TJS Articles & News

Can AI Chatbots Provide Coaching in Engineering? Beyond Information Processing Toward Masterycs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2601.03693v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Engineering education faces a double disruption: traditional apprenticeship models that cultivated judgment and tacit skill are eroding, just as generative AI emerges as an informal coaching partner. This convergence rekindles long-standing questions in the philosophy of AI and cognition about the limits of computation, the nature of embodied rationality, and the distinction between information processing and wisdom. Building on this rich intellectual tradition, this paper examines whether AI chatbots can provide coaching that fosters mastery rather than merely delivering information. We synthesize critical perspectives from decades of scholarship on expertise, tacit knowledge, and human-machine interaction, situating them within the context of contemporary AI-driven education. Empirically, we report findings from a mixed-methods study (N = 75 students, N = 7 faculty) exploring the use of a coaching chatbot in engineering education. Results reveal a consistent boundary: participants accept AI for technical problem solving (convergent tasks; M = 3.84 on a 1-5 Likert scale) but remain skeptical of its capacity for moral, emotional, and contextual judgment (divergent tasks). Faculty express stronger concerns over risk (M = 4.71 vs. M = 4.14, p = 0.003), and privacy emerges as a key requirement, with 64-71 percent of participants demanding strict confidentiality. Our findings suggest that while generative AI can democratize access to cognitive and procedural support, it cannot replicate the embodied, value-laden dimensions of human mentorship. We propose a multiplex coaching framework that integrates human wisdom within expert-in-the-loop models, preserving the depth of apprenticeship while leveraging AI scalability to enrich the next generation of engineering education.

 arXiv:2601.03693v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Engineering education faces a double disruption: traditional apprenticeship models that cultivated judgment and tacit skill are eroding, just as generative AI emerges as an informal coaching partner. This convergence rekindles long-standing questions in the philosophy of AI and cognition about the limits of computation, the nature of embodied rationality, and the distinction between information processing and wisdom. Building on this rich intellectual tradition, this paper examines whether AI chatbots can provide coaching that fosters mastery rather than merely delivering information. We synthesize critical perspectives from decades of scholarship on expertise, tacit knowledge, and human-machine interaction, situating them within the context of contemporary AI-driven education. Empirically, we report findings from a mixed-methods study (N = 75 students, N = 7 faculty) exploring the use of a coaching chatbot in engineering education. Results reveal a consistent boundary: participants accept AI for technical problem solving (convergent tasks; M = 3.84 on a 1-5 Likert scale) but remain skeptical of its capacity for moral, emotional, and contextual judgment (divergent tasks). Faculty express stronger concerns over risk (M = 4.71 vs. M = 4.14, p = 0.003), and privacy emerges as a key requirement, with 64-71 percent of participants demanding strict confidentiality. Our findings suggest that while generative AI can democratize access to cognitive and procedural support, it cannot replicate the embodied, value-laden dimensions of human mentorship. We propose a multiplex coaching framework that integrates human wisdom within expert-in-the-loop models, preserving the depth of apprenticeship while leveraging AI scalability to enrich the next generation of engineering education. Read More  

CPGPrompt: Translating Clinical Guidelines into LLM-Executable Decision Supportcs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2601.03475v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide evidence-based recommendations for patient care; however, integrating them into Artificial Intelligence (AI) remains challenging. Previous approaches, such as rule-based systems, face significant limitations, including poor interpretability, inconsistent adherence to guidelines, and narrow domain applicability. To address this, we develop and validate CPGPrompt, an auto-prompting system that converts narrative clinical guidelines into large language models (LLMs).
Our framework translates CPGs into structured decision trees and utilizes an LLM to dynamically navigate them for patient case evaluation. Synthetic vignettes were generated across three domains (headache, lower back pain, and prostate cancer) and distributed into four categories to test different decision scenarios. System performance was assessed on both binary specialty-referral decisions and fine-grained pathway-classification tasks.
The binary specialty referral classification achieved consistently strong performance across all domains (F1: 0.85-1.00), with high recall (1.00 $pm$ 0.00). In contrast, multi-class pathway assignment showed reduced performance, with domain-specific variations: headache (F1: 0.47), lower back pain (F1: 0.72), and prostate cancer (F1: 0.77). Domain-specific performance differences reflected the structure of each guideline. The headache guideline highlighted challenges with negation handling. The lower back pain guideline required temporal reasoning. In contrast, prostate cancer pathways benefited from quantifiable laboratory tests, resulting in more reliable decision-making.

