Understanding LLM Scientific Reasoning through Promptings and Model's Explanation on the Answers

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.01482v2
• Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 15:43:40 GMT
• Title: Understanding LLM Scientific Reasoning through Promptings and Model's Explanation on the Answers
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding, reasoning, and problem-solving.<n>This paper examines the reasoning capabilities of contemporary LLMs, analyzing their strengths, limitations, and potential for improvement.
• Score: 8.936182649298766
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding, reasoning, and problem-solving across various domains. However, their ability to perform complex, multi-step reasoning task-essential for applications in science, medicine, and law-remains an area of active investigation. This paper examines the reasoning capabilities of contemporary LLMs, analyzing their strengths, limitations, and potential for improvement. The study uses prompt engineering techniques on the Graduate-Level GoogleProof Q&A (GPQA) dataset to assess the scientific reasoning of GPT-4o. Five popular prompt engineering techniques and two tailored promptings were tested: baseline direct answer (zero-shot), chain-of-thought (CoT), zero-shot CoT, self-ask, self-consistency, decomposition, and multipath promptings. Our findings indicate that while LLMs exhibit emergent reasoning abilities, they often rely on pattern recognition rather than true logical inference, leading to inconsistencies in complex problem-solving. The results indicated that self-consistency outperformed the other prompt engineering technique with an accuracy of 52.99%, followed by direct answer (52.23%). Zero-shot CoT (50%) outperformed multipath (48.44%), decomposition (47.77%), self-ask (46.88%), and CoT (43.75%). Self-consistency performed the second worst in explaining the answers. Simple techniques such as direct answer, CoT, and zero-shot CoT have the best scientific reasoning. We propose a research agenda aimed at bridging these gaps by integrating structured reasoning frameworks, hybrid AI approaches, and human-in-the-loop methodologies. By critically evaluating the reasoning mechanisms of LLMs, this paper contributes to the ongoing discourse on the future of artificial general intelligence and the development of more robust, trustworthy AI systems.

