Language agents [1-4] are AI agents [5] that integrate LLMs [6-8] as core components. LLMs excel at zero-shot generalization [9, 10], providing a notable advantage over traditional AI agents, such as those based on handcrafted rules or reinforcement learning, which often struggle to generalize to new environments [11]. While LLMs can exhibit flawed reasoning and logic when used in isolation [12-14], constructing a language agent by grounding LLMs in an environment with observational feedback can mitigate these issues. Early work on language agents used LLMs to directly output actions in the external environment [15-17], while more recently, language agents have been augmented with internal reasoning [18, 19] and planning [20, 21] procedures, as well as long-term memory storage [22, 23]. An emergent research challenge is to pose a theoretical description of the learning problem solved by language agents [4, 24] and to develop efficient methods to optimize the components of a language agent [24-26]. Here, we define common language agent tasks as language decision processes (LDPs) and frame language agents as stochastic computation graphs [27] that may be trained to solve LDPs. We show that pre-existing agents [18, 19, 21] can be implemented within our stochastic computation graph framework and introduce a simple and extensible software package named LDP that enables modular interchange of environments, agents, and optimizers, simplifying experimentation across a variety of settings. These authors jointly supervise technical work at FutureHouse.

Language models are known to hallucinate incorrect information, and it is unclear if they are sufficiently accurate and reliable for use in scientific research. We developed a rigorous human-AI comparison methodology to evaluate language model agents on real-world literature search tasks covering information retrieval, summarization, and contradiction detection tasks. We show that PaperQA2, a frontier language model agent optimized for improved factuality, matches or exceeds subject matter expert performance on three realistic literature research tasks without any restrictions on humans (i.e., full access to internet, search tools, and time). PaperQA2 writes cited, Wikipedia-style summaries of scientific topics that are significantly more accurate than existing, human-written Wikipedia articles. We also introduce a hard benchmark for scientific literature research called LitQA2 that guided design of PaperQA2, leading to it exceeding human performance. Finally, we apply PaperQA2 to identify contradictions within the scientific literature, an important scientific task that is challenging for humans. PaperQA2 identifies 2.34 +/- 1.99 contradictions per paper in a random subset of biology papers, of which 70% are validated by human experts. These results demonstrate that language model agents are now capable of exceeding domain experts across meaningful tasks on scientific literature.

There is widespread optimism that frontier Large Language Models (LLMs) and LLM-augmented systems have the potential to rapidly accelerate scientific discovery across disciplines. Today, many benchmarks exist to measure LLM knowledge and reasoning on textbook-style science questions, but few if any benchmarks are designed to evaluate language model performance on practical tasks required for scientific research, such as literature search, protocol planning, and data analysis. As a step toward building such benchmarks, we introduce the Language Agent Biology Benchmark (LAB-Bench), a broad dataset of over 2,400 multiple choice questions for evaluating AI systems on a range of practical biology research capabilities, including recall and reasoning over literature, interpretation of figures, access and navigation of databases, and comprehension and manipulation of DNA and protein sequences. Importantly, in contrast to previous scientific benchmarks, we expect that an AI system that can achieve consistently high scores on the more difficult LAB-Bench tasks would serve as a useful assistant for researchers in areas such as literature search and molecular cloning. As an initial assessment of the emergent scientific task capabilities of frontier language models, we measure performance of several against our benchmark and report results compared to human expert biology researchers. We will continue to update and expand LAB-Bench over time, and expect it to serve as a useful tool in the development of automated research systems going forward. A public subset of LAB-Bench is available for use at the following URL: https://huggingface.co/datasets/futurehouse/lab-bench

Large Language Models (LLMs) generalize well across language tasks, but suffer from hallucinations and uninterpretability, making it difficult to assess their accuracy without ground-truth. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) models have been proposed to reduce hallucinations and provide provenance for how an answer was generated. Applying such models to the scientific literature may enable large-scale, systematic processing of scientific knowledge. We present PaperQA, a RAG agent for answering questions over the scientific literature. PaperQA is an agent that performs information retrieval across full-text scientific articles, assesses the relevance of sources and passages, and uses RAG to provide answers. Viewing this agent as a question answering model, we find it exceeds performance of existing LLMs and LLM agents on current science QA benchmarks. To push the field closer to how humans perform research on scientific literature, we also introduce LitQA, a more complex benchmark that requires retrieval and synthesis of information from full-text scientific papers across the literature. Finally, we demonstrate PaperQA's matches expert human researchers on LitQA.

Large-language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 caught the interest of many scientists. Recent studies suggested that these models could be useful in chemistry and materials science. To explore these possibilities, we organized a hackathon. This article chronicles the projects built as part of this hackathon. Participants employed LLMs for various applications, including predicting properties of molecules and materials, designing novel interfaces for tools, extracting knowledge from unstructured data, and developing new educational applications. The diverse topics and the fact that working prototypes could be generated in less than two days highlight that LLMs will profoundly impact the future of our fields. The rich collection of ideas and projects also indicates that the applications of LLMs are not limited to materials science and chemistry but offer potential benefits to a wide range of scientific disciplines.

Within the Kolmogorov theory of probability, Bayes' rule allows one to perform statistical inference by relating conditional probabilities to unconditional probabilities. As we show here, however, there is a continuous set of alternative inference rules that yield the same results, and that may have computational or practical advantages for certain problems. We formulate generalized axioms for probability theory, according to which the reverse conditional probability distribution P(B|A) is not specified by the forward conditional probability distribution P(A|B) and the marginals P(A) and P(B). Thus, in order to perform statistical inference, one must specify an additional "inference axiom," which relates P(B|A) to P(A|B), P(A), and P(B). We show that when Bayes' rule is chosen as the inference axiom, the axioms are equivalent to the classical Kolmogorov axioms. We then derive consistency conditions on the inference axiom, and thereby characterize the set of all possible rules for inference. The set of "first-order" inference axioms, defined as the set of axioms in which P(B|A) depends on the first power of P(A|B), is found to be a 1-simplex, with Bayes' rule at one of the extreme points. The other extreme point, the "inversion rule," is studied in depth.