← Back to all news
arXiv Machine Learning By Conor Igoe, Gabriel Grand, Zane Koch, Albert Bou, Eli Moss, Michaela M. Hinks, Samuel G. Rodriques, Andrew White, Siddharth Narayanan

Do Language Models Know What Compelling Scientific Evidence Looks Like?

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

The paper introduces EDB-Bio, a benchmark of 96,000 episodes drawn from real biological studies—drug‑perturbation transcriptomics, CRISPR screens, and GWAS—to test whether language models can weigh empirical evidence and predict hypothesis truth. Initial results show that both open‑weight and frontier models are systematically underconfident, matching a trivial base‑rate forecaster in Brier score, but post‑training with proper scoring rules improves calibration and discrimination. In a downstream experiment‑selection task, a calibrated model (Ibis0) outperforms the best frontier model by 2.5×, and Bayes‑factor analysis reveals how models update beliefs, align with expert relevance judgments, and expose biases.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv Machine Learning.

Related stories

arXiv Machine Learning
Sep 22

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

The paper introduces OmicsBench, a new reasoning benchmark for multi‑omics sequences that includes 1,160 expert‑validated questions across DNA regulation, RNA processing, and protein function tasks, requiring traceable evidence chains. Evaluation of 17 large language models shows that scientific LLMs, while more accurate in classification, often lack valid evidence, suggesting shortcut learning. To address this, the authors propose tool‑augmented on‑policy distillation (TA‑OPD), a post‑training method that improves both evidence grounding and predictive performance across five Qwen3.5 models of varying sizes.

By Jie Ying, Zhefan Wang, Zihong Chen, Zhengqing Li, Jinzhe Li, Gang Li, Jian Liu, Fang Hu, Tao Luo, Zhonghang Yuan, Wanli Ouyang, Stan Z. Li, Fan Yang, Nanqing Dong
llmsfine-tuningefficiencybenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 2

OncoReason: Structuring Clinical Reasoning in LLMs for Robust and Interpretable Survival Prediction

arXiv:2510. 17532v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Predicting cancer treatment outcomes requires models that are both accurate and interpretable, particularly in the presence of heterogeneous clinical data.

By Raghu Vamshi Hemadri, Geetha Krishna Guruju, Kristi Topollai, Anna Ewa Choromanska
llmsnlpreinforcement-learningfine-tuningbenchmarkssafety
More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 3

When Do Biological Reasoning Models Use Their Biological Inputs?

The study evaluates whether biological reasoning models actually use their biological inputs by testing six models on DNA, protein, and single‑cell tasks. By perturbing one biological input while keeping others fixed, the authors find that many models (e.g., Evo2, ESM3, BioReason, BioReason‑Pro) rely primarily on textual information, with minimal impact from the biological representations. In contrast, models like ChatNT, Prot2Text‑V2, CellWhisperer, and Cell2Sentence‑Scale show greater dependence on their biological inputs, yet overall accuracy gains do not consistently reflect increased biological input contribution.

By Ada Fang, Nikitha Thoduguli, Lukas Fesser, Hanlin Zhang, Sham M. Kakade, Marinka Zitnik
llmsreinforcement-learningfine-tuningbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
6d ago

Learning Scientific Trajectories to Predict Future Biomedical Discoveries

ForeSCITE is a framework that uses large language models to analyze temporal patterns in biomedical conclusions. It clusters published conclusions, estimates a direction that separates earlier from more recent findings within each cluster, and projects conclusion embeddings along these directions. The projected coordinates are decoded into natural‑language hypotheses, and retrospective evaluations show that ForeSCITE expands semantic coverage, introduces novel biomedical entity pairs, and identifies plausible CAR‑T hypotheses that experts deem biologically relevant.

By Chia-Hsuan Chang, Brian Ondov, Jiang Lv, Lan Jiang, Yunmai Wang, Haerin Song, Xueqing Peng, Qiaozhu Mei, Xiaolei Su, Hua Xu
llmsrag
More like this →