Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

IsoSci: A Benchmark of Isomorphic Cross-Domain Science Problems for Evaluating Reasoning versus Knowledge Retrieval in LLMs

Samir Abdaljalil, Erchin Serpedin, Hasan Kurban · Jul 1, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation. Each pair shares identical logical structure but requires different domain-specific knowledge, enabling controlled attribution of reasoning-mode gains. Across five model pairs spanning four model families, we find that 91.3% of reasoning-mode gains are knowledge-dependent rather than structure-invariant (63/69 gains; Wilson 95% CI [82.3%, 96.0%]), directly challenging the assumption that chain-of-thought reasoning improves short-horizon procedural scientific problem-solving. Reasoning toggles on highly capable models provide less than 5 percentage points accuracy gain across all domains, and a reasoning-specialized model (o3-mini) that outperforms its standard counterpart on GPQA Diamond (+19.2 percentage points) underperforms on ISOSCI (-24.7 percentage points), showing that benchmark choice determines conclusions about reasoning utility. We release ISOSCI at https://huggingface.co/datasets/isosci/isosci

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
  • The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

5/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 45%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation."

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation."

Benchmarks / Datasets

partial

GPQA

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"Reasoning toggles on highly capable models provide less than 5 percentage points accuracy gain across all domains, and a reasoning-specialized model (o3-mini) that outperforms its standard counterpart on GPQA Diamond (+19.2 percentage points) underperforms on ISOSCI (-24.7 percentage points), showing that benchmark choice determines conclusions about reasoning utility."

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Reasoning toggles on highly capable models provide less than 5 percentage points accuracy gain across all domains, and a reasoning-specialized model (o3-mini) that outperforms its standard counterpart on GPQA Diamond (+19.2 percentage points) underperforms on ISOSCI (-24.7 percentage points), showing that benchmark choice determines conclusions about reasoning utility."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: General

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Low
  • Use this page as: Background context only

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

GPQA

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation.
  • Each pair shares identical logical structure but requires different domain-specific knowledge, enabling controlled attribution of reasoning-mode gains.
  • Across five model pairs spanning four model families, we find that 91.3% of reasoning-mode gains are knowledge-dependent rather than structure-invariant (63/69 gains; Wilson 95% CI [82.3%, 96.0%]), directly challenging the assumption that chain-of-thought reasoning improves short-horizon procedural scientific problem-solving.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Accuracy

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation.
  • Across five model pairs spanning four model families, we find that 91.3% of reasoning-mode gains are knowledge-dependent rather than structure-invariant (63/69 gains; Wilson 95% CI [82.3%, 96.0%]), directly challenging the assumption that…
  • Reasoning toggles on highly capable models provide less than 5 percentage points accuracy gain across all domains, and a reasoning-specialized model (o3-mini) that outperforms its standard counterpart on GPQA Diamond (+19.2 percentage…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • We introduce ISOSCI, a benchmark of isomorphic cross-domain science problem pairs that separates reasoning ability from domain knowledge retrieval in LLM evaluation.
  • Reasoning toggles on highly capable models provide less than 5 percentage points accuracy gain across all domains, and a reasoning-specialized model (o3-mini) that outperforms its standard counterpart on GPQA Diamond (+19.2 percentage…

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Pass: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: GPQA

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.