We recruited participants through two online platforms, CloudResearch and Bovitz, targeting US residents over 18 years old who self-identified as either Republican or Democrat and were active users of X (SM section S1.1). Qualified individuals were invited to complete a screening task, which included installing a browser extension that analyzed their X feed. To ensure the interventions could have a meaningful impact on participants' feeds, only those with at least 5% of posts related to politics or social issues were invited to participate. Figure S1 summarizes the recruitment funnel, including the number of individuals at each stage of the process. Participants were not instructed to use X in any particular way, but they received daily reminders if they had not used the platform that day.

Social media platforms' opaque feed-ranking algorithms, which are designed to maximize engagement, may contribute to political polarization, body image, mental health, and other social issues. However, the evidence has rarely enabled conclusions about causality because external researchers need platforms' permission to experimentally intervene. Collaborations with platforms also involve trade-offs that undermine researchers' intellectual autonomy. Piccardi et al. circumvented this problem with a browser extension that intercepted feeds on X/Twitter in real time using a large language model (LLM) (see the Perspective by Allen and Tucker). Liberals and conservatives were randomly assigned to conditions where the LLM re-ranked feeds to up-rank or down-rank the visibility of hostile political content.

Social media is an important source of political information, yet there is little external oversight of platforms' ever-changing algorithms and policies. This opacity presents a major problem: Conducting a real-world experiment on the causal effects of platform features generally requires the collaboration of the platform being studied, which rarely happens, and even when it does, future platform changes may invalidate prior findings. The authors introduce a methodological paradigm for testing the effect of social media on partisan animosity without platform collaboration by reranking users' existing feeds using large language models (LLMs) and a browser extension. They find that changing the visibility of polarizing content can influence people's feelings about opposing partisans. Social media is in a period of upheaval.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as evaluators in lieu of humans. While scalable, their judgments are noisy due to imperfect specificity and sensitivity of LLMs, leading to biased accuracy estimates. Although bias-correction methods exist, they are underutilized in LLM research and typically assume exact knowledge of the model's specificity and sensitivity. Furthermore, in general we only have estimates of these values and it is not well known how to properly construct confidence intervals using only estimates. This work presents a simple plug-in framework that corrects such bias and constructs confidence intervals reflecting uncertainty from both test and calibration dataset, enabling practical and statistically sound LLM-based evaluation. Additionally, to reduce uncertainty in the accuracy estimate, we introduce an adaptive algorithm that efficiently allocates calibration sample sizes.

This degradation persists across standard approaches including supervised fine-tuning (SFT) and reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF). While reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RL VR) has emerged as a promising alternative that optimizes models on objectively measurable tasks, its safety implications remain unexplored. We present the first comprehensive theoretical and empirical analysis of safety properties in RL VR. Theoretically, we derive upper bounds on safety drift under KL-constrained optimization and prove conditions under which safety degradation is eliminated. Empirically, we conduct extensive experiments across five adversarial safety benchmarks, demonstrating that RL VR can simultaneously enhance reasoning capabilities while maintaining or improving safety guardrails. Our comprehensive ablation studies examine the effects of optimization algorithms, model scale, and task domains. Our findings challenge the prevailing assumption of an inevitable safety-capability trade-off, and establish that a specific training methodology can achieve both objectives simultaneously, providing insights for the safe deployment of reasoning-capable LLMs.

The promise of autonomous scientific discovery (ASD) hinges not only on answering questions, but also on knowing which questions to ask. Most recent works in ASD explore the use of large language models (LLMs) in goal-driven settings, relying on human-specified research questions to guide hypothesis generation. However, scientific discovery may be accelerated further by allowing the AI system to drive exploration by its own criteria. The few existing approaches in open-ended ASD select hypotheses based on diversity heuristics or subjective proxies for human interestingness, but the former struggles to meaningfully navigate the typically vast hypothesis space, and the latter suffers from imprecise definitions. This paper presents AutoDiscovery -- a method for open-ended ASD that instead drives scientific exploration using Bayesian surprise. Here, we quantify the epistemic shift from the LLM's prior beliefs about a hypothesis to its posterior beliefs after gathering experimental results. To efficiently explore the space of nested hypotheses, our method employs a Monte Carlo tree search (MCTS) strategy with progressive widening using surprisal as the reward function. We evaluate AutoDiscovery in the setting of data-driven discovery across 21 real-world datasets spanning domains such as biology, economics, finance, and behavioral science. Our results demonstrate that under a fixed budget, AutoDiscovery substantially outperforms competitors by producing 5-29% more discoveries deemed surprising by the LLM. Our human evaluation further reveals that two-thirds of discoveries made by our system are surprising to domain experts as well, suggesting this is an important step towards building open-ended ASD systems.

