Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for complex research tasks such as literature review, idea generation, and scientific paper analysis, yet their ability to truly understand and process the intricate relationships within complex research papers, such as the logical links between claims and supporting evidence remains largely unexplored. In this study, we present CLAIM-BENCH, a comprehensive benchmark for evaluating LLMs’ capabilities in scientific claim-evidence extraction and validation, a task that reflects deeper comprehension of scientific argumentation. We systematically compare three approaches which are inspired by divide and conquer approaches, across six diverse LLMs, highlighting model-specific strengths and weaknesses in scientific comprehension. Through evaluation involving over 300 claim-evidence pairs across multiple research domains, we reveal significant limitations in LLMs’ ability to process complex scientific content. Our results demonstrate that closed-source models like GPT-4 and Claude consistently outperform open-source counterparts in precision and recall across claim-evidence identification tasks. Furthermore, strategically designed three-pass and one-by-one prompting approaches significantly improve LLMs’ abilities to accurately link dispersed evidence with claims, although this comes at increased computational cost. CLAIM-BENCH sets a new standard for evaluating scientific comprehension in LLMs, offering both a diagnostic tool and a path forward for building systems capable of deeper, more reliable reasoning across full-length papers.

Off-the-shelf pre-trained language models have become the de facto standard in NLP pipelines for a multitude of downstream tasks. However, the inability of these models to properly encode numerals limits their performance on tasks requiring numeric comprehension. We introduce strategies to semantically prime numerals in any corpus by generating anchors governed by the distribution of numerals in said corpus, thereby enabling mathematically grounded representations of these numeral tokens. We establish the superiority of our proposed techniques through evaluation on a range of numeracy tasks for both in-domain (seen) and out-domain (unseen) numerals. Further, we expand our empirical evaluations to numerals ranging from 1 to 10 billion, a significantly broader range compared to previous studies of the same nature, and we demonstrate significant improvements in the mathematical grounding of our learned embeddings.

The field of Math-NLP has witnessed significant growth in recent years, motivated by the desire to expand LLM performance to the leaning of non-linguistic notions (numerals, and subsequently, arithmetic reasoning). However, non-linguistic skill injection typically comes at a cost for LLMs: it leads to catastrophic forgetting of core linguistic skills, a consequence that often remains unaddressed in the literature. As Math-NLP has been able to create LLMs that can closely approximate the mathematical skills of a grade schooler or the arithmetic reasoning skills of a calculator, the practicality of these models fail if they concomitantly shed their linguistic capabilities. In this work, we take a closer look into the phenomena of catastrophic forgetting as it pertains to LLMs and subsequently offer a novel framework for non-linguistic skill injection for LLMs based on information-theoretic interventions and skill-specific losses that enable the learning of strict arithmetic reasoning. Our model outperforms the state-of-the-art both on injected non-linguistic skills and on linguistic knowledge retention, and does so with a fraction of the non-linguistic training data (1/4) and zero additional synthetic linguistic training data.