Research in AI for Science often focuses on using AI technologies to augment components of the scientific process, or in some cases, the entire scientific method; how about AI for scientific publications? Peer-reviewed journals are foundational repositories of specialized knowledge, written in discipline-specific language that differs from general Internet content used to train most large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs). We hypothesized that by combining a family of scientific journals with generative AI models, we could invent novel tools for scientific communication, education, and clinical care. We converted 23,000 articles from Neurosurgery Publications into a multimodal database - NeuroPubs - of 134 million words and 78,000 image-caption pairs to develop six datasets for building AI models. We showed that the content of NeuroPubs uniquely represents neurosurgery-specific clinical contexts compared with broader datasets and PubMed. For publishing, we employed generalist VLMs to automatically generate graphical abstracts from articles. Editorial board members rated 70% of these as ready for publication without further edits. For education, we generated 89,587 test questions in the style of the ABNS written board exam, which trainee and faculty neurosurgeons found indistinguishable from genuine examples 54% of the time. We used these questions alongside a curriculum learning process to track knowledge acquisition while training our 34 billion-parameter VLM (CNS-Obsidian). In a blinded, randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated the non-inferiority of CNS-Obsidian to GPT-4o (p = 0.1154) as a diagnostic copilot for a neurosurgical service. Our findings lay a novel foundation for AI with Science and establish a framework to elevate scientific communication using state-of-the-art generative artificial intelligence while maintaining rigorous quality standards.

The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in customer support is constrained by hallucination-generating false information-and the high cost of proprietary models. To address these challenges, we propose a retrieval-augmented question-answering (QA) pipeline and explore how to balance human input and automation. Using a dataset of questions about a Samsung Smart TV user manual, we demonstrate that synthetic data generated by LLMs outperforms crowdsourced data in reducing hallucination in finetuned models. We also compare self-training (fine-tuning models on their own outputs) and knowledge distillation (fine-tuning on stronger models' outputs, e.g., GPT-4o), and find that self-training achieves comparable hallucination reduction. We conjecture that this surprising finding can be attributed to increased exposure bias issues in the knowledge distillation case and support this conjecture with post hoc analysis. We also improve robustness to unanswerable questions and retrieval failures with contextualized "I don't know" responses. These findings show that scalable, cost-efficient QA systems can be built using synthetic data and self-training with open-source models, reducing reliance on proprietary tools or costly human annotations.

Understanding attitudes towards STEM means quantifying the cognitive and emotional ways in which individuals, and potentially large language models too, conceptualise such subjects. This study uses behavioural forma mentis networks (BFMNs) to investigate the STEM-focused mindset, i.e. ways of associating and perceiving ideas, of 177 human participants and 177 artificial humans simulated by GPT-3.5. Participants were split in 3 groups - trainees, experts and academics - to compare the influence of expertise level on their mindset. The results revealed that human forma mentis networks exhibited significantly higher clustering coefficients compared to GPT-3.5, indicating that human mindsets displayed a tendency to form and close triads of conceptual associations while recollecting STEM ideas. Human experts, in particular, demonstrated robust clustering coefficients, reflecting better integration of STEM concepts into their cognitive networks. In contrast, GPT-3.5 produced sparser mindsets. Furthermore, both human and GPT mindsets framed mathematics in neutral or positive terms, differently from STEM high schoolers, researchers and other large language models sampled in other works. This research contributes to understanding how mindset structure can provide cognitive insights about memory structure and machine limitations.

Fully inductive knowledge graph models can be trained on multiple domains and subsequently perform zero-shot knowledge graph completion (KGC) in new unseen domains. This is an important capability towards the goal of having foundation models for knowledge graphs. In this work, we introduce a more expressive and capable fully inductive model, dubbed TRIX, which not only yields strictly more expressive triplet embeddings (head entity, relation, tail entity) compared to state-of-the-art methods, but also introduces a new capability: directly handling both entity and relation prediction tasks in inductive settings. Empirically, we show that TRIX outperforms the state-of-the-art fully inductive models in zero-shot entity and relation predictions in new domains, and outperforms large-context LLMs in out-of-domain predictions. The source code is available at https://github.com/yuchengz99/TRIX.

The language generation and reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) have enabled conversational systems with impressive performance in a variety of tasks, from code generation, to composing essays, to passing STEM and legal exams, to a new paradigm for knowledge search. Besides those short-term use applications, LLMs are increasingly used to help with real-life goals or tasks that take a long time to complete, involving multiple sessions across days, weeks, months, or even years. Thus to enable conversational systems for long term interactions and tasks, we need language-based agents that can plan for long horizons. Traditionally, such capabilities were addressed by reinforcement learning agents with hierarchical planning capabilities. In this work, we explore a novel architecture where the LLM acts as the meta-controller deciding the agent's next macro-action, and tool use augmented LLM-based option policies execute the selected macro-action. We instantiate this framework for a specific set of macro-actions enabling adaptive planning for users' personal plans through conversation and follow-up questions collecting user feedback. We show how this paradigm can be applicable in scenarios ranging from tutoring for academic and non-academic tasks to conversational coaching for personal health plans.

