Selected from source-grounded bilingual updates that are complete enough to check. Briefs are arranged automatically; items are AI-generated and not individually human-reviewed by default (human-reviewed items are labeled), so verify original sources before citing.
How this brief is selected: we include AI4Science updates with reliable sources and complete Chinese and English coverage, prioritizing fuller and easier-to-check information.
01Google Research · Earth AI
October 6, 2026 Arbaaz Muslim, Software Engineer, Google Research, and Gautam Prasad, Software Engineer, Google Research With Google Earth AI’s Population Dynamics Foundation Model (PDFM), we can address the data gaps and temporal reporting lags of existing epidemiological workflows. In our latest work, we present five partner-driven case studies demonstrating how this model exemplifies the planetary geospatial foundation model paradigm for global public health. Public health decisions rely heavily on timely, granular data. For health conditions, such as cardiovascular disease or postpartum depression, that data shows us where to focus resources and support. For acute disease outbreaks, such as dengue or cholera, it can help inform urgent operational protocols and resource allocation. However, conventional epidemiological surveillance is often hindered by limitations in data: multi-year reporting lags, data siloed by rigid geopolitical boundaries, and data sparsity. Even without these limitations, traditional modeling approaches require extensive task-specific data collection and custom data engineering pipelines that are difficult to deploy during rapid outbreaks or in resource-constrained settings. To address these systemic bottlenecks, we introduce a new paradigm in public health leveraging planetary geospatial foundation models. Using Google Earth AI’s Population Dynamics Foundation Model (PDFM) as a proof-of-concept, we demonstrate how self-supervised, pre-trained representations of "place" can be integrated directly into existing health sciences and epidemiological workflows as plug-and-play inputs — enhancing the statistical and machine learning (ML) models epidemiologists already use, rather than building new pipelines from scratch. PDFM compresses privacy-preserving search trends, human mobility, built-environment density, and environmental determinants into location embeddings. Without requiring task-specific fine-tuning, these off-the-shelf location embeddings matched or improved on conventional inputs across a wide variety of disease domains, geographic settings, and epidemiological tasks. Part of Google Earth AI — our suite of geospatial models connecting satellite imagery, weather, anonymous search trends, human mobility, and other population dynamics — PDFM uses self-supervised learning to synthesize the following diverse, privacy-preserving…
Terence Tao
[This is a guest post by Thomas Bloom , crossposted from the Erdős problems forum . This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.] AI is changing everything, for better and/or worse, and the rate of change is dizzying; in recent months this has been particularly evident in mathematics, where AI has gone from being essentially useless to helping solve some of the hardest problems in mathematics in less than a year. The website http://www.erdosproblems.com has often been on the front line of these changes, and a barometer by which one could measure AI capabilities. This was not at all my intention when I created the site — I wanted to promote these problems to a human audience, and make a useful reference on what work has been done. But the easy availability of a large pool of questions that are simple to state, ranging from easy and obscure to deep and impenetrable, provided the ideal showcase for AI. In some ways this has led to a huge amount of progress — we now know the answer to many questions we did not before. (Although a lot of this recent progress has come from increased human efforts and renewed interest in some problems, rather than just AI solutions.) There have also been negative effects, however: some mathematicians have dismissed Erdős-style mathematics as ‘easy/recreational’; many have stopped thinking about Erdős problems believing that they cannot compete with AI; and, most significantly, there has been a wave of AI-produced solutions provided with no explanation. While of course these are useful and tell us new things, they are also displacing and discouraging those who are actually interested in the mathematics. (These issues have stopped being Erdős-specific as AI continues to make breakthroughs in an ever wider range of fields.) A couple of weeks ago I asked for feedback on how people used the site, and what they thought should be changed. I received, both publicly and privately, a wide variety of opinions, and I’m grateful to everyone for their feedback. What was particularly striking was the number of people I heard from who have benefited a lot from the site, learning new mathematics and finding new problems to think about, but have never commented on the site. I have been particularly conscious of this large silent, audience, and have tried to make sure their experiences were not drowned…
Discovery · OpenAI
