Knowledge before Reasoning: EC-Reason-Bench, a Training-Free Diagnostic Benchmark for LLM Enzyme Classification

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.26397v1
• Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 02:16:09 GMT
• Title: Knowledge before Reasoning: EC-Reason-Bench, a Training-Free Diagnostic Benchmark for LLM Enzyme Classification
• Abstract summary: We propose EC-Reason-Bench, a training-free, diagnostic evaluation protocol built to answer two questions.<n>First, external knowledge is decisive and must precede reasoning.<n>Second, in closed-book settings, whether cascading and chain-of-thought help or hurt depends on a model's tendency to abstain.
• Score: 36.44850004100564
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Enzyme function prediction is a hierarchical, knowledge-intensive form of protein function classification. Existing benchmarks expose an anomaly: general LLMs often get the coarse first level right, yet once asked for a complete EC number their accuracy at levels two through four drops to almost zero, while specialized models and tools stay usable. We propose EC-Reason-Bench, a training-free, diagnostic evaluation protocol built to answer two questions: why general LLMs score close to nothing on EC number prediction, and how much of that loss can be recovered without updating a single weight. We break enzyme classification ability into four orthogonal levers that can each be measured on their own: output structure, external knowledge, reasoning structure, and reasoning robustness. We test each lever with an inference-time method against a shared zero-shot baseline reproducing previously reported near-zero performance. Experiments with several strong reasoning LLMs yield four main findings. First, external knowledge is decisive and must precede reasoning: uniformly low closed-book performance rises sharply with open-book access, narrowing model gaps. Second, in closed-book settings, whether cascading and chain-of-thought help or hurt depends on a model's tendency to abstain. Third, once evidence is available the aggregate score of the best LLM setting is indistinguishable from simply voting the EC numbers of the nearest retrieved neighbors; that tie is an artifact of averaging, and it hides a large gain on adversarial evidence set against an equally large loss on multi-functional enzymes. Reasoning over evidence therefore acts as an arbiter of conflicting neighbors rather than as a source of knowledge, and no single-number leaderboard can see it. Fourth, accuracy obeys a law of homology availability.

Related papers

• NovGauge: A Fine-Grained Benchmark for Diagnosing LLMs' Capability in Paper Novelty Assessment [54.4265627247104]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in peer review at major AI conferences.<n>Existing benchmarks assess novelty as a single holistic score.<n>We present NovGauge, a human-anchored benchmark for fine-grained novelty assessment diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-10T08:34:56Z)
• Zero-Shot Active Feature Acquisition via LLM-Elicitation [33.792645413345845]
  Large language models (LLMs) supply unsupervised domain knowledge, but are poor sequential planners.<n>We develop a framework for zero-shot AFA through disciplined elicitation.<n>We apply our framework to two settings: binary classification and top-$k$ identification.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T11:15:38Z)
• CauTion: Knowing When to Trust LLMs for Ensemble Causal Discovery [51.07538881798502]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising source of domain knowledge to complement statistical inference.<n>We propose CauTion, a framework that reliably integrates LLM domain knowledge into an ensemble of statistical causal discovery algorithms.<n>CauTion consistently outperforms both data-centric and LLM-augmented baselines.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-02T13:07:43Z)
• DECK: A Consistency x Confidence Taxonomy of LLM Hallucinations [0.0]
  Existing hallucination classify errors by what is wrong with the output -- memorised misconceptions, reasoning failures, fluent fabrications.<n>These are useful for diagnosis but cannot answer a different question: which uncertainty scorer would have caught this error?<n>We propose a complementary taxonomy that classifies errors by their detectability signature -- the signal a scorer family would read.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T14:11:11Z)
• A2RBench: An Automatic Paradigm for Formally Verifiable Abstract Reasoning Benchmark Generation [59.98516959731531]
  Abstract reasoning ability reflects intelligence and capacity of LLMs to extract and apply abstract rules.<n>Existing benchmarks either rely on expensive manual annotation, limiting their scale, or risk measuring memorization rather than genuine reasoning.<n>We introduce an automated pipeline named A2RBench, encompassing generation, expansion, evaluation, and analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T06:14:20Z)
• RAudit: A Blind Auditing Protocol for Large Language Model Reasoning [0.8594140167290097]
  Inference-time scaling can amplify reasoning pathologies: sycophancy, rung collapse, and premature certainty.<n>We present RAudit, a diagnostic protocol for auditing LLM reasoning without ground truth access.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T16:22:45Z)
• Realizing LLMs' Causal Potential Requires Science-Grounded, Novel Benchmarks [20.409472830397455]
  Recent claims of strong performance by Large Language Models (LLMs) on causal discovery are undermined by a key flaw: many evaluations rely on benchmarks likely included in pretraining corpora.<n>We challenge this narrative by asking: Do LLMs truly reason about causal structure, and how can we measure it without memorization concerns?<n>We argue that realizing LLMs' potential for causal analysis requires two shifts: (P.1) developing robust evaluation protocols based on recent scientific studies to guard against dataset leakage, and (P.2) designing hybrid methods that combine LLM-derived knowledge with data-driven statistics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T14:58:04Z)
• Retrieving Classes of Causal Orders with Inconsistent Knowledge Bases [0.8192907805418583]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as a promising alternative for extracting causal knowledge from text-based metadata.<n>LLMs tend to be unreliable and prone to hallucinations, necessitating strategies that account for their limitations.<n>We present a new method to derive a class of acyclic tournaments, which represent plausible causal orders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-18T16:37:51Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Cycles of Thought: Measuring LLM Confidence through Stable Explanations [53.15438489398938]
  Large language models (LLMs) can reach and even surpass human-level accuracy on a variety of benchmarks, but their overconfidence in incorrect responses is still a well-documented failure mode. We propose a framework for measuring an LLM's uncertainty with respect to the distribution of generated explanations for an answer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-05T16:35:30Z)
• Making Large Language Models Better Reasoners with Alignment [57.82176656663245]
  Reasoning is a cognitive process of using evidence to reach a sound conclusion. Recent studies reveal that fine-tuning LLMs on data with the chain of thought (COT) reasoning process can significantly enhance their reasoning capabilities. We introduce an textitAlignment Fine-Tuning (AFT) paradigm, which involves three steps.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T11:32:48Z)

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.