Field journal · Oxford Internet Institute51°45′07″N · 01°15′17″W
Entry (1) · headword

OxRML

/ˈɒks.ɹəm.l̩/
n.< ENDONYM < Oxford + R(easoning) + M(achines) + L(ab)

Reasoning with Machines Lab, a research group at the University of Oxford; cf. also Oxford Internet Institute.

(1a)
mission
Weadvancethescienceofmachinereasoning.wead-vancethescien-ceofmachin-ereason-ing1PLV.PRSDEFNGENNN.NMLZwepush.forwardtheepistemeofmachineinference
We advance the science of machine reasoning.
Abstract

An empirical research group at the Oxford Internet Institute. We study LLM evaluation, safety, reasoning, and the agentic systems built from them.

Keywordsevaluationsafetyagentic systemshuman–LLM interactionreasoningbenchmarks
(2)

Programme of inquiry

programmeofinquiryNGENN.NMLZ

Four research currents, parsed below as noun phrases. The tree structure is not decorative: it shows what modifies what, and the order of attachment. Each line runs over years, not quarters.

(2a)[EVAL]

Benchmarks and Evaluation

NPDPDtheNAdjPADJhonestNNevaluationPPPofNPNLLMs

We develop the science of LLM evaluation: how to measure what models do, where current benchmarks mislead, and how to build ones that hold up.

cf. Measuring what matters (NeurIPS D&B, 2025); LingOly-TOO (ICLR, 2026).
(2b)[SAFE]

AI Safety and Security

NPNNsafetyPPPforNPAdjPADJagenticNsystems

Bias, toxicity, agentic misalignment. We study where AI fails and build the technical and governance tools that address those failures.

cf. TRAP (ICML, 2025); DPO Reduces Toxicity (EMNLP, 2025).
(2c)[AGNT]

Agentic AI for Science

NPAdjPADJagenticNNAIPPPforNPNscience

We build agentic systems for scientific knowledge synthesis and discovery. The work is on keeping these agents reliable, transparent, and grounded in their domain.

cf. Strategic Navigation or Stochastic Search? (ICML Spotlight, 2026).
(2d)[HMAI]

Human–AI Interaction

NPNPNhumansConj&NPNmachines

We run empirical studies on how people use AI for high-stakes decisions in healthcare, law, and policy.

cf. Reliability of LLMs as medical assistants (Nature Medicine, 2026).
(3)

Corpus & references

corpusandreferencesN.PLCONJN.PL

Below: three featured papers with a full morphological parse of their load-bearing terms, then a denser reference list of the recent corpus.

(3a)
Strategic Navigation or Stochastic Search? How Agents and Humans Reason Over Document Collections
Fig. 1

Strategic Navigation or Stochastic Search? How Agents and Humans Reason Over Document Collections

Ł Borchmann, J Van Landeghem, M Turski, S Padarha, RO Kearns, A Mahdi, et al.
ICML (Spotlight)May 2026
Morphological analysis
StrategicNavigationorStochasticSearch?strat-eg-icstochast-icADJADJgoal-directedrandom-walk

A benchmark that tells real navigation apart from stochastic search when agents work over document collections.

+Benchmarks and Evaluation+Agentic AI
(3b)
A Positive Case for Faithfulness: LLM Self-Explanations Help Predict Model Behavior
Fig. 2

A Positive Case for Faithfulness: LLM Self-Explanations Help Predict Model Behavior

H Mayne, JS Kang, D Gould, K Ramchandran, A Mahdi, NY Siegel
ICMLMay 2026
Morphological analysis
FaithfulnessSelf-Explanationsfaith-ful-nessself-explan-ation-sN.NMLZN.PLfidelityauto.gloss

LLM self-explanations are usually dismissed as unreliable. Measured the right way, they predict model behavior.

+AI Safety and Alignment+Benchmarks and Evaluation
(3c)
It's a TRAP! Task-Redirecting Agent Persuasion Benchmark for Web Agents
Fig. 3

It's a TRAP! Task-Redirecting Agent Persuasion Benchmark for Web Agents

K Korgul, Y Yang, A Drohomirecki, P Błaszczyk, W Howard, L Aichberger, C Russell, P H S Torr, A Mahdi, A Bibi
ICMLMay 2025
Morphological analysis
Task-RedirectingPersuasiontask-re-direct-ingper-suad-ionADJ.PTCPN.NMLZgoal.hijackingsocial.engineering

A benchmark for whether web agents can be socially engineered into abandoning the user's task. Today's agents fall for it.

