arXiv ScienceSearch

arXiv subjects

Jinha Choi

Publications and source records attributed to Jinha Choi.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Learning Multimodal One-step Flow Policy via Value-weighted Optimal Transport

Offline reinforcement learning aims to learn a policy solely from fixed datasets, which often contain multimodal action distributions. Flow policies can naturally represent such multimodal behaviors, but learning an efficient one-step flow policy remains challenging: standard value guidance often leads to mode collapse or exploits overestimation bias in out-of-distribution regions. To address this, we introduce One-step Flow policy via Optimal Transport (OptiFlow), a framework for one-step flow policy learning as a structured sample-allocation problem. OptiFlow jointly trains a value-aware reference flow policy and an efficient one-step policy, coupling their action samples through state-wise entropic optimal transport. For each state, critic-estimated values define the priority of distillation target actions, while the action-distance cost ensures geometrically compatible pairings. By avoiding direct critic maximization, our transport-guided approach enables in-distribution exploitation by anchoring the one-step policy to high-value, dataset-supported modes without the risk of out-of-distribution divergence. Experimental results demonstrate that OptiFlow effectively captures optimal multimodal behaviors and achieves strong performance across diverse offline RL benchmarks. Our code is available at https://github.com/Yonsei-DILLab/OptiFlow.

cs.LG

When AI Co-Scientists Fail: SPOT-a Benchmark for Automated Verification of Scientific Research

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have fueled the vision of automated scientific discovery, often called AI Co-Scientists. To date, prior work casts these systems as generative co-authors responsible for crafting hypotheses, synthesizing code, or drafting manuscripts. In this work, we explore a complementary application: using LLMs as verifiers to automate the \textbf{academic verification of scientific manuscripts}. To that end, we introduce SPOT, a dataset of 83 published papers paired with 91 errors significant enough to prompt errata or retraction, cross-validated with actual authors and human annotators. Evaluating state-of-the-art LLMs on SPOT, we find that none surpasses 21.1\% recall or 6.1\% precision (o3 achieves the best scores, with all others near zero). Furthermore, confidence estimates are uniformly low, and across eight independent runs, models rarely rediscover the same errors, undermining their reliability. Finally, qualitative analysis with domain experts reveals that even the strongest models make mistakes resembling student-level misconceptions derived from misunderstandings. These findings highlight the substantial gap between current LLM capabilities and the requirements for dependable AI-assisted academic verification.

cs.CL