Sci‑MMR is a new benchmark for multi‑step evidence‑grounded scientific reasoning in multimodal agents, featuring 235 multi‑hop tasks across four disciplines and an average of nine figure panels per task. It evaluates not just final answer accuracy but also the recovery of structured evidence from scientific claims, citations, visual data, and supporting regions. Experiments on eight state‑of‑the‑art models show a gap of over 20 points between answer accuracy and complete evidence recovery, highlighting significant challenges in evidence acquisition and integration.
By Jiaqiang Li, Yajie Yang, Zhiheng Xi, Jiadong Chen, Enyu Zhou, Senjie Jin, Yang Nan, Jiazheng Zhang, Han Wang, Yanxin Li, Dingwei Zhu, Bicheng Deng, Yuhui Wang, Xiang Zheng, Qi Zhang, Lei Bai, Xingjun Ma, Tao Gui
arXiv:2606. 04579v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While Process Reward Models (PRMs) have achieved remarkable success in mathematical reasoning, their application in complex scientific domains-such as biology, chemistry, and physics remains largely unexplored.
By Xiangyu Zhao, Hengyuan Zhao, Yiheng Wang, Wanghan Xu, Yuhao Zhou, Qinglong Cao, Zhiwang Zhou, Lei Bai, Wenlong Zhang, Xiao-Ming Wu
SCICONVBENCH is a benchmark designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) on multi‑turn clarification tasks in computational science. It focuses on two key abilities: eliciting missing information (disambiguation) and resolving contradictory requests (inconsistency resolution) across four domains—fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, materials science, and partial differential equations. The benchmark pairs a structured task ontology with a rubric‑based evaluation framework, measuring LLM performance in clarification behavior, conversational grounding, and final‑specification fidelity, and reveals that even top models only resolve about 52.7% of disambiguation cases in fluid mechanics while often making ungrounded assumptions.
By Nithin Somasekharan, Youssef Hassan, Shiyao Lin, Gihan Panapitiya, Patrick Emami, Anurag Acharya, Sameera Horawalavithana, Shaowu Pan
arXiv:2608.30214v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Scientific reasoning remains challenging for open-source models, largely due to the lack of high-quality scientific reasoning data. Existing datasets a...
By Yu Li, Wei Li, Xin Gao, Mengyuan Sun, Xiaoyang Wang, Qizhi Pei, Lijun Wu
arXiv:2609.33399v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: 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...
By Jiali Chen, Zhengteng Lin, Zuqi Wang, Shirong Lin, Xi Yu, Xusen Hei, DingBa Fu, Jiayuan Xie, Yi Cai
arXiv:2606.15872v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Frontier scientific reasoning remains a major challenge for large language models (LLMs), where even the strongest commercial systems fall short of...
By Jingru Guo, Xiangyuan Xue, Lian Zhang, Wanghan Xu, Siki Chen, Philip Torr, Wanli Ouyang, Lei Bai, Zhenfei Yin
SciDocBench is a workflow-centered benchmark for scientific document understanding that includes 124 expert-authored questions across seven capability groups and 19 subtasks in five scientific domains. Each question is evaluated under four conditions—English or Chinese, all-images-first or interleaved document representations—resulting in 496 evaluation instances. The benchmark is paired with SciDocIR, a typed evidence-graph representation, and SciDocDataset, a collection of 15K fine-tuning and 8K reinforcement-learning samples, forming an evaluation-to-training framework for scientific-document assistants.
By Shenxi Wu, Yuhong Liu, Haosong Zhang, Tongjin Zou, Yanxun Zhang, Gaochang Chen, Dun Liang, Jiaqi Wang, Zhecan James Wang, Yuhang Zang, Dahua Lin
arXiv:2607. 08093v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly act as integrated data-science agents, combining abstract reasoning with advanced tool use.
By Andrej Leban, Yuekai Sun
arXiv:2606. 05402v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large reasoning models (LRMs) produce reasoning traces with non-linear structures, such as backtracking and self-correction, that complicate the evaluation and monitoring of the reasoning process.
By Jinu Lee, Shivam Agarwal, Amruta Parulekar, Siddarth Madala, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, Julia Hockenmaier
The paper introduces a pipeline that automatically creates ontology‑grounded multiple‑choice question benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on logical reasoning tasks in scientific AI. By using OWL 2 ontologies, correct answers are guaranteed by design and distractors are generated and formally verified as incorrect through an OWL reasoner. Experiments on three ontologies—Pizza, PMDco, and DOID—yielded 112, 2,491, and 15,216 MCQs, respectively, with high natural‑language quality and challenging zero‑shot performance for six LLMs.
By Nishtha N. Vaidya, Stephan Grimm, Thomas Hubauer, Thomas A. Runkler
LiveMathematicianBench is a dynamic multiple‑choice benchmark for research‑level mathematical reasoning, built from recent arXiv papers published after model training cutoffs. It introduces a thirteen‑category logical taxonomy of theorem types and uses a proof‑sketch‑guided distractor pipeline to create plausible but invalid answer choices, enhancing sensitivity to genuine reasoning. Evaluation shows current large language models perform poorly, with the best model scoring 43.5% overall and only 17.6% under substitution‑resistant conditions, indicating the benchmark’s difficulty and realism.
By Linyang He, Qiyao Yu, Hanze Dong, Baohao Liao, Xinxing Xu, Micah Goldblum, Jiang Bian, Nima Mesgarani
arXiv:2510. 12171v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large Language Models have shown strong scientific reasoning ability, but their performance on materials science problems remains less studied.
By Junkai Zhang, Jingru Gan, Xiaoxuan Wang, Zian Jia, Changquan Gu, Jianpeng Chen, Yanqiao Zhu, Mingyu Derek Ma, Dawei Zhou, Ling Li, Wei Wang