DOE OSTI2026
Large language models (LLMs) show remarkable potential for scientific reasoning but often produce unreliable or scientifically unactionable outputs when faced with multi-step logic, domain grounding, and interpretability challenges, especially in complex fields like chemistry and materials science. Here, we introduce a framework of philosophical reasoning agents, inspired by canonical thinkers such as Socrates, Descartes, Kant, and Hume, to guide LLM behavior via structured prompt engineering. These agents embody distinct reasoning paradigms (dialectical inquiry, deductive logic, rule-based judgment, and empirical validation) and are evaluated across multiple chemistry subdomains, physical, analytical, general, inorganic, and organic chemistry, using the ChemBench benchmark. Our agentic prompting approach yields substantial accuracy gains on open-ended numerical chemistry questions, with gains of +11.5 percentage points for GPT-4o with Hume, +4.5 percentage points for GPT-5 with Kant, and +21.8 percentage points for GPT-5.1 with Socrates at the strict 1% error threshold, relative to the corresponding base models. Beyond accuracy, we observe benchmark-level model–agent performance patterns, suggesting that different prompting styles interact differently with each base model. These findings demonstrate that embedding philosophy-of-science principles into multi-agent frameworks can improve and produce interpretable, adaptive, and domain-aligned scientific LLMs.
Harb, Hassan [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), A↗