TRACES: A Benchmark for Epistemic Reliability in Scientific Reasoning by LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11415v1
• Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 20:30:32 GMT
• Title: TRACES: A Benchmark for Epistemic Reliability in Scientific Reasoning by LLMs
• Abstract summary: Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific, in domains where no downstream verifier exists.<n>We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing.<n>The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists. Such deployment assumes the model can distinguish reliable scientific literature from unreliable literature, a capability that has not yet been directly measured. Existing benchmarks evaluate factuality on questions with known answers; the failure mode we target here is different. We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing. Each probe pairs a preamble extracted near-verbatim from the target paper with a scientifically plausible study-design request. The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment. Two complementary scores measure whether a model rejects the flawed premise outright (IFR-a) and whether it recognizes the unreliability while still engaging (IFR-i). A depth score, the Engagement Depth Index (EDI), quantifies reproduction of paper- or field-specific withheld details. Across 30 models and 10 repeated runs, aggregate IFR-a is 0.93 $\pm$ 0.004 and aggregate IFR-i is 0.809 $\pm$ 0.009. Models engaged with untenable premises in 95% of all non-empty responses. Every evaluated model fails more than 71% of agentic probes, and 22 of 30 models fail more than 90% of the time. Rejections are concentrated on a small number of high-notoriety topics and specific probes, and disappear under matched-structure controls. These results are consistent with topic-keyed safety behavior rather than robust epistemic competence, and indicate an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.

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)
• IdeaAMBIG: Benchmarking Implementation-Critical Gaps in Research-Idea Specifications [52.570108663867046]
  A research idea may be novel, coherent, and scientifically plausible, yet its proposed method may remain insufficiently specified for faithful implementation.<n>We study the codification readiness of implementation-facing research-method specifications, defined by whether they provide sufficient methodological information for a competent implementer or coding agent to construct the intended method without unsupported assumptions.<n>We introduce IdeaAMBIG, a benchmark of 660 evidence-grounded instances: 163 real-world gaps from reports and GitHub issues, and 497 controlled synthetic gaps injected into codification-ready references.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-09T17:59:04Z)
• AgentIdeaBench: Benchmarking Scientific Ideation in the Agent Era [55.37558486468993]
  We introduce AgentIdeaBench, a benchmark that evaluates scientific ideation under two matched settings, static observation and active exploration.<n>We report matched Static-Active evaluations for 33 LLMs across 40 densely scored subfields spanning five disciplines.<n>Active exploration reveals considerably more capability headroom, and that headroom is unevenly distributed across models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-07T15:19:13Z)
• How Do Agents Fail on AutoResearch: End-to-End Diagnostic Evaluation on 100 Real-World Frontier Research Tasks [6.001213285107465]
  AutoResearchEval features 100 tasks grounded in published frontier science across 7 scientific domains.<n> evaluating 8 harness-model combinations yields 800 autoresearch agent trajectories.<n>We leverage a human-calibrated agent-as-a-judge pipeline to inspect complete trajectories and intermediate artifacts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-14T21:39:38Z)
• Plato-Bio: verification-first biological novelty screening with temporal rediscovery and structural benchmarks [0.0]
  We developed Plato-Bio, a biology-routed extension of the open Plato/Denario architecture.<n>Plato-Bio couples explicit workflow states with provenance records, citation checks, claim-to-evidence links, scoped file writes, and publication gates.<n>On the current clean revision, the full Python suite completed with 931 passes, six skips, and no failures or errors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-27T03:55:39Z)
• Before the Action: Benchmarking LLMs on Prospective Hypothesis Discovery [95.44432473367836]
  Large language models (LLMs) excel at answering pre-specified questions, yet their ability to navigate the open-ended, pre-conclusion stage of discovery remains largely unmeasured.<n>We introduce Prospective Hypothesis Discovery (PHD), which asks models to autonomously construct grounded, discnative, and testable hypothesis spaces from inconclusive evidence.<n>We introduce HypoArena, comprising HypoData, a benchmark of 988 cases across six scientific and analytical domains, and HypoEval, an evaluation framework for open-ended hypothesis sets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-07-17T08:56:43Z)
• One Reflection Is Not Enough: Self-Correcting Autonomous Research via Multi-Hypothesis Failure Attribution [85.65263343588026]
  We propose SAGE, a Self-correcting, Autonomous, Grounded Experimenter.<n>Its core mechanism, Multi-Hypothesis Failure Attribution (MHFA), treats recovery as a structured causal diagnosis.<n>On a 12-topic, 5-domain benchmark, SAGE increases metrics-bearing outputs from 42% to 92% over a baseline reflection.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T10:54:16Z)
• SoundnessBench: Can Your AI Scientist Really Tell Good Research Ideas from Bad Ones? [51.154921661608675]
  We introduce SoundnessBench, a curated benchmark of 1,099 machine-learning research proposals reconstructed from ICLR submissions.<n>SoundnessBench should be interpreted as a benchmark for recoverable proposal-stage soundness rather than exact prediction of full-paper review outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T17:57:37Z)
• Can Large Language Models Revolutionize Survey Research? Experiments with Disaster Preparedness Responses [6.004875368104112]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been proposed as a remedy, yet rigorous evaluations across the full survey workflow remain scarce.<n>We present and evaluate a five-stage framework for LLM integration covering questionnaire design, sample selection, pilot testing, missing-data imputation, and post-collection analysis.<n>We introduce a Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)-constrained co-occurrence knowledge graph and develop seven LLM configurations spanning zero-shot inference, retrieval-augmented baselines, and novel theory-informed variants.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-19T00:58:36Z)
• FIRE-Bench: Evaluating Agents on the Rediscovery of Scientific Insights [63.32178443510396]
  We introduce FIRE-Bench (Full-cycle Insight Rediscovery Evaluation), a benchmark that evaluates agents through the rediscovery of established findings.<n>Even the strongest agents achieve limited rediscovery success (50 F1), exhibit high variance across runs, and display recurring failure modes in experimental design, execution, and evidence-based reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-02T23:21:13Z)
• RPC-Bench: A Fine-grained Benchmark for Research Paper Comprehension [65.81339691942757]
  RPC-Bench is a large-scale question-answering benchmark built from review-rebuttal exchanges of high-quality computer science papers.<n>We design a fine-grained taxonomy aligned with the scientific research flow to assess models' ability to understand and answer why, what, and how questions in scholarly contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-14T11:37:00Z)
• PRISMM-Bench: A Benchmark of Peer-Review Grounded Multimodal Inconsistencies [16.537126902822127]
  We introduce PRISMM-Bench, the first benchmark grounded in real reviewer-flagged inconsistencies in scientific papers.<n>We design three tasks, namely inconsistency identification, remedy and pair matching, which assess a model's capacity to detect, correct, and reason over inconsistencies.<n>We benchmark 21 leading LMMs, including large openweight models (GLM-4.5V 106B, InternVL3 78B) and proprietary models (Gemini 2.5 Pro, GPT-5 with high reasoning)
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-18T13:46:26Z)
• Automatic Reviewers Fail to Detect Faulty Reasoning in Research Papers: A New Counterfactual Evaluation Framework [55.078301794183496]
  We focus on a core reviewing skill that underpins high-quality peer review: detecting faulty research logic.<n>This involves evaluating the internal consistency between a paper's results, interpretations, and claims.<n>We present a fully automated counterfactual evaluation framework that isolates and tests this skill under controlled conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-29T08:48:00Z)

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.