analiza aiqbench
This research introduces SCILAWS-BENCH, a rigorous benchmark designed to evaluate whether large language models can genuinely discover scientific laws rather than merely memorizing existing literature. By testing models against both fixed real-world observations and actively queried parallel worlds, the study addresses critical gaps in current AI-for-science evaluations where synthetic settings or familiar targets may skew results. The findings highlight a divergence between predictive accuracy and actual scientific validity, offering essential insights for researchers assessing the true capabilities of LLMs in hypothesis generation.
Can LLMs Discover Scientific Laws in Real and Parallel Worlds?
arXiv:2609.01552v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Scientific equation discovery has long been central to scientific progress, proceeding through iterative cycles of hypothesis generation, observational testing, and refinement under scientific constraints. As LLM capabilities advance and their role in AI for Science expands, it remains an open problem whether they can genuinely discover scientific laws and how this ability should be evaluated. Existing evaluations, however, often either simplify discovery through synthetic settings or reuse published targets that may already be familiar to LLMs. We therefore introduce SCILAWS-BENCH, a benchmark for scientific law discovery built from published research and real scientific data. It comprises 118 problems drawn from 381 scientific papers, covering 291 candidate laws and roughly 8M real data points across six scientific disciplines. Each problem is instantiated in two complementary settings: (1) SCILAWS-REAL asks models to propose laws from fixed real observations and evaluates held-out predictive fit and scientific validity derived from the source literature, and (2) SCILAWS-PARALLEL asks models to actively query residual-calibrated worlds and recover synthesized hidden laws derived from published forms. This two-setting task design preserves each problem's scientific context while separately evaluating fixed-record law discovery and active recovery of a newly synthesized hidden law. We find that predictive fit can diverge from scientific validity, memorization shapes whether models reproduce or move beyond published formulas, and our best-of-N study reveals a selection bottleneck. Our work provides a paper-grounded benchmark and new empirical perspectives for evaluating AI for scientific discovery. Project page: https://yiyihum.github.io/SciLaws-Bench
Title:Can LLMs Discover Scientific Laws in Real and Parallel Worlds?
Abstract:Scientific equation discovery has long been central to scientific progress, proceeding through iterative cycles of hypothesis generation, observational testing, and refinement under scientific constraints. As LLM capabilities advance and their role in AI for Science expands, it remains an open problem whether they can genuinely discover scientific laws and how this ability should be evaluated. Existing evaluations, however, often either simplify discovery through synthetic settings or reuse published targets that may already be familiar to LLMs. We therefore introduce SCILAWS-BENCH, a benchmark for scientific law discovery built from published research and real scientific data. It comprises 118 problems drawn from 381 scientific papers, covering 291 candidate laws and roughly 8M real data points across six scientific disciplines. Each problem is instantiated in two complementary settings: (1) SCILAWS-REAL asks models to propose laws from fixed real observations and evaluates held-out predictive fit and scientific validity derived from the source literature, and (2) SCILAWS-PARALLEL asks models to actively query residual-calibrated worlds and recover synthesized hidden laws derived from published forms. This two-setting task design preserves each problem's scientific context while separately evaluating fixed-record law discovery and active recovery of a newly synthesized hidden law. We find that predictive fit can diverge from scientific validity, memorization shapes whether models reproduce or move beyond published formulas, and our best-of-N study reveals a selection bottleneck. Our work provides a paper-grounded benchmark and new empirical perspectives for evaluating AI for scientific discovery. Project page: this https URL
42 pages, 16 figures. Project page: this https URL
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2609.01552 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.01552v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.01552 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 357 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
Synthesis Superintelligence: from Semiconductors to Superconductors — Periodic Labs’ Liam Fedus and Ekin Dogus Cubuk
Latent Space · 8 oct. 2026
Humanity’s Last Invention — Richard Socher of Recursive
Latent Space · 14 sept. 2026
Will almost all future companies eventually be founded and run by autonomous AIs?
LessWrong · 22 iul. 2026
Microsoft’s AI chief says superintelligence is near, but won’t take your job
The Verge · 8 iun. 2026