Ian T. Foster

Brian Hsu, Ozan Gökdemir, Carlo Siebenschuh et al.

Despite the large corpus of biology training text, the impact of reasoning models on biological research generally lags behind math and coding. In this work, we show that biology questions from current large-scale reasoning datasets do not align well with modern research topic distributions in biology, and that this topic imbalance may negatively affect performance. In addition, we find that methods for extracting challenging and verifiable research problems from biology research text are a critical yet underdeveloped ingredient in applying reinforcement learning for better performance on biology research tasks. We introduce BioAlchemy, a pipeline for sourcing a diverse set of verifiable question-and-answer pairs from a scientific corpus of biology research text. We curate BioAlchemy-345K, a training dataset containing over 345K scientific reasoning problems in biology. Then, we demonstrate how aligning our dataset to the topic distribution of modern scientific biology can be used with reinforcement learning to improve reasoning performance. Finally, we present BioAlchemist-8B, which improves over its base reasoning model by 9.12% on biology benchmarks. These results demonstrate the efficacy of our approach for developing stronger scientific reasoning capabilities in biology. The BioAlchemist-8B model is available at: https://huggingface.co/BioAlchemy.

Chih-Hsuan Yang, Jingyan Jiang, Vikram Vasudevan et al.

Many math- and science-oriented agent systems use hierarchical designs with specialized reviewer roles, assuming that a dedicated review stage should help turn wrong candidates into correct ones. We test this assumption on 4,181 verifier-grounded Omni-MATH problems using matched gpt-oss-120b actors. Collaboration adds little on the easiest tiers, but from tier 4 onward the gains open sharply; in this harder regime, broadcast-style peer discussion reaches higher final accuracy than a planner-executor-reviewer pipeline (PER). We ask whether this gap is explained by reviewer quality or by whether critique changes the next answer the protocol carries forward. It is not explained by reviewer precision alone: PER's reviewer is more precise than broadcast's (0.861 vs. 0.644), yet evaluator-verified useful critique is much less likely to change the next candidate and produces lower reviewer-guided repair. These results show that reviewer detection quality and critique uptake are empirically separable. Within matched PER interventions, forcing explicit acknowledgment lowers final accuracy, while embedding reviewer guidance directly in the solver's working context partially improves follow-through without closing the gap. Overall, reviewer-centric evaluation can overstate system quality: a protocol may spot errors well yet still fail to solve more problems if it does not act on those critiques.