Papers for
materials informatics engineers
Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.
Ontology-grounded benchmarks measure large language model reasoning
Ontology-Grounded, Reasoner-Verified Benchmarks for Evaluating LLM Reasoning in Scientific AI
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly underpin scientific AI applications that reason over structured knowledge, from biomedical question answering to materials informatics. However, their logical reasoning often falls short, producing factual inaccuracies unacceptable in these settings. Reliable evaluation remains challenging: manual dataset construction scales poorly, and LLM-based generation risks embedding the very flaws it aims to measure. High-quality benchmarks must ground both correct and incorrect labelled examples in explicit background knowledge, formally verifiable by a standard reasoner. We propose a pipeline that automatically generates ontology-grounded multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks from any sufficiently axiomatised OWL 2 ontology, with correct answers grounded in the ontology by design. Distractors are generated by perturbing the right-hand-side class expressions of class definition axioms, and their incorrectness is formally verified by an OWL reasoner via entailment checks. We evaluate the pipeline on three ontologies: Pizza (small, academic), PMDco (complex, materials science), and DOID (large, biomedical), generating 112, 2,491, and 15,216 MCQs respectively. Distractors span four semantic categories from class unsatisfiability to weakened subsumptions, enabling diagnostic evaluation of specific reasoning failures. Items meet natural language quality standards: mean LLM judge scores of 4.02, 4.36, and 3.36 out of 5 confirm fluency, and correct-answer-to-distractor similarity above 0.8 shows that wrong options cannot be dismissed on surface form alone. Six LLMs evaluated zero-shot achieve 41.1-76.8% accuracy, well above the 25% random-guessing baseline, indicating the benchmarks are challenging and discriminative. This work is a step towards more reliable benchmarks for assessing logical reasoning in scientific AI.
Materials language models often repeat facts without true reasoning
CARAT: Do Materials LLMs Reason or Recite?
Abstract: When a materials LLM answers a question about crystal structure, does it reason from the structure or copy an answer already printed in its input? Accuracy cannot tell: a structural description often prints the very field it is scored against. CARAT holds question and gold answer fixed across eight matched views, names each structural relation separately in GraphSpace, and adds matched fine-tuning, answer masking, evidence injection, paired inference, and a rule that can withhold claims. First, on the benchmark's hardest families the grounded view is worth 17.3 points over formula inputs. Second, we turn that scrutiny on ourselves. GraphSpace beats a plain periodic graph by 19.3 points, but that margin is two effects at once: where the plain rendering carries everything the question needs it is 1.96 points, and where it omits those fields entirely, 46.7 points. The headline mostly measures what the baseline lacked, not how evidence is presented. Third, we attack our own benchmark. A rule that skips the link and reads the list directly answers four of seven hardened families, so we rebuilt it until eleven such shortcuts sat near chance. The frozen model quotes that link yet answers the same when we redirect it, on 95.6% of paired cases: it repeats the relation without using it. After matched supervision it reaches 99.8%, and deleting the link drops it to 23.4%, below the 27.0% the best shortcut reaches: both steps are learnable.