Computer-use agents for scientific software require application-specific expertise. Much of this expertise is documented in human-authored software manuals and web pages. However, turning these resources into executable, reusable skills remains challenging due to mismatches between documented and deployed software versions and differences in scope between documentation coverage and task requirements. We introduce ScienceCUA, a two-stage framework combining resource-to-skill construction with execution-guided skill evolution. First, ScienceCUA identifies tasks supported by the software from its documentation, infers operational trajectories, and generalizes them into reusable Skills. Command catalogs, syntax constraints, and shortcuts are organized separately as References for on-demand lookup. Then, ScienceCUA uses execution feedback to drive skill self-evolution by contrasting successful and failed trajectories for the same task, identifying deficiencies, revising existing skills or adding new ones, and updating the skill library only after repeated validation in real environments. To enable reliable evaluation without benchmark noise or task leakage, we introduce two improved benchmarks. ScienceBoard-Verified provides an audited and corrected basis for measuring task performance, while ScienceBoard-VE separates skill evolution from final testing through disjoint evolution and test tasks and further supports native-agent evaluation. Experiments show that the initial Skills and References improve average task success rate by up to 7.23 percentage points over the base model, while skill self-evolution increases the total gain over the baseline to as much as 17.12 percentage points. ScienceCUA turns software documentation into an evolving set of executable skills and queryable references, offering a practical way for general-purpose agents to use scientific software reliably and at scale.
Yang Yue, Zhiqi Chen, Rui Lu, Andrew Zhao, Zhaokai Wang, Yang Yue, Shiji Song, Gao Huang
Reinforcement Learning with Verifiable Rewards (RLVR) has recently demonstrated notable success in enhancing the reasoning performance of large language models (LLMs), particularly on mathematics and programming tasks. Similar to how traditional RL helps agents explore and learn new strategies, RLVR is believed to enable LLMs to continuously self-improve, thus acquiring novel reasoning abilities beyond those of the corresponding base models. In this study we critically examine the current state of RLVR by systematically probing the reasoning capability boundaries of RLVR-trained LLMs across various model families, RL algorithms, and math, coding, and visual reasoning benchmarks, using pass@k at large k values as the evaluation metric. Surprisingly, we find that the current training setup does not elicit fundamentally new reasoning patterns. While RLVR-trained models outperform their base models at small k (e.g., k = 1), the base models achieve a higher pass@k score when k is large. Coverage and perplexity analyses show that the observed reasoning abilities originate from and are bounded by the base model. Treating the base model as an upper bound, our quantitative analysis shows that six popular RLVR algorithms perform similarly and remain far from optimal in leveraging the potential of the base model. By contrast, we find that distillation can introduce new reasoning patterns from the teacher and genuinely expand the model's reasoning capabilities. Overall, our findings suggest that current RLVR methods have not yet realized the potential of RL to elicit truly novel reasoning abilities in LLMs. This highlights the need for improved RL paradigms, such as continual scaling and multi-turn agent-environment interaction, to unlock this potential.