arXiv preprint ·
When Do Biological Reasoning Models Use Their Biological Inputs?
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Biological reasoning models use post-training to connect LLMs to biological foundation model representations and biological text. Their benchmark accuracy is taken as evidence that LLMs reason over these inputs. We test this assumption in six biological reasoning models across DNA, protein, and single-cell tasks. We perturb one biological input while holding the query and other inputs fixed, construct evidence conflicts that pair the foundation model representation of one genome, protein, or cell with the text of another, fit linear probes to the representations the language model receives, and analyze reasoning traces against the biological inputs. Evo2 and ESM3 contribute little to BioReason and BioReason-Pro performance on the evaluated tasks. Shuffling the DNA sequence barely changes BioReason disease prediction accuracy, and in evidence conflicts the two models follow the text in 97.9% and 99.7% of cases. Linear probes trained on the Evo2 and ESM3 representations predict the task targets, so these foundation models encode information relevant to the task, but provide limited overall performance improvement to BioReason and BioReason-Pro. In contrast, foundation model inputs contribute to ChatNT, Prot2Text-V2, and CellWhisperer performance, and differentially expressed genes in the gene sentence contribute to Cell2Sentence-Scale performance. Across SFT and RL checkpoints of BioReason-Pro and 42 BioReason checkpoints, increases in accuracy do not imply greater performance contributions from biological inputs. BioReason traces misstate nucleotide changes, while BioReason-Pro traces describe functions omitted from final predictions under evidence conflicts. We find that current post-training strategies do not ensure that foundation model representations contribute to task performance.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Machine Learning
SmoothOperator: Enhancing Representations for Fine-grained Open-set Recognition via Modulated Label Smoothing
Seer: Maximum Likelihood Regression for Learning-Speed Curves
Fixing a Model That Learned Worse Cancer Means Lower Risk: Monotonic Constraints in Bladder Cancer Recurrence Prediction
Scale-Recursive Rectified Flows for Few-Step Precipitation Ensembles
Don't Waste the Noise: Importance-Guided Perturbation Allocation under Joint Global and Local Constraints
Get the few papers worth your time in Machine Learning every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.