 arXiv:2601.03475v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) provide evidence-based recommendations for patient care; however, integrating them into Artificial Intelligence (AI) remains challenging. Previous approaches, such as rule-based systems, face significant limitations, including poor interpretability, inconsistent adherence to guidelines, and narrow domain applicability. To address this, we develop and validate CPGPrompt, an auto-prompting system that converts narrative clinical guidelines into large language models (LLMs).
Our framework translates CPGs into structured decision trees and utilizes an LLM to dynamically navigate them for patient case evaluation. Synthetic vignettes were generated across three domains (headache, lower back pain, and prostate cancer) and distributed into four categories to test different decision scenarios. System performance was assessed on both binary specialty-referral decisions and fine-grained pathway-classification tasks.
The binary specialty referral classification achieved consistently strong performance across all domains (F1: 0.85-1.00), with high recall (1.00 $pm$ 0.00). In contrast, multi-class pathway assignment showed reduced performance, with domain-specific variations: headache (F1: 0.47), lower back pain (F1: 0.72), and prostate cancer (F1: 0.77). Domain-specific performance differences reflected the structure of each guideline. The headache guideline highlighted challenges with negation handling. The lower back pain guideline required temporal reasoning. In contrast, prostate cancer pathways benefited from quantifiable laboratory tests, resulting in more reliable decision-making. Read More  

Personalization of Large Foundation Models for Health Interventionscs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2601.03482v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large foundation models (LFMs) transform healthcare AI in prevention, diagnostics, and treatment. However, whether LFMs can provide truly personalized treatment recommendations remains an open question. Recent research has revealed multiple challenges for personalization, including the fundamental generalizability paradox: models achieving high accuracy in one clinical study perform at chance level in others, demonstrating that personalization and external validity exist in tension. This exemplifies broader contradictions in AI-driven healthcare: the privacy-performance paradox, scale-specificity paradox, and the automation-empathy paradox. As another challenge, the degree of causal understanding required for personalized recommendations, as opposed to mere predictive capacities of LFMs, remains an open question. N-of-1 trials — crossover self-experiments and the gold standard for individual causal inference in personalized medicine — resolve these tensions by providing within-person causal evidence while preserving privacy through local experimentation. Despite their impressive capabilities, this paper argues that LFMs cannot replace N-of-1 trials. We argue that LFMs and N-of-1 trials are complementary: LFMs excel at rapid hypothesis generation from population patterns using multimodal data, while N-of-1 trials excel at causal validation for a given individual. We propose a hybrid framework that combines the strengths of both to enable personalization and navigate the identified paradoxes: LFMs generate ranked intervention candidates with uncertainty estimates, which trigger subsequent N-of-1 trials. Clarifying the boundary between prediction and causation and explicitly addressing the paradoxical tensions are essential for responsible AI integration in personalized medicine.

 arXiv:2601.03482v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large foundation models (LFMs) transform healthcare AI in prevention, diagnostics, and treatment. However, whether LFMs can provide truly personalized treatment recommendations remains an open question. Recent research has revealed multiple challenges for personalization, including the fundamental generalizability paradox: models achieving high accuracy in one clinical study perform at chance level in others, demonstrating that personalization and external validity exist in tension. This exemplifies broader contradictions in AI-driven healthcare: the privacy-performance paradox, scale-specificity paradox, and the automation-empathy paradox. As another challenge, the degree of causal understanding required for personalized recommendations, as opposed to mere predictive capacities of LFMs, remains an open question. N-of-1 trials — crossover self-experiments and the gold standard for individual causal inference in personalized medicine — resolve these tensions by providing within-person causal evidence while preserving privacy through local experimentation. Despite their impressive capabilities, this paper argues that LFMs cannot replace N-of-1 trials. We argue that LFMs and N-of-1 trials are complementary: LFMs excel at rapid hypothesis generation from population patterns using multimodal data, while N-of-1 trials excel at causal validation for a given individual. We propose a hybrid framework that combines the strengths of both to enable personalization and navigate the identified paradoxes: LFMs generate ranked intervention candidates with uncertainty estimates, which trigger subsequent N-of-1 trials. Clarifying the boundary between prediction and causation and explicitly addressing the paradoxical tensions are essential for responsible AI integration in personalized medicine. Read More  

Analyzing Reasoning Consistency in Large Multimodal Models under Cross-Modal Conflictscs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2601.04073v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in video reasoning via Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, the robustness of their reasoning chains remains questionable. In this paper, we identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where once a textual hallucination occurs in the thinking process, models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence. To systematically investigate this, we propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs spanning both native reasoning architectures and prompt-driven paradigms to evaluate their self-reflection capabilities. The results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation. To mitigate this, we introduce Active Visual-Context Refinement, a training-free inference paradigm which orchestrates an active visual re-grounding mechanism to enforce fine-grained verification coupled with an adaptive context refinement strategy to summarize and denoise the reasoning history. Experiments demonstrate that our approach significantly stifles hallucination propagation and enhances reasoning robustness.