While web data quality is crucial for large language models, most curation efforts focus on filtering and deduplication,treating HTML-to-text extraction as a fixed pre-processing step. Existing web corpora rely on heuristic-based extractors like Trafilatura, which struggle to preserve document structure and frequently corrupt structured elements such as formulas, codes, and tables. We hypothesize that improving extraction quality can be as impactful as aggressive filtering strategies for downstream performance. We introduce MinerU-HTML, a novel extraction pipeline that reformulates content extraction as a sequence labeling problem solved by a 0.6B-parameter language model. Unlike text-density heuristics, MinerU-HTML leverages semantic understanding and employs a two-stage formatting pipeline that explicitly categorizes semantic elements before converting to Markdown. Crucially, its model-based approach is inherently scalable, whereas heuristic methods offer limited improvement pathways. On MainWebBench, our benchmark of 7,887 annotated web pages, MinerU-HTML achieves 81.8\% ROUGE-N F1 compared to Trafilatura's 63.6\%, with exceptional structured element preservation (90.9\% for code blocks, 94.0\% for formulas). Using MinerU-HTML, we construct AICC (AI-ready Common Crawl), a 7.3-trillion token multilingual corpus from two Common Crawl snapshots. In controlled pretraining experiments where AICC and Trafilatura-extracted TfCC undergo identical filtering, models trained on AICC (62B tokens) achieve 50.8\% average accuracy across 13 benchmarks, outperforming TfCC by 1.08pp-providing direct evidence that extraction quality significantly impacts model capabilities. AICC also surpasses RefinedWeb and FineWeb on key benchmarks. We publicly release MainWebBench, MinerU-HTML, and AICC, demonstrating that HTML extraction is a critical, often underestimated component of web corpus construction.

Recent advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have sparked concerns over their potential to acquire and misuse dangerous or high-risk capabilities, posing frontier risks. Current safety evaluations primarily test for what a model \textit{can} do - its capabilities - without assessing what it $\textit{would}$ do if endowed with high-risk capabilities. This leaves a critical blind spot: models may strategically conceal capabilities or rapidly acquire them, while harboring latent inclinations toward misuse. We argue that $\textbf{propensity}$ - the likelihood of a model to pursue harmful actions if empowered - is a critical, yet underexplored, axis of safety evaluation. We present $\textbf{PropensityBench}$, a novel benchmark framework that assesses the proclivity of models to engage in risky behaviors when equipped with simulated dangerous capabilities using proxy tools. Our framework includes 5,874 scenarios with 6,648 tools spanning four high-risk domains: cybersecurity, self-proliferation, biosecurity, and chemical security. We simulate access to powerful capabilities via a controlled agentic environment and evaluate the models' choices under varying operational pressures that reflect real-world constraints or incentives models may encounter, such as resource scarcity or gaining more autonomy. Across open-source and proprietary frontier models, we uncover 9 alarming signs of propensity: models frequently choose high-risk tools when under pressure, despite lacking the capability to execute such actions unaided. These findings call for a shift from static capability audits toward dynamic propensity assessments as a prerequisite for deploying frontier AI systems safely. Our code is available at https://github.com/scaleapi/propensity-evaluation.

Recent advances in multimodal large language models (LLMs) have highlighted their potential for medical and surgical applications. However, existing surgical datasets predominantly adopt a Visual Question Answering (VQA) format with heterogeneous taxonomies and lack support for pixel-level segmentation, limiting consistent evaluation and applicability. We present SurgMLLMBench, a unified multimodal benchmark explicitly designed for developing and evaluating interactive multimodal LLMs for surgical scene understanding, including the newly collected Micro-surgical Artificial Vascular anastomosIS (MAVIS) dataset. It integrates pixel-level instrument segmentation masks and structured VQA annotations across laparoscopic, robot-assisted, and micro-surgical domains under a unified taxonomy, enabling comprehensive evaluation beyond traditional VQA tasks and richer visual-conversational interactions. Extensive baseline experiments show that a single model trained on SurgMLLMBench achieves consistent performance across domains and generalizes effectively to unseen datasets. SurgMLLMBench will be publicly released as a robust resource to advance multimodal surgical AI research, supporting reproducible evaluation and development of interactive surgical reasoning models.

Recent advances in reasoning models have demonstrated remarkable success in text and vision domains through extended chain-of-thought deliberation. However, a perplexing phenomenon persists in audio language models: they consistently perform better with minimal or no reasoning, raising a fundamental question - can audio intelligence truly benefit from deliberate thinking? We introduce Step-Audio-R1, the first audio reasoning model that successfully unlocks reasoning capabilities in the audio domain. Through our proposed Modality-Grounded Reasoning Distillation (MGRD) framework, Step-Audio-R1 learns to generate audio-relevant reasoning chains that genuinely ground themselves in acoustic features rather than hallucinating disconnected deliberations. Our model exhibits strong audio reasoning capabilities, surpassing Gemini 2.5 Pro and achieving performance comparable to the state-of-the-art Gemini 3 Pro across comprehensive audio understanding and reasoning benchmarks spanning speech, environmental sounds, and music. These results demonstrate that reasoning is a transferable capability across modalities when appropriately anchored, transforming extended deliberation from a liability into a powerful asset for audio intelligence. By establishing the first successful audio reasoning model, Step-Audio-R1 opens new pathways toward building truly multimodal reasoning systems that think deeply across all sensory modalities.