Scientific code repositories encode decades of human knowledge in executable models, methods, and tools. Yet fragmented toolchains, implicit domain conventions, and specialized correctness criteria make this knowledge difficult to convert into reliable learning experience-a challenge we call the scientific experience bottleneck. We introduce ScienceIDE, infrastructure for turning the world's scientific code into programmable environments for scientific agents. Guided by expert-defined scientific cases and acceptance criteria, agents transform repositories into executable environments that support task generation, execution, and scientific verification. These environments provide a shared foundation for supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning, and evaluation. Using verified interaction trajectories, we train PhAI-IDE-72B, PhAI-IDE-9B, and PhAI-IDE-4B. The model family shows gains in held-out scientific-code repair and across selected general-purpose benchmarks in code, reasoning, and knowledge, providing evidence of positive transfer from scientific experience to broader capabilities. ScienceIDE lays the foundation for an integrated workspace for agent learning and scientific practice, making humanity's scientific software a shared substrate for developing scientific intelligence. Code: https://github.com/aitofound/ScienceIDE
He-Jia Geng, Ze-Sen Huang, Hao-Yang Li et al.· 1 citation
A natural way to cut reasoning-model inference cost is to repeatedly probe a single partial trajectory for its current answer and stop once probes agree -- self-consensus. We ask whether any such rule is both safe and token-saving, and whether one can be selected once and reused. A preregistered sweep of 3,520 consensus rules, replayed on frozen trajectories from two models and three benchmarks, clears none of three acceptance gates fixed in advance; the frontier reproduces on a held-out split and on two unseen models -- while a boundary-confidence control (DEER) swept through the same pipeline clears all three. The reason lies in the signal: agreement establishes that the current answer persists under a fixed probing procedure, not that the reasoning has terminated -- a consensus-termination gap. Stopping on it commits non-terminal answers. At a rule still saving 32% of the tokens, one stop in nine fires on an answer the trajectory itself later abandons, and most of those stops cut off a correction it would otherwise have made. Widening the agreement window does not remove them: the share levels off near 7%, and by then the saving has fallen to 8%. Probe re-wording and a hand-labelled error taxonomy show the agreed answer is often a placeholder the model had not settled on. Used on its own as the stop signal, agreement fails not because it is insufficiently strict, but because it repeatedly measures the wrong object.
