Yijun Pan

Yutong Xie, Yijun Pan, Hua Xu et al.

Artificial Intelligence has proven to be a transformative tool for advancing scientific research across a wide range of disciplines. However, a significant gap still exists between AI and scientific communities, limiting the full potential of AI methods in driving broad scientific discovery. Existing efforts in identifying and bridging this gap have often relied on qualitative examination of small samples of literature, offering a limited perspective on the broader AI4Science landscape. In this work, we present a large-scale analysis of the AI4Science literature, starting by using large language models to identify scientific problems and AI methods in publications from top science and AI venues. Leveraging this new dataset, we quantitatively highlight key disparities between AI methods and scientific problems, revealing substantial opportunities for deeper AI integration across scientific disciplines. Furthermore, we explore the potential and challenges of facilitating collaboration between AI and scientific communities through the lens of link prediction. Our findings and tools aim to promote more impactful interdisciplinary collaborations and accelerate scientific discovery through deeper and broader AI integration. Our code and dataset are available at: https://github.com/charles-pyj/Bridging-AI-and-Science.

Yutong Xie, Zhuoheng Li, Xiyuan Wang et al.

Despite their success in numerous fields, the potential of foundation models for modeling and understanding human behavior remains largely unexplored. We introduce Be.FM, one of the first open foundation models designed for human behavior modeling. Built upon open-source large language models and fine-tuned on a diverse range of behavioral data, Be.FM can be used to understand and predict human decision-making. We construct a comprehensive set of benchmark tasks for testing the capabilities of behavioral foundation models. Our results demonstrate that Be.FM can predict behaviors, infer characteristics of individuals and populations, generate insights about contexts, and apply behavioral science knowledge.

Yijun Pan, Weikang Qiu, Qiyao Ma et al.

Modern recommender systems must adapt to dynamic, need-specific objectives for diverse recommendation scenarios, yet most traditional recommenders are optimized for a single static target and struggle to reconfigure behavior on demand. Recent advances in reinforcement-learning-based post-training have unlocked strong instruction-following and reasoning capabilities in LLMs, suggesting a principled route for aligning them to complex recommendation goals. Motivated by this, we study closed-set autoregressive ranking, where an LLM generates a permutation over a fixed candidate set conditioned on user context and an explicit need instruction. However, applying RL to this setting faces two key obstacles: (i) sequence-level rewards yield coarse credit assignment that fails to provide fine-grained training signals, and (ii) interaction feedback is sparse and noisy, which together lead to inefficient and unstable updates. We propose FlexRec, a post-training RL framework that addresses both issues with (1) a causally grounded item-level reward based on counterfactual swaps within the remaining candidate pool, and (2) critic-guided, uncertainty-aware scaling that explicitly models reward uncertainty and down-weights low-confidence rewards to stabilize learning under sparse supervision. Across diverse recommendation scenarios and objectives, FlexRec achieves substantial gains: it improves NDCG@5 by up to \textbf{59\%} and Recall@5 by up to \textbf{109.4\%} in need-specific ranking, and further achieves up to \textbf{24.1\%} Recall@5 improvement under generalization settings, outperforming strong traditional recommenders and LLM-based baselines.

Yijun Pan, Taiwei Shi, Jieyu Zhao et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are highly sensitive to even small amounts of unsafe training data, making effective detection and filtering essential for trustworthy model development. Current state-of-the-art (SOTA) detection approaches primarily rely on moderation classifiers, which require significant computation overhead for training and are limited to predefined taxonomies. In this work, we explore data attribution approaches that measure the similarity between individual training samples and a small set of unsafe target examples, based on data representations such as hidden states or gradients. We identify a key limitation in existing methods: unsafe target texts contain both critical tokens that make them unsafe and neutral tokens (e.g., stop words or benign facts) that are necessary to form fluent language, and the latter of which makes the overall representations ``noisy'' for the purpose of detecting unsafe training data. To address this challenge, we propose Denoised Representation Attribution (DRA), a novel representation-based data attribution approach that denoises training and target representations for unsafe data detection. Across tasks of filtering jailbreaks and detecting gender bias, the proposed approach leads to significant improvement for data attribution methods, outperforming SOTA methods that are mostly based on moderation classifiers.

Cathy Jiao, Yijun Pan, Emily Xiao et al.

Data attribution methods quantify the influence of training data on model outputs and are becoming increasingly relevant for a wide range of LLM research and applications, including dataset curation, model interpretability, data valuation. However, there remain critical gaps in systematic LLM-centric evaluation of data attribution methods. To this end, we introduce DATE-LM (Data Attribution Evaluation in Language Models), a unified benchmark for evaluating data attribution methods through real-world LLM applications. DATE-LM measures attribution quality through three key tasks -- training data selection, toxicity/bias filtering, and factual attribution. Our benchmark is designed for ease of use, enabling researchers to configure and run large-scale evaluations across diverse tasks and LLM architectures. Furthermore, we use DATE-LM to conduct a large-scale evaluation of existing data attribution methods. Our findings show that no single method dominates across all tasks, data attribution methods have trade-offs with simpler baselines, and method performance is sensitive to task-specific evaluation design. Finally, we release a public leaderboard for quick comparison of methods and to facilitate community engagement, with the motivation that DATE-LM can serve as a foundation for future data attribution research in LLMs.