Related papers

• Thinking Fast, Thinking Wrong: Intuitiveness Modulates LLM Counterfactual Reasoning in Policy Evaluation [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for causal and counterfactual reasoning, yet their reliability in real-world policy evaluation remains underexplored.<n>We construct a benchmark of 40 empirical policy evaluation cases drawn from economics and social science.<n>We analyze the results using mixed-effects logistic regression.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-12T08:00:38Z)
• Cognitive Foundations for Reasoning and Their Manifestation in LLMs [63.12951576410617]
  Large language models (LLMs) solve complex problems yet fail on simpler variants, suggesting they achieve correct outputs through mechanisms fundamentally different from human reasoning.<n>We synthesize cognitive science research into a taxonomy of 28 cognitive elements spanning reasoning invariants, meta-cognitive controls, representations for organizing reasoning & knowledge, and transformation operations.<n>We develop test-time reasoning guidance that automatically scaffold successful structures, improving performance by up to 66.7% on complex problems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-20T18:59:00Z)
• ELAIPBench: A Benchmark for Expert-Level Artificial Intelligence Paper Understanding [49.67493845115009]
  ELAIPBench is a benchmark curated by domain experts to evaluate large language models' comprehension of AI research papers.<n>It spans three difficulty levels and emphasizes non-trivial reasoning rather than shallow retrieval.<n>Experiments show that the best-performing LLM achieves an accuracy of only 39.95%, far below human performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-12T11:11:20Z)
• AInstein: Assessing the Feasibility of AI-Generated Approaches to Research Problems [28.38783951577184]
  AInstein is a framework for testing whether large language models can generate valid solutions to AI research problems.<n>We evaluate AInstein on 1,214 ICLR papers stratified by acceptance tier.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-06T22:50:41Z)
• Thinking About Thinking: SAGE-nano's Inverse Reasoning for Self-Aware Language Models [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities at solving complex reasoning tasks with Chain-of-Thought prompting.<n>We introduce textbfinverse reasoning, a novel paradigm enabling LLMs to decompose and explain their own reasoning chains post-hoc.<n>Our work creates new avenues for transparent AI systems and closes significant gaps in AI safety, education, and scientific discovery.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-30T09:53:41Z)
• Truly Assessing Fluid Intelligence of Large Language Models through Dynamic Reasoning Evaluation [75.26829371493189]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capacities that mirror human-like thinking.<n>Existing reasoning benchmarks either focus on domain-specific knowledge (crystallized intelligence) or lack interpretability.<n>We propose DRE-Bench, a dynamic reasoning evaluation benchmark grounded in a hierarchical cognitive framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T09:01:08Z)
• Revisiting Overthinking in Long Chain-of-Thought from the Perspective of Self-Doubt [74.35891434097053]
  Reasoning Large Language Models (RLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks.<n>They often exhibit overthinking -- performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after arriving at the correct answer.<n>We present a quantitative analysis of overthinking from the perspective of self-doubt.<n>We introduce a simple and effective prompting method to reduce the model's over-reliance on input questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T14:30:02Z)
• Why Does Your CoT Prompt (Not) Work? Theoretical Analysis of Prompt Space Complexity, its Interaction with Answer Space During CoT Reasoning with LLMs: A Recurrent Perspective [15.941209553757274]
  Chain-of-Thought (CoT) prompting has emerged as a practical solution to the limitations of Large Language Models (LLMs)<n>This paper provides a rigorous theoretical analysis of the complexity and interplay between two crucial spaces: the prompt space and the answer space.<n>We show that sometimes human supervision is critical for efficiently navigating the prompt space.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T06:11:10Z)
• Recursive Decomposition of Logical Thoughts: Framework for Superior Reasoning and Knowledge Propagation in Large Language Models [1.4956870931936515]
  We introduce RDoLT, a novel framework that significantly boosts Large Language Models reasoning performance.<n>RDoLT is built on three key innovations: (1) breaking down complex reasoning tasks into sub-tasks of progressive complexity; (2) employing an advanced selection and scoring mechanism to identify the most promising reasoning thoughts; and (3) integrating a knowledge propagation module that mimics human learning.<n>Our approach was evaluated across multiple benchmarks, including GSM8K, SVAMP, MultiArithm, LastLetterConcatenation, and Gaokao2023 Math.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-03T02:55:44Z)
• Make LLMs better zero-shot reasoners: Structure-orientated autonomous reasoning [52.83539473110143]
  We introduce a novel structure-oriented analysis method to help Large Language Models (LLMs) better understand a question. To further improve the reliability in complex question-answering tasks, we propose a multi-agent reasoning system, Structure-oriented Autonomous Reasoning Agents (SARA) Extensive experiments verify the effectiveness of the proposed reasoning system. Surprisingly, in some cases, the system even surpasses few-shot methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-18T05:30:33Z)
• Direct Evaluation of Chain-of-Thought in Multi-hop Reasoning with Knowledge Graphs [52.42505579545893]
  Large language models (LLMs) demonstrate strong reasoning abilities when prompted to generate chain-of-thought explanations alongside answers. We propose a novel discriminative and generative CoT evaluation paradigm to assess LLMs' knowledge of reasoning and the accuracy of the generated CoT.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T05:22:56Z)
• Large Language Models as an Indirect Reasoner: Contrapositive and Contradiction for Automated Reasoning [74.90592233107712]
  We propose a Direct-Indirect Reasoning (DIR) method, which considers Direct Reasoning (DR) and Indirect Reasoning (IR) as multiple parallel reasoning paths that are merged to derive the final answer.<n>Our DIR method is simple yet effective and can be straightforwardly integrated with existing variants of CoT methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T03:41:12Z)
• Self-Discover: Large Language Models Self-Compose Reasoning Structures [136.48389510481758]
  We introduce SELF-DISCOVER, a framework for self-discovering task-intrinsic reasoning structures. SELF-DISCOVER substantially improves GPT-4 and PaLM 2's performance on challenging reasoning benchmarks. We show that the self-discovered reasoning structures are universally applicable across model families.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-06T01:13:53Z)
• Have LLMs Advanced Enough? A Challenging Problem Solving Benchmark For Large Language Models [23.344490944210456]
  We present 515Bench, a more challenging benchmark dataset for evaluating the problem solving abilities of large language models (LLMs) We curate challenging pre-engineering mathematics, physics and chemistry problems from the highly competitive IIT-Advanced exam. Our evaluation on various open-source and proprietary models reveals that the highest performance, even after using techniques like self-consistency, self-refinement and chain-of-thought prompting, is less than 40%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-24T11:55:59Z)
• T-SciQ: Teaching Multimodal Chain-of-Thought Reasoning via Mixed Large Language Model Signals for Science Question Answering [59.63860993280275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. We propose a novel method termed T-SciQ that aims at teaching science question answering with LLM signals. Our approach achieves a new state-of-the-art performance on the ScienceQA benchmark, with an accuracy of 96.18%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-05T11:56:30Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.