Yufeng Du

Minyang Tian, Luyu Gao, Shizhuo Dylan Zhang et al. · princeton, uw

Since language models (LMs) now outperform average humans on many challenging tasks, it has become increasingly difficult to develop challenging, high-quality, and realistic evaluations. We address this issue by examining LMs' capabilities to generate code for solving real scientific research problems. Incorporating input from scientists and AI researchers in 16 diverse natural science sub-fields, including mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and materials science, we created a scientist-curated coding benchmark, SciCode. The problems in SciCode naturally factorize into multiple subproblems, each involving knowledge recall, reasoning, and code synthesis. In total, SciCode contains 338 subproblems decomposed from 80 challenging main problems. It offers optional descriptions specifying useful scientific background information and scientist-annotated gold-standard solutions and test cases for evaluation. Claude3.5-Sonnet, the best-performing model among those tested, can solve only 4.6% of the problems in the most realistic setting. We believe that SciCode demonstrates both contemporary LMs' progress towards becoming helpful scientific assistants and sheds light on the development and evaluation of scientific AI in the future.

Yufeng Du, Minyang Tian, Srikanth Ronanki et al.

Large language models (LLMs) often fail to scale their performance on long-context tasks performance in line with the context lengths they support. This gap is commonly attributed to retrieval failures -- the models' inability to identify relevant information in the long inputs. Accordingly, recent efforts often focus on evaluating and improving LLMs' retrieval performance: if retrieval is perfect, a model should, in principle, perform just as well on a long input as it does on a short one -- or should it? This paper presents findings that the answer to this question may be negative. Our systematic experiments across 5 open- and closed-source LLMs on math, question answering, and coding tasks reveal that, even when models can perfectly retrieve all relevant information, their performance still degrades substantially (13.9%--85%) as input length increases but remains well within the models' claimed lengths. This failure occurs even when the irrelevant tokens are replaced with minimally distracting whitespace, and, more surprisingly, when they are all masked and the models are forced to attend only to the relevant tokens. A similar performance drop is observed when all relevant evidence is placed immediately before the question. Our findings reveal a previously-unrealized limitation: the sheer length of the input alone can hurt LLM performance, independent of retrieval quality and without any distraction. They motivate our simple, model-agnostic mitigation strategy that transforms a long-context task into a short-context one by prompting the model to recite the retrieved evidence before attempting to solve the problem. On RULER, we observe a consistent improvement of GPT-4o up to 4% on an already strong baseline.

Minhui Zhu, Minyang Tian, Xiaocheng Yang et al.

While large language models (LLMs) with reasoning capabilities are progressing rapidly on high-school math competitions and coding, can they reason effectively through complex, open-ended challenges found in frontier physics research? And crucially, what kinds of reasoning tasks do physicists want LLMs to assist with? To address these questions, we present the CritPt (Complex Research using Integrated Thinking - Physics Test, pronounced "critical point"), the first benchmark designed to test LLMs on unpublished, research-level reasoning tasks that broadly covers modern physics research areas, including condensed matter, quantum physics, atomic, molecular & optical physics, astrophysics, high energy physics, mathematical physics, statistical physics, nuclear physics, nonlinear dynamics, fluid dynamics and biophysics. CritPt consists of 71 composite research challenges designed to simulate full-scale research projects at the entry level, which are also decomposed to 190 simpler checkpoint tasks for more fine-grained insights. All problems are newly created by 50+ active physics researchers based on their own research. Every problem is hand-curated to admit a guess-resistant and machine-verifiable answer and is evaluated by an automated grading pipeline heavily customized for advanced physics-specific output formats. We find that while current state-of-the-art LLMs show early promise on isolated checkpoints, they remain far from being able to reliably solve full research-scale challenges: the best average accuracy among base models is only 5.7%, achieved by GPT-5 (high), moderately rising to around 10% when equipped with coding tools. Through the realistic yet standardized evaluation offered by CritPt, we highlight a large disconnect between current model capabilities and realistic physics research demands, offering a foundation to guide the development of scientifically grounded AI tools.