This research describes a novel approach to evaluating hedging behaviour in large language models (LLMs), specifically in the context of human rights as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Hedging and non-affirmation are behaviours that express ambiguity or a lack of clear endorsement on specific statements. These behaviours are undesirable in certain contexts, such as queries about whether different groups are entitled to specific human rights; since all people are entitled to human rights. Here, we present the first systematic attempt to measure these behaviours in the context of human rights, with a particular focus on between-group comparisons. To this end, we design a novel prompt set on human rights in the context of different national or social identities. We develop metrics to capture hedging and non-affirmation behaviours and then measure whether LLMs exhibit demographic parity when responding to the queries. We present results on three leading LLMs and find that all models exhibit some demographic disparities in how they attribute human rights between different identity groups. Futhermore, there is high correlation between different models in terms of how disparity is distributed amongst identities, with identities that have high disparity in one model also facing high disparity in both the other models. While baseline rates of hedging and non-affirmation differ, these disparities are consistent across queries that vary in ambiguity and they are robust across variations of the precise query wording. Our findings highlight the need for work to explicitly align LLMs to human rights principles, and to ensure that LLMs endorse the human rights of all groups equally.

Generalist robots that can perform a range of different tasks in open-world settings must be able to not only reason about the steps needed to accomplish their goals, but also process complex instructions, prompts, and even feedback during task execution. Intricate instructions (e.g., "Could you make me a vegetarian sandwich?" or "I don't like that one") require not just the ability to physically perform the individual steps, but the ability to situate complex commands and feedback in the physical world. In this work, we describe a system that uses vision-language models in a hierarchical structure, first reasoning over complex prompts and user feedback to deduce the most appropriate next step to fulfill the task, and then performing that step with low-level actions. In contrast to direct instruction following methods that can fulfill simple commands ("pick up the cup"), our system can reason through complex prompts and incorporate situated feedback during task execution ("that's not trash"). We evaluate our system across three robotic platforms, including single-arm, dual-arm, and dual-arm mobile robots, demonstrating its ability to handle tasks such as cleaning messy tables, making sandwiches, and grocery shopping.

This study investigates the impact of localized updates to large language models (LLMs), specifically in the context of knowledge editing - a task aimed at incorporating or modifying specific facts without altering broader model capabilities. We first show that across different post-training interventions like continuous pre-training, full fine-tuning and LORA-based fine-tuning, the Frobenius norm of the updated matrices always increases. This increasing norm is especially detrimental for localized knowledge editing, where only a subset of matrices are updated in a model . We reveal a consistent phenomenon across various editing techniques, including fine-tuning, hypernetwork-based approaches, and locate-and-edit methods: the norm of the updated matrix invariably increases with successive updates. Such growth disrupts model balance, particularly when isolated matrices are updated while the rest of the model remains static, leading to potential instability and degradation of downstream performance. Upon deeper investigations of the intermediate activation vectors, we find that the norm of internal activations decreases and is accompanied by shifts in the subspaces occupied by these activations, which shows that these activation vectors now occupy completely different regions in the representation space compared to the unedited model. With our paper, we highlight the technical challenges with continuous and localized sequential knowledge editing and their implications for maintaining model stability and utility.

There is growing excitement about the potential of Language Models (LMs) to accelerate scientific discovery. Falsifying hypotheses is key to scientific progress, as it allows claims to be iteratively refined over time. This process requires significant researcher effort, reasoning, and ingenuity. Yet current benchmarks for LMs predominantly assess their ability to generate solutions rather than challenge them. We advocate for developing benchmarks that evaluate this inverse capability - creating counterexamples for subtly incorrect solutions. To demonstrate this approach, we start with the domain of algorithmic problem solving, where counterexamples can be evaluated automatically using code execution. Specifically, we introduce REFUTE, a dynamically updating benchmark that includes recent problems and incorrect submissions from programming competitions, where human experts successfully identified counterexamples. Our analysis finds that the best reasoning agents, even OpenAI o3-mini (high) with code execution feedback, can create counterexamples for only <9% of incorrect solutions in REFUTE, even though ratings indicate its ability to solve up to 48% of these problems from scratch. We hope our work spurs progress in evaluating and enhancing LMs' ability to falsify incorrect solutions - a capability that is crucial for both accelerating research and making models self-improve through reliable reflective reasoning.

Paywalls, licenses and copyright rules often restrict the broad dissemination and reuse of scientific knowledge. We take the position that it is both legally and technically feasible to extract the scientific knowledge in scholarly texts. Current methods, like text embeddings, fail to reliably preserve factual content, and simple paraphrasing may not be legally sound. We urge the community to adopt a new idea: convert scholarly documents into Knowledge Units using LLMs. These units use structured data capturing entities, attributes and relationships without stylistic content. We provide evidence that Knowledge Units: (1) form a legally defensible framework for sharing knowledge from copyrighted research texts, based on legal analyses of German copyright law and U.S. Fair Use doctrine, and (2) preserve most (~95%) factual knowledge from original text, measured by MCQ performance on facts from the original copyrighted text across four research domains. Freeing scientific knowledge from copyright promises transformative benefits for scientific research and education by allowing language models to reuse important facts from copyrighted text. To support this, we share open-source tools for converting research documents into Knowledge Units. Overall, our work posits the feasibility of democratizing access to scientific knowledge while respecting copyright.