On 13 September, leading luminaries and up-and-coming talents in mathematics and computer science congregated at the annual Heidelberg Laureate Forum in Germany for a week of discussion, networking, and—naturally—wurst. Having attended several of these events in the past, the mathematicians normally focus their chatter on which famed researchers are present, or what interesting problems they have been working on. But instead, every snippet of conversation caught in passing or any debate accidentally overheard was about how AI companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google are steamrollering their way through mathematics. And there is good reason for these fervent discussions. Mathematics is the perfect testing ground for AI, involving step-by-step logical reasoning and answers that are automatically and objectively verifiable. This has led tech giants to develop their AI mathematical capabilities at a terrifying rate this year, leading to both new solutions to previously unsolved problems and a reckoning within the community as to what it means to do math in the age of AI. Tech Giants Target the Millennium Problems In short order, AI has gone from struggling with everyday research-level problems to solving a whole raft of teasers posed by prolific Hungarian mathematician Paul Erdős, then verifying the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, and—most recently and famously—OpenAI announcing it had solved the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem. As attendee and young researcher Ailsa Robertson, of the University of Amsterdam, put it: “AI and LLMs set the math community on fire over summer.” Of the seven extremely difficult Millennium Prize Problems posed in the year 2000 by the Clay Mathematics Institute, only one, the Poincaré conjecture, has been solved by humans so far. OpenAI’s claim to have solved a second, the Navier-Stokes existence and smoothness problem, if verified, represents a watershed moment for automated reasoning. Fields Medalist Jacob Tsimerman, of the University of Toronto, was keen to recognize this achievement during a press conference at the forum: “We’ve seen rapid increases in capabilities, even faster than many people, including myself, expected,” he said. “Is AI doing something new? I don’t know the details, but…solving Navier-Stokes feels pretty definitive.” Since this announcement, rumors have swirled about which of the remaining…
Hugging Face Daily Papers
Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly capable problem solvers, but being able to solve a problem is not the same as being able to teach it. Existing approaches to training LLMs as teachers rely on demonstrations, preference data, or predefined pedagogical criteria that specify what good teaching looks like. However, these signals are often not grounded in individual student learning outcomes, where effective teaching strategies can vary substantially across learners. To address this, we introduce Sherpa, a multi-turn reinforcement learning framework that instantiates multiple student archetypes with LLMs conditioned on distinct learning preferences and trains a teacher model to adapt its instruction by directly maximizing their learning outcomes. Teacher LLMs trained with Sherpa improve instructed students' performance across all archetypes by an average of 20.5 percentage points. Under MathTutorBench's evaluation, Sherpa raises the overall pedagogy score from 52.5% to 79.2%, indicating better teaching responses. Our human studies show that the trained teacher is preferred over the base model in 79.6% of pairwise comparisons. Together, Sherpa trains LLM teachers to adapt to diverse simulated students and become better aligned with human teachers, paving the road towards AI tutors teaching real students.
insitro · News
Share SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. – October 6, 2026 – insitro, the AI company unlocking causal human biology to systematically generate high-impact therapeutics, today announced that the advanced machine learning models that insitro built with Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) to predict in vitro and, critically, in vivo properties of small molecules can now be used by certain biotech companies in Lilly TuneLab™. Trained on multi-species preclinical data that Lilly generated over decades of research from hundreds of thousands of unique molecules, the models offer a powerful alternative to today’s industry standard method of extrapolation from in vitro assays, providing an enterprise-grade capability traditionally available only to organizations with the scale to generate such data volumes themselves. The models will be updated as the dataset continues to expand. Announced in September 2025, the collaboration paired insitro’s computational and AI/ML expertise with Lilly’s proprietary preclinical dataset of in vitro and in vivo measurements from a wide array of compounds with established ADMET (Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity) properties, derived from decades of Lilly drug discovery, and representing a world-class dataset in quality, consistency and scale. This collaboration demonstrates the power of insitro’s platform by combining insitro’s AI and ML expertise with Lilly’s data to unlock and advance small molecule development. “Nine in 10 programs that enter the clinic fail, most often when we first test for efficacy. That happens when the mechanism did not drive the disease, but also when the molecule never reaches the tissue at the right concentration for the right duration,” said Daphne Koller, Ph.D., founder and CEO of insitro. “The question of a molecule’s in vivo behavior has been an empirical question, answered experimentally, slowly, one compound at a time. These models make it a computational question first.” The downstream implications extend to patients. Most small molecule candidates fail, often for pharmacokinetic or safety reasons that surface late, after significant time and capital have been committed. Better prediction at the design stage may mean that fewer candidates advance on flawed structures, promising molecules reach the clinic on shorter timelines, and program development becomes more tractable. Improved in…
