Probing Scientific General Intelligence of LLMs with Scientist-Aligned Workflows

Despite advances in scientific AI, a coherent framework for Scientific General Intelligence (SGI)-the ability to autonomously conceive, investigate, and reason across scientific domains-remains lacking. We present an operational SGI definition grounded in the Practical Inquiry Model (PIM: Deliberation, Conception, Action, Perception) and operationalize it via four scientist-aligned tasks: deep research, idea generation, dry/wet experiments, and experimental reasoning. SGI-Bench comprises over 1,000 expert-curated, cross-disciplinary samples inspired by Science's 125 Big Questions, enabling systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art LLMs. Results reveal gaps: low exact match (10--20%) in deep research despite step-level alignment; ideas lacking feasibility and detail; high code executability but low execution result accuracy in dry experiments; low sequence fidelity in wet protocols; and persistent multimodal comparative-reasoning challenges. We further introduce Test-Time Reinforcement Learning (TTRL), which optimizes retrieval-augmented novelty rewards at inference, enhancing hypothesis novelty without reference answer. Together, our PIM-grounded definition, workflow-centric benchmark, and empirical insights establish a foundation for AI systems that genuinely participate in scientific discovery.

The Geometry of Self-Verification in a Task-Specific Reasoning Model

How do reasoning models verify their own answers? We study this question by training a model using DeepSeek R1's recipe on the CountDown task. We leverage the fact that preference tuning leads to mode collapse, resulting in a model that always produces highly structured and easily parse-able chain-of-thought sequences. With this setup, we do a top-down and bottom-up analysis to reverse-engineer how the model verifies its outputs. Our top-down analysis reveals Gated Linear Unit (GLU) weights encoding verification-related tokens, such as ``success'' or ``incorrect'', which activate according to the correctness of the model's reasoning steps. Our bottom-up analysis reveals that ``previous-token heads'' are mainly responsible for model verification. Our analyses meet in the middle: drawing inspiration from inter-layer communication channels, we use the identified GLU vectors to localize as few as three attention heads that can disable model verification, pointing to a necessary component of a potentially larger verification circuit.