On the 31st March, our editorial team headed to the Royal Society for AI for Science . This day-long conference explored how AI is changing the nature of scientific discovery, and was hosted by the Fundamental Research team from the Alan Turing Institute. Nestled in a terrace of 19th century townhouses along the banks of the Thames, the Royal Society looks as grand as the names who have passed through its doors throughout the years. Prof Jason McEwen, Chief Scientist for the Turing Institute, opened the event with an insightful talk on the nature of scientific revolution, and how the bidirectional relationship between AI and science could spark the next one. Then, Prof Anna Scaife from the University of Manchester spoke on the use of foundation models for astronomical discovery.

If the goal of a robot is to perform a function, then minimizing the possibility of failure is a top priority when it comes to robotic design. But this minimization is at odds with the robotic raison d'être: systems with multiple units, or agents, can perform more diverse functions, but they also have more different parts that can potentially fail. Researchers led by Jamie Paik, head of the Reconfigurable Robotics Laboratory ( RRL) in EPFL's School of Engineering, have not only circumvented this problem, but flipped it: they have designed a modular robot that actually lowers its odds of failure by sharing resources among its individual agents. "For the first time, we have found a way to reverse the trend of increasing odds of failure with increasing function," Paik explains. "We introduce local resource sharing as a new paradigm in robotics, reducing the failure rate with a larger number of modules."

What I've learned from 25 years of automated science, and what the future holds: an interview with Ross King We're excited to launch our new series, where we're speaking with leading researchers to explore the breakthroughs driving AI and the reality of the future promises - to give you an inside perspective on the headlines. Our first interviewee is Ross King, who created the first robot scientist back in 2009. He spoke to us about the nature of scientific discovery, the role AI has to play, and his recent work in DNA computing. Automated science is a really exciting area, and it feels like everyone's talking about it at the moment - e.g. But you've been working in this field for many years now. In 2009 you developed Adam, the first robot scientist to generate novel scientific knowledge. Could you tell me some more about that? So the history goes back to before Adam.

Aligning human-interpretable concepts with the internal representations learned by modern machine learning systems remains a central challenge for interpretable AI. We introduce a geometric framework for comparing supervised human concepts with unsupervised intermediate representations extracted from foundation model embeddings. Motivated by the role of conceptual leaps in scientific discovery, we formalise the notion of concept frustration: a contradiction that arises when an unobserved concept induces relationships between known concepts that cannot be made consistent within an existing ontology. We develop task-aligned similarity measures that detect concept frustration between supervised concept-based models and unsupervised representations derived from foundation models, and show that the phenomenon is detectable in task-aligned geometry while conventional Euclidean comparisons fail. Under a linear-Gaussian generative model we derive a closed-form expression for Bayes-optimal concept-based classifier accuracy, decomposing predictive signal into known-known, known-unknown and unknown-unknown contributions and identifying analytically where frustration affects performance. Experiments on synthetic data and real language and vision tasks demonstrate that frustration can be detected in foundation model representations and that incorporating a frustrating concept into an interpretable model reorganises the geometry of learned concept representations, to better align human and machine reasoning. These results suggest a principled framework for diagnosing incomplete concept ontologies and aligning human and machine conceptual reasoning, with implications for the development and validation of safe interpretable AI for high-risk applications.

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Neural Information Processing Systems http://nips.cc/

Automated scientific discovery promises to accelerate progress across scientific domains. However, developing and evaluating an AI agent's capacity for endto-end scientific reasoning is challenging as running real-world experiments is often prohibitively expensive or infeasible.