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:2606. 01042v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Perturbation experiments are central to understanding cellular mechanisms, but remain costly and sparse, motivating prediction of gene expression responses for unobserved conditions.
By Xinyu Yuan, Xixian Liu, Jianan Zhao, Yashi Zhang, Hongyu Guo, Jian Tang
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.
By Conor Igoe, Gabriel Grand, Zane Koch, Albert Bou, Eli Moss, Michaela M. Hinks, Samuel G. Rodriques, Andrew White, Siddharth Narayanan
arXiv:2608. 05982v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Inadequate target--disease linkage accounts for 40--50\% of Phase~II efficacy failures, so anticipating which programmes will advance would let sponsors back the hypotheses most likely to reach patients.
By Pui Chung Siu, Claudia Cabrera, Mani Mudaliar, Arkaitz Zubiaga
Hakken is a domain‑agnostic system that predicts and explains future scientific discoveries by combining transformer‑based models trained on temporal knowledge graphs with large language model semantic knowledge. It identifies novel relationships between scientific concepts that extend beyond the deductive hull of existing knowledge and provides explanations to help scientists assess these predictions. In the biomedical domain, Hakken set a new benchmark for time‑aware multi‑label relation prediction, generated 1.5 million high‑confidence hypotheses about aging, and experimentally confirmed two predictions that revealed previously undocumented interactions relevant to drug discovery.
By Tarek R. Besold, Uchenna Akujuobi, Pablo Sanchez, Alessandra Toniato, Kana Maruyama, Jihun Choi, Samy Badreddine, Frederick Gifford, Daniel Evans-Yamamoto, Sucheendra K. Palaniappan, Miquel Ferrer, Kae Nagano, Iris Rossell, Tom Joy, Hatem ElShazly, Chrysa Iliopoulou, Christoph Wehner, Thiviyan Thanapalasingam, Susana Nunes, Pedro G. Cotovio, Peter Wurman, Peter Stone, Hiroaki Kitano, Michael Spranger
The paper introduces BAR, a Budget‑Aware LLM Reasoning framework that enhances post‑discharge risk prediction by integrating external medical knowledge graphs (KGs). BAR refines KGs into disease‑specific evidence graphs with support scores and provenance, then uses an LLM to plan, navigate, and verify evidence within a patient‑specific budget. Experiments on MIMIC‑III and MIMIC‑IV across eight diseases show BAR improves AUPRC by 3.4 points, raises citation precision from 59.8% to 77.9%, and uses only 62‑65% of the allotted budget.
By Chen Chen, Dongjie Wang, Mei Liu, Zijun Yao