Hugging Face Trending Papers

How Post-Training Shapes Biological Reasoning Models

Read the original on Hugging Face Trending Papers →

Scientific reasoning models for biology combine language models with foundation models trained on multimodal biological data, including DNA, RNA, and proteins. These models are built through post-training, yet how each stage shapes reasoning and generalization remains poorly understood.

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 Hugging Face Trending Papers.

arXiv Machine Learning
1d ago

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
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
arXiv AI
Aug 18

PertMind: Eliciting Emergent Biological Reasoning in LLM via Reinforcement Learning on Cellular Perturbation Data

arXiv:2608. 16419v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models can describe mechanisms, yet scalable post-training still depends on costly, manually curated biological reasoning traces.

By Zhenchao Tang, Xiaogang Xu, Tianxu Lv, Jiahui Guan, Jiale Zhou, Haohuai He, Zhi Song, Hanbo Huang, Jiehui Huang, Jiafei Wu, Zhe Liu
arXiv AI
Jul 31

Probing the Origins of Reasoning Performance: Representational Quality for Mathematical Problem-Solving in RL vs. SFT Fine-Tuned Models

arXiv:2607. 26119v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large reasoning models trained via reinforcement learning (RL) have been increasingly shown to outperform their supervised fine-tuned (SFT) counterparts on mathematical reasoning tasks; Yet the mechanistic basis for this advantage remains unclear.

By Antyabha Rahman, Akshaj Gurugubelli, Omar Ankit, Kevin Zhu, Aishwarya Balwani