Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces EC-Reason-Bench, a diagnostic benchmark for evaluating the performance of large language models (LLMs) in enzyme classification, which reveals a significant drop in accuracy when predicting complete EC numbers compared to coarse classifications. The study identifies four key factors affecting enzyme classification鈥攐utput structure, external knowledge, reasoning structure, and reasoning robustness鈥攁nd demonstrates that external knowledge is crucial for improving performance. Findings indicate that while reasoning can help resolve conflicting information, it often does not enhance knowledge retrieval, suggesting that traditional leaderboard metrics may obscure important performance nuances.
General LLMs struggle with enzyme classification, but leveraging external knowledge can dramatically improve their performance, revealing hidden gaps in reasoning capabilities.
Enzyme function prediction is a hierarchical, knowledge-intensive form of protein function classification. Existing benchmarks expose an anomaly: general LLMs often get the coarse first level right, yet once asked for a complete EC number their accuracy at levels two through four drops to almost zero, while specialized models and tools stay usable. We propose EC-Reason-Bench, a training-free, diagnostic evaluation protocol built to answer two questions: why general LLMs score close to nothing on EC number prediction, and how much of that loss can be recovered without updating a single weight. We break enzyme classification ability into four orthogonal levers that can each be measured on their own: output structure, external knowledge, reasoning structure, and reasoning robustness. We test each lever with an inference-time method against a shared zero-shot baseline reproducing previously reported near-zero performance. Experiments with several strong reasoning LLMs yield four main findings. First, external knowledge is decisive and must precede reasoning: uniformly low closed-book performance rises sharply with open-book access, narrowing model gaps. Second, in closed-book settings, whether cascading and chain-of-thought help or hurt depends on a model's tendency to abstain. Third, once evidence is available the aggregate score of the best LLM setting is indistinguishable from simply voting the EC numbers of the nearest retrieved neighbors; that tie is an artifact of averaging, and it hides a large gain on adversarial evidence set against an equally large loss on multi-functional enzymes. Reasoning over evidence therefore acts as an arbiter of conflicting neighbors rather than as a source of knowledge, and no single-number leaderboard can see it. Fourth, accuracy obeys a law of homology availability.