PreprintCited by 5Topic ModelingMultimodal Machine Learning ApplicationsArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

SciAgent: Tool-augmented Language Models for Scientific Reasoning

Open access

Abstract

Scientific reasoning poses an excessive challenge for even the most advanced Large Language Models (LLMs). To make this task more practical and solvable for LLMs, we introduce a new task setting named tool-augmented scientific reasoning. This setting supplements LLMs with scalable toolsets, and shifts the focus from pursuing an omniscient problem solver to a proficient tool-user. To facilitate the research of such setting, we construct a tool-augmented training corpus named MathFunc which encompasses over 30,000 samples and roughly 6,000 tools. Building on MathFunc, we develop SciAgent to retrieve, understand and, if necessary, use tools for scientific problem solving. Additionally, we craft a benchmark, SciToolBench, spanning five scientific domains to evaluate LLMs' abilities with tool assistance. Extensive experiments on SciToolBench confirm the effectiveness of SciAgent. Notably, SciAgent-Mistral-7B surpasses other LLMs with the same size by more than 13% in absolute accuracy. Furthermore, SciAgent-DeepMath-7B shows much superior performance than ChatGPT.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2402.11451

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Function calling extends AI Agents' ability to interact with real-world systems.

    “AI Agents benefit significantly from function calling, which extends their ability to interact with real-world systems [173], [220].”

    From AI Agents vs. Agentic AI: A Conceptual Taxonomy, Applications and Challenges (2025) · cites this paper as [220]

    Section 6.5 (Analysis; page unavailable) reports a 25% absolute accuracy improvement on scientific questions when agents explicitly call functions, supporting the claimed benefit. The paper describes calling retrieved functions and executing Python code to solve scientific problems, but does not establish that this extends agents’ ability to interact with real-world systems. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Wenhu Chen, Xueguang Ma, Xinyi Wang, and William W. Cohen. 2023a. Program of thoughts prompting: Disentangling computation from reason- ing for numerical reasoning tasks. Transactions on Machine Learning Research.
  2. Wenhu Chen, Ming Yin, Max Ku, Pan Lu, Yixin Wan, Xueguang Ma, Jianyu Xu, Xinyi Wang, and Tony Xia. 2023b. TheoremQA: A theorem-driven question answering dataset. In Proceedings of the 2023 Con- ference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 7889-7901, Singapore. Associa- tion for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  3. Zhipeng Chen, Kun Zhou, Beichen Zhang, Zheng Gong, Xin Zhao, and Ji-Rong Wen. 2023c. ChatCoT: Tool-augmented chain-of-thought reasoning on chat- based large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 14777-14790, Singapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  4. Shen Gao, Zhengliang Shi, Minghang Zhu, Bowen Fang, Xin Xin, Pengjie Ren, Zhumin Chen, Jun Ma, and Yongliang Shen, Kaitao Song, Xu Tan, Dongsheng Li, Weiming Lu, and Yueting Zhuang. 2023. Hugging- gpt: Solving ai tasks with chatgpt and its friends in huggingface. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems.
  5. Longhui Yu, Weisen Jiang, Han Shi, Jincheng Yu, Zhengying Liu, Yu Zhang, James T Kwok, Zhen- guo Li, Adrian Weller, and Weiyang Liu. 2023. Metamath: Bootstrap your own mathematical ques- tions for large language models. ArXiv preprint, abs/2309.12284. · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Ma, Y., Gou, Z., Hao, J., Xu, R., Wang, S., Pan, L., Yang, Y., Cao, Y., Sun, A., Awadalla, H., & Chen, W.
Affiliations
  • Nanyang Technological University (SG)
  • Tsinghua University (CN)
  • University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
  • Singapore Management University (SG)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392011693
Cited by
2
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Multimodal Machine Learning Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
large language models, tool use, tool retrieval, scientific problem solving, benchmark, Mistral-7B

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review