Pengze Li
Publications
AI-for-Science Low-code Platform with Bayesian Adversarial Multi-Agent Framework
Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate potentials for automating scientific code generation but face challenges in reliability, error propagation in multi-agent workflows, and evaluation in domains with ill-defined success metrics. We present a Bayesian adversarial multi-agent framework specifically designed for AI for Science (AI4S) tasks in the form of a Low-code Platform (LCP). Three LLM-based agents are coordinated under the Bayesian framework: a Task Manager that structures user inputs into actionable plans and adaptive test cases, a Code Generator that produces candidate solutions, and an Evaluator providing comprehensive feedback. The framework employs an adversarial loop where the Task Manager iteratively refines test cases to challenge the Code Generator, while prompt distributions are dynamically updated using Bayesian principles by integrating code quality metrics: functional correctness, structural alignment, and static analysis. This co-optimization of tests and code reduces dependence on LLM reliability and addresses evaluation uncertainty inherent to scientific tasks. LCP also streamlines human-AI collaboration by translating non-expert prompts into domain-specific requirements, bypassing the need for manual prompt engineering by practitioners without coding backgrounds. Benchmark evaluations demonstrate LCP's effectiveness in generating robust code while minimizing error propagation. The proposed platform is also tested on an Earth Science cross-disciplinary task and demonstrates strong reliability, outperforming competing models.
SciIF: Benchmarking Scientific Instruction Following Towards Rigorous Scientific Intelligence
As large language models (LLMs) transition from general knowledge retrieval to complex scientific discovery, their evaluation standards must also incorporate the rigorous norms of scientific inquiry. Existing benchmarks exhibit a critical blind spot: general instruction-following metrics focus on superficial formatting, while domain-specific scientific benchmarks assess only final-answer correctness, often rewarding models that arrive at the right result with the wrong reasons. To address this gap, we introduce scientific instruction following: the capability to solve problems while strictly adhering to the constraints that establish scientific validity. Specifically, we introduce SciIF, a multi-discipline benchmark that evaluates this capability by pairing university-level problems with a fixed catalog of constraints across three pillars: scientific conditions (e.g., boundary checks and assumptions), semantic stability (e.g., unit and symbol conventions), and specific processes(e.g., required numerical methods). Uniquely, SciIF emphasizes auditability, requiring models to provide explicit evidence of constraint satisfaction rather than implicit compliance. By measuring both solution correctness and multi-constraint adherence, SciIF enables finegrained diagnosis of compositional reasoning failures, ensuring that LLMs can function as reliable agents within the strict logical frameworks of science.