Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.41015

Do Language Models Know What Compelling Scientific Evidence Looks Like?

Conor Igoe·Gabriel Grand·Zane Koch·Albert Bou·Eli Moss·Michaela M. Hinks·Samuel G. Rodriques·Andrew White·Siddharth Narayanan
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Expert scientists excel at weighing empirical findings from multiple sources that vary in both statistical reliability and epistemic relevance. To what extent are language models, which are increasingly driving autonomous discovery systems, capable of such evidence deliberation? We introduce EDB-Bio, a scientific reasoning benchmark curated from real-world data in three biological domains: drug-perturbation transcriptomics, CRISPR screens, and human genome-wide association studies (GWAS). Each of EDB-Bio's 96k episodes presents a sequence of experimental results from published studies and asks the model to predict the probability that a target hypothesis is true. Out-of-the-box, open-weight and frontier models alike demonstrate systematic underconfidence and attain Brier scores comparable to a trivial base-rate forecaster. Post-training against strictly proper scoring rules significantly improves both calibration and discrimination. This calibration pays off downstream: in a sequential experiment selection task, our Ibis0 model is 2.5 times more efficient than the best frontier model. Throughout, quantifying evidence weights as Bayes factors reveals how models update their beliefs over time, whether they agree with expert biologists on relevance, and where they exhibit inconsistencies and biases. Our work extends calibration training and uncertainty analysis to a realistic scientific forecasting setting with applications to human cancer biology. We release all code, data, and trained models.

Explore related subjects

cs.LGcs.AIcs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Conor Igoe, Gabriel Grand, Zane Koch, Albert Bou, Eli Moss, Michaela M. Hinks, Samuel G. Rodriques, Andrew White, Siddharth Narayanan. 2026-10-29. Do Language Models Know What Compelling Scientific Evidence Looks Like?. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.41015

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Subspace Node Pruning

Node pruning is the art of removing computational units such as neurons, filters, attention heads, or even entire layers to significantly reduce inference time while retaining network performance. In this work, we show that a broad family of importance measures, from activation-based to Fisher-based, share a common quadratic form. Through a lower-triangular change of basis, this form yields a pruning subspace in which entire nodes can be removed while the impact of the lost units is simultaneously recovered via linear least squares. Furthermore, the importance measures within our subspace are decoupled and additive through an orthogonalization of the layer activations, allowing multi-node pruning within layers without interference between importance scores. Our method, Subspace Node Pruning (SNP), outperforms the compared baselines on VGG-16 and ResNet-50 on ImageNet. On OPT-125M and LLaMA-2 7B, SNP matches the state-of-the-art LLM Surgeon at a 40-shot schedule and outperforms it whenever fewer shots are used, all without any retraining after pruning.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

On the growth of the parameters of approximating ReLU neural networks

This work focuses on the analysis of fully connected feed forward ReLU neural networks as they approximate a given, smooth function. In contrast to conventionally studied universal approximation properties under increasing architectures, e.g., in terms of width or depth of the networks, we are concerned with the asymptotic growth of the parameters of approximating networks. Such results are of interest, e.g., for error analysis or consistency results for neural network training. The main result of our work is that, for a ReLU architecture with state of the art approximation error, the realizing parameters grow at most polynomially. The obtained rate with respect to a normalized network size is compared to existing results and is shown to be superior in most cases, in particular for high dimensional input.

cs.LG↗
arXiv2026

Correlations Are Ruining Your Gradient Descent

Natural gradient descent, and the preconditioned optimizers which have followed from it, correct gradient descent by estimating curvature and applying its inverse to the gradient. For any single layer of a deep neural network, this correction can be shown to approximately separate into two factors: one which accounts for correlations in the gradient signal, and one which accounts for correlations in the data arriving at that layer. Herein we show that this second factor can be expressed as a change of basis rather than of curvature and, considered thus, it can be removed from the optimizer entirely and placed within the network itself. Specifically, we show that, once forward weights are corrected, right-sided natural gradient descent can be implemented in a form which has three exactly equivalent forms: a gradient preconditioner, a decorrelating linear transform in the forward pass, or a set of recurrent dynamics in which all updates are Hebbian and rely only upon locally available signals. The (recurrent) decorrelation method we discover aligns closely with proposed methods for inhibitory learning and homeostatic plasticity in the brain. Notably, our transform requires no matrix inverse, no matrix decomposition, and no information beyond that which is available at an individual synapse. It can therefore be applied in distributed and physically constrained systems, including neuromorphic hardware and nervous systems, where existing preconditioners cannot. We demonstrate its effectiveness empirically in convolutional and residual network models while significantly improving a range of approximate biologically plausible methods for credit assignment.

cs.LG↗