitigate contamination from existing knowledge, MaD Physics includes altered physical laws. In each trial, the agent makes measurements of the system until it exhausts an allotted budget and then the agent has to infer the underlying physical law to make predictions about the state of the system in the future. MaD Physics evaluates two fundamental capabilities of scientific agents: inferring models from data and planning under constraints. We also demonstrate how MaD Physics can be used to evaluate other capabilities such as multimodality and in-context learning. We benchmark agents on MaD Physics using four Gemini models (2.5 Flash Lite, 2.5 Flash, 2.5 Pro, and 3 Flash), identifying shortcomings in their structured exploration and data collection capabilities and highlighting directions to improve their scientific reasoning.

Large language models can fail in critic interaction not only by answering incorrectly, but also by abandoning an initially correct scientific solution after user criticism. This is especially risky in scientific reasoning, where user criticism can turn a valid answer into an incorrect one. We frame critic interaction as an inter-turn correctness-transition problem rather than a final-answer accuracy problem, and identify three challenges: transition awareness, decoupling useful correction from harmful sycophancy, and scalable rollout. We propose ReCrit, a transition-aware reinforcement learning framework that decomposes Initial-to-Critic behavior into four quadrants: Correction, Sycophancy, Robustness, and Boundary. ReCrit rewards correction and robustness, penalizes sycophancy, and treats persistent errors as weak boundary signals. To make interaction training practical, ReCrit further uses dynamic asynchronous rollout with tail-adaptive completion to reduce rollout waiting. On three scientific reasoning benchmarks, ChemBench, TRQA, and EarthSE, ReCrit improves average Critic accuracy from 38.15 to 51.49 on Qwen3.5-4B and from 45.40 to 55.59 on Qwen3.5-9B. Ablations show that final-answer rewards provide little interaction-level gain, while transition-aware rewards and quadrant weighting produce more distinguishable training signals and larger net Critic-stage improvement. The code is available at https://github.com/black-yt/ReCrit .

Molecular property models increasingly support high-stakes drug-discovery decisions, but their outputs are often difficult to audit: classical predictors return scores without rationale, while language models can produce fluent explanations weakly grounded in the input molecule. We introduce Bolek, a compact multimodal language model that grounds natural-language reasoning in molecular structure by injecting a Morgan fingerprint embedding into an instruction-tuned text decoder. Bolek is fine-tuned on molecular alignment tasks, including molecule description, RDKit descriptor prediction, and substructure detection, and on downstream reasoning over 15 TDC binary classification tasks using synthetic chains-of-thought anchored in concrete molecular features. Across these tasks, Bolek outperforms its Qwen3-4B-Instruct base on all endpoints in yes/no mode and on 13 of 15 in chain-of-thought mode, raising mean ROC/PR AUC from 0.55 to 0.76. It also outperforms TxGemma-9B-Chat on 13 of 15 binary classification tasks despite being less than half its size. Bolek's explanations are more grounded than those of the baseline LLMs: it cites numerical descriptors 10-100x more often per chain-of-thought, and the cited values agree strongly with RDKit for key descriptors such as TPSA, MolLogP, and MolWt (Spearman rho = 0.87-0.91). Generalisation extends beyond the training panel: on 15 unseen TDC classification endpoints, Bolek matches TxGemma on five, and it produces non-trivial rank correlations on three held-out regression endpoints despite never seeing downstream regression during training. These results suggest that targeted modality injection and reasoning supervision tied to verifiable molecular features can yield compact, auditable molecular reasoning models.

Frontier scientific reasoning is rapidly emerging as a key foundation for advancing AI agents in automated scientific discovery. Deep research agents offer a promising approach to this challenge. These models develop robust problem-solving capabilities through post-training on information-seeking tasks, which are typically curated via knowledge graph construction or iterative web browsing. However, these strategies face inherent limitations in frontier science, where domain-specific knowledge is scattered across sparse and heterogeneous academic sources, and problem solving requires sophisticated computation and reasoning far beyond factual recall. To bridge this gap, we introduce SciResearcher, a fully automated agentic framework for frontier-science data construction. SciResearcher synthesizes diverse conceptual and computational tasks grounded in academic evidence, while eliciting information acquisition, tool-integrated reasoning, and long-horizon capabilities. Leveraging the curated data for supervised fine-tuning and agentic reinforcement learning, we develop SciResearcher-8B, an agent foundation model that achieves 19.46% on the HLE-Bio/Chem-Gold benchmark, establishing a new state of the art at its parameter scale and surpassing several larger proprietary agents. It further achieves 13-15% absolute gains on SuperGPQA-Hard-Biology and TRQA-Literature benchmarks. Overall, SciResearcher introduces a new paradigm for automated data construction for frontier scientific reasoning and offers a scalable path toward future scientific agents.

Currently, process reward models (PRMs) have exhibited remarkable potential for test-time scaling. Since large language models (LLMs) regularly generate flawed intermediate reasoning steps when tackling a broad spectrum of reasoning and decision-making tasks, PRMs are required to possess capabilities for detecting process-level errors in real-world scenarios. However, existing benchmarks primarily focus on mathematical reasoning, thereby failing to comprehensively evaluate the error detection ability of PRMs across diverse reasoning scenarios. To mitigate this gap, we introduce LSR-Ben, a process-level benchmark specifically designed for assessing PRM's performance across two primary reasoning domains (scientific and logical reasoning) and nine subdomains. We conduct extensive experiments on a diverse set of 22 models, encompassing both PRMs and LLMs, and derive two key findings: (1) In domains beyond mathematical reasoning, the error-detection ability of existing PRMs and LLMs is found to be markedly weaker by comparison. (2) In general, LLMs exhibit a tendency toward over-identification of errors compared to PRMs, whereas PRMs exhibit an inherent tendency to overlook errors compared to LLMs. We hope LSR-Ben can foster future researches on PRMs for broader domains, thereby enhancing the reasoning capabilities of 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.

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.

Artificial intelligence in molecular science must move beyond pattern recognition toward chemically valid and interpretable reasoning. We present a task-adaptive large reasoning model that integrates chemical knowledge through a synergistic multispecialist architecture, chain-of-thought supervision, and molecule-informed reinforcement learning. Task-conditioned routing coordinates prediction and inference specialists across 10 molecular tasks spanning molecular description and generation, nomenclature translation, property prediction, and reaction prediction. The model outperforms more than 20 general-purpose and molecular large language models, improves aggregate performance over the base model by 50.3%, and surpasses the leading molecular multitask baseline on most tasks. Analyses of specialist representations and reasoning pathways reveal task-specific adaptation while retaining interpretable chemical inference. A case study further demonstrates an integrated workflow for central nervous system candidate generation, property screening, molecular interpretation, and retrosynthetic planning. These results demonstrate a versatile multi-task framework for knowledge-guided molecular reasoning and design, with the potential to serve as a core task engine for future molecular science agents.