 arXiv:2601.04073v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large Multimodal Models (LMMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in video reasoning via Chain-of-Thought (CoT). However, the robustness of their reasoning chains remains questionable. In this paper, we identify a critical failure mode termed textual inertia, where once a textual hallucination occurs in the thinking process, models tend to blindly adhere to the erroneous text while neglecting conflicting visual evidence. To systematically investigate this, we propose the LogicGraph Perturbation Protocol that structurally injects perturbations into the reasoning chains of diverse LMMs spanning both native reasoning architectures and prompt-driven paradigms to evaluate their self-reflection capabilities. The results reveal that models successfully self-correct in less than 10% of cases and predominantly succumb to blind textual error propagation. To mitigate this, we introduce Active Visual-Context Refinement, a training-free inference paradigm which orchestrates an active visual re-grounding mechanism to enforce fine-grained verification coupled with an adaptive context refinement strategy to summarize and denoise the reasoning history. Experiments demonstrate that our approach significantly stifles hallucination propagation and enhances reasoning robustness. Read More  

Faithful-First Reasoning, Planning, and Acting for Multimodal LLMscs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2511.08409v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) frequently suffer from unfaithfulness, generating reasoning chains that drift from visual evidence or contradict final predictions. We propose Faithful-First Reasoning, Planning, and Acting (RPA) framework in which FaithEvi provides step-wise and chain-level supervision by evaluating the faithfulness of intermediate reasoning, and FaithAct uses these signals to plan and execute faithfulness-aware actions during inference. Experiments across multiple multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that faithful-first RPA improves perceptual faithfulness by up to 24% over prompt-based and tool-augmented reasoning frameworks, without degrading task accuracy. Our analysis shows that treating faithfulness as a guiding principle perceptually faithful reasoning trajectories and mitigates hallucination behavior. This work thereby establishes a unified framework for both evaluating and enforcing faithfulness in multimodal reasoning. Code will be released upon acceptance.

 arXiv:2511.08409v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) frequently suffer from unfaithfulness, generating reasoning chains that drift from visual evidence or contradict final predictions. We propose Faithful-First Reasoning, Planning, and Acting (RPA) framework in which FaithEvi provides step-wise and chain-level supervision by evaluating the faithfulness of intermediate reasoning, and FaithAct uses these signals to plan and execute faithfulness-aware actions during inference. Experiments across multiple multimodal reasoning benchmarks show that faithful-first RPA improves perceptual faithfulness by up to 24% over prompt-based and tool-augmented reasoning frameworks, without degrading task accuracy. Our analysis shows that treating faithfulness as a guiding principle perceptually faithful reasoning trajectories and mitigates hallucination behavior. This work thereby establishes a unified framework for both evaluating and enforcing faithfulness in multimodal reasoning. Code will be released upon acceptance. Read More  

Dissecting Physics Reasoning in Small Language Models: A Multi-Dimensional Analysis from an Educational Perspectivecs.AI updates on arXiv.org arXiv:2505.20707v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Small Language Models (SLMs) offer privacy and efficiency for educational deployment, yet their utility depends on reliable multistep reasoning. Existing benchmarks often prioritize final answer accuracy, obscuring ‘right answer, wrong procedure’ failures that can reinforce student misconceptions. This work investigates SLM physics reasoning reliability, stage wise failure modes, and robustness under paired contextual variants. We introduce Physbench, comprising of 3,162 high school and AP level physics questions derived from OpenStax in a structured reference solution format with Bloom’s Taxonomy annotations, plus 2,700 paired culturally contextualized variants. Using P-REFS, a stage wise evaluation rubric, we assess 10 SLMs across 58,000 responses. Results reveal substantial reliability gap: among final answer correct solutions, 75 to 98% contain at least one reasoning error. Failure modes shift with model capability; weaker models fail primarily at interpretation or modeling while stronger models often fail during execution. Paired contextual variations have minimal impact on top models but degrade the performance of mid-tier models. These findings demonstrate that safe educational AI requires evaluation paradigms that prioritize reasoning fidelity over final-answer correctness.

 arXiv:2505.20707v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Small Language Models (SLMs) offer privacy and efficiency for educational deployment, yet their utility depends on reliable multistep reasoning. Existing benchmarks often prioritize final answer accuracy, obscuring ‘right answer, wrong procedure’ failures that can reinforce student misconceptions. This work investigates SLM physics reasoning reliability, stage wise failure modes, and robustness under paired contextual variants. We introduce Physbench, comprising of 3,162 high school and AP level physics questions derived from OpenStax in a structured reference solution format with Bloom’s Taxonomy annotations, plus 2,700 paired culturally contextualized variants. Using P-REFS, a stage wise evaluation rubric, we assess 10 SLMs across 58,000 responses. Results reveal substantial reliability gap: among final answer correct solutions, 75 to 98% contain at least one reasoning error. Failure modes shift with model capability; weaker models fail primarily at interpretation or modeling while stronger models often fail during execution. Paired contextual variations have minimal impact on top models but degrade the performance of mid-tier models. These findings demonstrate that safe educational AI requires evaluation paradigms that prioritize reasoning fidelity over final-answer correctness. Read More