Breakthroughs, discoveries, and DIY tips sent every weekday. Humans have a long history with alcohol--we've been making and consuming it for over ten thousand years, about as long as we've had agriculture. That's a long time for people to come up with all kinds of ideas about the drug and how it works. So, not surprisingly, some of them are wrong. Here are a few common myths about alcohol, debunked by scientific research.

Recent claims of strong performance by Large Language Models (LLMs) on causal discovery are undermined by a key flaw: many evaluations rely on benchmarks likely included in pretraining corpora. Thus, apparent success suggests that LLM-only methods, which ignore observational data, outperform classical statistical approaches. We challenge this narrative by asking: Do LLMs truly reason about causal structure, and how can we measure it without memorization concerns? Can they be trusted for real-world scientific discovery? We argue that realizing LLMs' potential for causal analysis requires two shifts: (P.1) developing robust evaluation protocols based on recent scientific studies to guard against dataset leakage, and (P.2) designing hybrid methods that combine LLM-derived knowledge with data-driven statistics. To address P.1, we encourage evaluating discovery methods on novel, real-world scientific studies. We outline a practical recipe for extracting causal graphs from recent publications released after an LLM's training cutoff, ensuring relevance and preventing memorization while capturing both established and novel relations. Compared to benchmarks like BNLearn, where LLMs achieve near-perfect accuracy, they perform far worse on our curated graphs, underscoring the need for statistical grounding. Supporting P.2, we show that using LLM predictions as priors for the classical PC algorithm significantly improves accuracy over both LLM-only and purely statistical methods. We call on the community to adopt science-grounded, leakage-resistant benchmarks and invest in hybrid causal discovery methods suited to real-world inquiry.

Literature review requires researchers to synthesize a large amount of information and is increasingly challenging as the scientific literature expands. In this work, we investigate the potential of LLMs for producing hierarchical organizations of scientific studies to assist researchers with literature review. We define hierarchical organizations as tree structures where nodes refer to topical categories and every node is linked to the studies assigned to that category. Our naive LLM-based pipeline for hierarchy generation from a set of studies produces promising yet imperfect hierarchies, motivating us to collect CHIME, an expert-curated dataset for this task focused on biomedicine. Given the challenging and time-consuming nature of building hierarchies from scratch, we use a human-in-the-loop process in which experts correct errors (both links between categories and study assignment) in LLM-generated hierarchies. CHIME contains 2,174 LLM-generated hierarchies covering 472 topics, and expert-corrected hierarchies for a subset of 100 topics. Expert corrections allow us to quantify LLM performance, and we find that while they are quite good at generating and organizing categories, their assignment of studies to categories could be improved. We attempt to train a corrector model with human feedback which improves study assignment by 12.6 F1 points. We release our dataset and models to encourage research on developing better assistive tools for literature review.

Machine learning (ML) algorithms are showing a growing trend in helping the scientific communities across different disciplines and institutions to address large and diverse data problems. However, many available ML tools are programmatically demanding and computationally costly. The MLExchange project aims to build a collaborative platform equipped with enabling tools that allow scientists and facility users who do not have a profound ML background to use ML and computational resources in scientific discovery. At the high level, we are targeting a full user experience where managing and exchanging ML algorithms, workflows, and data are readily available through web applications. Since each component is an independent container, the whole platform or its individual service(s) can be easily deployed at servers of different scales, ranging from a personal device (laptop, smart phone, etc.) to high performance clusters (HPC) accessed (simultaneously) by many users. Thus, MLExchange renders flexible using scenarios -- users could either access the services and resources from a remote server or run the whole platform or its individual service(s) within their local network.

How can scientists restore confidence in their findings? Manually repeating all published experiments would be a straightforward solution, but "it's completely unaffordable," says Kellogg professor Brian Uzzi. Instead, since 2015, scientists have identified a technique called "prediction markets," which can forecast replicability with high accuracy. But the process only works on small batches of studies and can take nearly a year to complete. Uzzi wondered if artificial intelligence could provide a better shortcut.

Hoy traemos a este espacio esta conferencia Neuroscience, AI and the Future of Education Scott Bolland TEDxSouthBank, que nos presentan así: Currently around 63% of students are disengaged at school, meaning that they withdrawal either physically or mentally before they have mastered the skills that are required to flourish in later life. In this talk Scott Bolland explores the science of learning, the mismatch between how we teach and how the brain natural learns, and the important role that artificial intelligence could take in addressing the limitations in our current education system. Dr Scott Bolland is the founder of New Dawn Technologies, a high-tech software company aiming to revolutionise education through the use of artificial intelligence. He has spent the last 20 years actively researching and teaching in the field of cognitive science – the scientific study of how the mind works – which spans disciplines such as psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, artificial intelligence and computer science. He holds a PhD in this field, as well as a university medal for outstanding academic scholarship.

AI could help tackle an'infodemic' in scientific literature that's making it difficult to separate fact from misinformation, scientists claim. Two American AI experts have blamed the coronavirus pandemic for an intense flurry of scientific studies in the rush to make information available. But this wealth of material is hard for anyone to digest and ranges from the reputable to the unreliable. A greater use of AI to digest and consolidate research could therefore be the key to sieving fact from theory and ensure reliable information is properly recognised. AI might be used to summarise and collect research on a topic, while humans serve to curate the findings, for instance.

When I was about 6, my mind did something wondrous, although it felt perfectly natural at the time. When I encountered the name of any day of the week, I automatically associated it with a color or a pattern, always the same one, as if the word embodied the shade. Sunday was dark maroon, Wednesday a sunshiny golden yellow, and Friday a deep green. Without knowing it, I was living the unusual mental state called synesthesia, aptly described by psychology professor Emma Geller as a "condition in which ordinary activities trigger extraordinary experiences." More exactly, it is a neurological event where excitation of one of the five senses arouses a simultaneous reaction in another sense or senses (the Greek roots for "synesthesia," also spelled "synaesthesia," translate as "joined perception").

Carnegie Mellon University's Aaditya Ramdas, assistant professor in the Department of Statistics & Data Science and Machine Learning Department, has received the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Faculty Early Career Development Award for his project, titled "Online Multiple Hypothesis Testing: A Comprehensive Treatment." "Arguably, one of the major hurdles to reproducibility of scientific studies is the cherry picking of results among the vast array of tests run or quantities estimated," Ramdas said. "We need'online' methods to correct for cherry picking, first acknowledging that the problem exists and then designing algorithms that can account and correct for it." According to Ramdas, statistical methods that improve reproducibility in large-scale scientific studies will combat the increasing public distrust in science. The results of this five-year grant could transform how technological and pharmaceutical industries as well as the sciences perform large-scale hypothesis testing.

ICML, ICLR, and NeurIPS are all considering or experimenting with code and data submission as a part of the reviewer or publication process with the hypothesis that it aids reproducibility of results. Reproducibility has been a rising concern with discussions in paper, workshop, and invited talk. The fundamental driver is of course lack of reproducibility. Lack of reproducibility is an inherently serious and valid concern for any kind of publishing process where people rely on prior work to compare with and do new things. Lack of reproducibility (due to random initialization for example) was one of the things leading to a period of unpopularity for neural networks when I was a graduate student.