# TRACES: A Benchmark for Epistemic Reliability in Scientific Reasoning by LLMs

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11415 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2608.11415/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Placed in Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning, one of 17 directions in LLM reasoning.
- Builds on 8 of its 56 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 11 Aug 2026.

## Placed in

- LLM reasoning / [Knowledge- and tool-augmented reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/lr/knowledge-and-tool-augmented-reasoning/)

## Builds on (most cited first, 8 of 8)

- [Measuring Massive Multitask Language Understanding](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2009.03300/) (2020)
- [GPQA: A Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A Benchmark](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.12022/) (2023)
- [Humanity's Last Exam](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14249/) (2025)
- [ZebraLogic: On the Scaling Limits of LLMs for Logical Reasoning](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.01100/) (2025)
- [Holistic Evaluation of Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2211.09110/) (2022)
- [Kosmos: An AI Scientist for Autonomous Discovery](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2511.02824/) (2025)
- [Evaluating Sakana's AI Scientist: Bold Claims, Mixed Results, and a Promising Future?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2502.14297/) (2025)
- [JustLogic: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Deductive Reasoning in Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2501.14851/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Large language models are being proposed as agents in scientific workflows, in domains where no downstream verifier exists. Such deployment assumes the model can distinguish reliable scientific literature from unreliable literature, a capability that has not yet been directly measured. Existing benchmarks evaluate factuality on questions with known answers; the failure mode we target here is different. We introduce a probe corpus of 42 retracted, fraudulent, and pseudoscientific papers, paired with a methodology for eliciting and scoring single-shot model engagement with each paper's framing. Each probe pairs a preamble extracted near-verbatim from the target paper with a scientifically plausible study-design request. The probes span five claim types: fabricated observation, pseudophysical mechanism, magical premise, legitimization bridge, and cargo-cult experiment. Two complementary scores measure whether a model rejects the flawed premise outright (IFR-a) and whether it recognizes the unreliability while still engaging (IFR-i). A depth score, the Engagement Depth Index (EDI), quantifies reproduction of paper- or field-specific withheld details. Across 30 models and 10 repeated runs, aggregate IFR-a is 0.93 ± 0.004 and aggregate IFR-i is 0.809 ± 0.009. Models engaged with untenable premises in 95% of all non-empty responses. Every evaluated model fails more than 71% of agentic probes, and 22 of 30 models fail more than 90% of the time. Rejections are concentrated on a small number of high-notoriety topics and specific probes, and disappear under matched-structure controls. These results are consistent with topic-keyed safety behavior rather than robust epistemic competence, and indicate an urgent need for guardrail infrastructure for scientific deployment of language models.