+Benchmarks and Evaluation+Agentic AI+AI Safety and Alignment
(4)

Informants

in-form-ant-sN.AGT.PL‘collaborating speakers’

The lab roster, set as a field-journal informant register. Each entry is tagged with a feature bundle parsed from their focus, and a register code: DPH (DPhil), MSC (MSc), VIS (visiting), AFF (affiliate).

(4a)
Felix Krones

Felix Krones

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+MMOD+MED]
spec. Multimodal AI, digital health
(4b)
Djavan De Clercq

Djavan De Clercq

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+FOOD+LLM]
spec. AI and food security, LLMs
(4c)
Andrew M. Bean

Andrew M. Bean

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+EVAL+HMAI+LLM]
spec. LLM evaluations, human–LLM interaction
(4d)
Yushi Yang

Yushi Yang

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+ALIGN+AGNT+POST+LLM]
spec. LLM & agentic post-training, AI alignment
(4e)
Harry Mayne

Harry Mayne

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+INTERP+SAFE+EVAL+LLM]
spec. LLM interpretability, AI safety, LLM evaluations
(4f)
Jessica Rodrigues

Jessica Rodrigues

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+KG+META]
spec. Knowledge graphs, metascience
(4g)
Guy Parsons

Guy Parsons

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+MED]
spec. Healthcare AI, digital health
(4h)
Karolina Korgul

Karolina Korgul

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+SAFE+AGNT]
spec. AI safety, agentic AI
(4i)
Ryan Othniel Kearns

Ryan Othniel Kearns

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+EVAL+REAS+META+LLM]
spec. Science of evals, reasoning in LLMs
(4j)
Shreyansh Padarha

Shreyansh Padarha

[DPH]
DPhil Student
[+SAFE+EVAL+LLM]
spec. AI for science, AI safety, LLM evaluations
(4k)
Mia Kussman

Mia Kussman

[MSC]
MSc Student
[+EVAL+HMAI+LLM]
spec. Human–LLM interaction, LLM evaluations
(4l)
Caleb Tan

Caleb Tan

[MSC]
MSc Student
[+EVAL+REAS+LLM]
spec. LLM evaluations, reasoning
(4m)
Sebastian Petric

Sebastian Petric

[VIS]
Visiting Policy Fellow
[+FIN+LLM]
spec. LLMs and financial time series
(4n)
Tristan Naidoo

Tristan Naidoo

[AFF]
Research Affiliate
[+MED+EVAL+PUBHL+LLM]
spec. Public health AI, LLM evaluations
Feature key
EVAL = evaluation · SAFE = safety · AGNT = agentic · HMAI = human–AI · INTERP = interpretability · ALIGN = alignment · MED = healthcare · LLM = LLM core · REAS = reasoning · MMOD = multimodal · POST = post-training · META = metascience · FIN = finance · PUBHL = public health.
(5)

Fieldwork & engagement

field-workanden-gage-mentNCONJN.NMLZ

Three modalities by which industry, government, and foundation partners work with the lab.

(5a)
work-shop-sN.PLtraining.sessions

Workshops for industry teams

On-site sessions for product and ML teams on evaluation, safety, and agent reliability.

Half-day to multi-week formats. For teams shipping LLM products in healthcare, finance, retail, and government.

(5b)
co-build-sN.PLjoint.constructions

Tools co-built with engineering partners

We work with engineering partners to turn lab work into tools other teams can run.

Evaluation harnesses, safety dashboards, agentic-research platforms. We build them with partners we trust, carrying the research methods through to the code.

(5c)
part-ner-ship-sN.NMLZ.PLmulti-year.alliances

Research partnerships

Applied research collaborations with foundations, governments, and large companies.

Multi-year programmes: shared roadmaps, sponsored DPhil studentships, named labs.

Consulted parties & venues
  • [01]University of Oxford · Host institution
  • [02]Oxford Internet Institute · Affiliated department
  • [03]Nature Medicine · Published 2026
  • [04]ICML · Spotlight & papers, 2026
  • [05]NeurIPS · Datasets & Benchmarks, 2025
  • [06]ICLR · Accepted, 2026
  • [07]EMNLP · Multiple, 2025
(6)

A quarterly note from the lab. Nothing else.

sub-scrib-e/səbˈskɹaɪb/V.IMP.2SG‘sign your name beneath’

New papers, open positions, partnership opportunities, and what we have been reading.

Subscription slip · OxRML-6/2026[+RECIPIENT]

Unsubscribe in one click. We never share your email.