analiza aiqbench
This study challenges the assumption that benchmark accuracy in biological reasoning models proves effective integration of biological foundation models, revealing that many such systems rely predominantly on textual inputs rather than genuine biological data. The findings indicate that current post-training strategies often fail to ensure that specialized representations like Evo2 or ESM3 meaningfully contribute to final task performance, highlighting a gap between claimed capabilities and actual model behavior.
When Do Biological Reasoning Models Use Their Biological Inputs?
arXiv:2610.00898v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Biological reasoning models use post-training to connect LLMs to biological foundation model representations and biological text. Their benchmark accuracy is taken as evidence that LLMs reason over these inputs. We test this assumption in six biological reasoning models across DNA, protein, and single-cell tasks. We perturb one biological input while holding the query and other inputs fixed, construct evidence conflicts that pair the foundation model representation of one genome, protein, or cell with the text of another, fit linear probes to the representations the language model receives, and analyze reasoning traces against the biological inputs. Evo2 and ESM3 contribute little to BioReason and BioReason-Pro performance on the evaluated tasks. Shuffling the DNA sequence barely changes BioReason disease prediction accuracy, and in evidence conflicts the two models follow the text in 97.9% and 99.7% of cases. Linear probes trained on the Evo2 and ESM3 representations predict the task targets, so these foundation models encode information relevant to the task, but provide limited overall performance improvement to BioReason and BioReason-Pro. In contrast, foundation model inputs contribute to ChatNT, Prot2Text-V2, and CellWhisperer performance, and differentially expressed genes in the gene sentence contribute to Cell2Sentence-Scale performance. Across SFT and RL checkpoints of BioReason-Pro and 42 BioReason checkpoints, increases in accuracy do not imply greater performance contributions from biological inputs. BioReason traces misstate nucleotide changes, while BioReason-Pro traces describe functions omitted from final predictions under evidence conflicts. We find that current post-training strategies do not ensure that foundation model representations contribute to task performance.
Title:When Do Biological Reasoning Models Use Their Biological Inputs?
Abstract:Biological reasoning models use post-training to connect LLMs to biological foundation model representations and biological text. Their benchmark accuracy is taken as evidence that LLMs reason over these inputs. We test this assumption in six biological reasoning models across DNA, protein, and single-cell tasks. We perturb one biological input while holding the query and other inputs fixed, construct evidence conflicts that pair the foundation model representation of one genome, protein, or cell with the text of another, fit linear probes to the representations the language model receives, and analyze reasoning traces against the biological inputs. Evo2 and ESM3 contribute little to BioReason and BioReason-Pro performance on the evaluated tasks. Shuffling the DNA sequence barely changes BioReason disease prediction accuracy, and in evidence conflicts the two models follow the text in 97.9% and 99.7% of cases. Linear probes trained on the Evo2 and ESM3 representations predict the task targets, so these foundation models encode information relevant to the task, but provide limited overall performance improvement to BioReason and BioReason-Pro. In contrast, foundation model inputs contribute to ChatNT, Prot2Text-V2, and CellWhisperer performance, and differentially expressed genes in the gene sentence contribute to Cell2Sentence-Scale performance. Across SFT and RL checkpoints of BioReason-Pro and 42 BioReason checkpoints, increases in accuracy do not imply greater performance contributions from biological inputs. BioReason traces misstate nucleotide changes, while BioReason-Pro traces describe functions omitted from final predictions under evidence conflicts. We find that current post-training strategies do not ensure that foundation model representations contribute to task performance.
Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2610.00898 [cs.LG]
(or arXiv:2610.00898v1 [cs.LG] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.00898 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 · 352 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

[AINews] Reality Checks on AI News (Yegge shuts down Gas Town, Databricks’ +60% Astra cost)
Latent Space · 17 sept. 2026

[AINews] DeepSeek v4.1-Flash: 763B-P8B-D16B novel causal Encoder–Decoder architecture with vision marks the Return of the Whale
Latent Space · 12 sept. 2026

[AINews] The Future of Latent Space
Latent Space · 25 sept. 2026

[AINews] Opus 5.5 is good at explainer videos
Latent Space · 29 sept. 2026