There are several narratives surrounding the American Revolution, a well-traveled and -documented series of events leading to the drafting and signing of the Declaration of Independence and the war that followed. 

MIT philosopher Brad Skow is taking a new approach to telling this story: a collection of 47 poems about the former American colonies’ journey from England’s imposition of the Stamp Act in 1765 to the war for America’s independence that began in 1775.

When asked why he chose poetry to retell the story, Skow, the Laurence S. Rockefeller Professor in the Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, said he “wanted to take just the great bits of these speeches and writings, while maintaining their intent and integrity.” Poetry, Skow argues, allows for that kind of nuance and specificity.

“American Independence in Verse,” published by Pentameter Press, traces a story of America’s origins through a collection of vignettes featuring some well-known characters, like politician and orator Patrick Henry, alongside some lesser-known but no less important ones, like royalist and former chief justice of North Carolina Martin Howard. Each is rendered in blank verse, a nursery-style rhyme, or free verse. 

The book is divided into three segments: “Taxation Without Representation,” “Occupation and Massacre,” and “War and Independence.” Themes like freedom, government, and authority, rendered in a style of writing and oratory seldom seen today, lent themselves to being reimagined as poems. “The options available with poetic license offer opportunities for readers that might prove more difficult with prose,” Skow reports.

Skow based each of the poems on actual speeches, letters, pamphlets, and other printed materials produced by people on both sides of the debate about independence. “While reviewing a variety of primary sources for the book, I began to see the poetry in them,” he says. 

In the poem “Everywhere, the spirit of equality prevails,” during an “Interlude” between the “Occupation and Massacre” and “War and Independence” sections of the book, British commissioner of customs Henry Hulton, writing to Robert Nicholson in Liverpool, England, describes the America he experienced during a trip with his wife:

The spirit of equality prevails.

Regarding social differences, they’ve no

Notion of rank, and will show more respect

To one another than to those above them.

They’ll ask a thousand strange impertinent 

Questions, sit down when they should wait at a table,

React with puzzlement when you do not

Invite your valet to come share your meal.

Here, Skow, using Hulton’s words, illustrates the tension between agreed-upon social conventions — remnants of the Old World — and the society being built in the New World that animates a portion of the disconnect leading both toward war. “These writings are really powerful, and poetry offers a way to convey that power,” Skow says.

The journey to the printed page 

Skow’s interest in exploring the American Revolution came, in part, from watching the Emmy Award-winning play “Hamilton.” The book ends where the play begins. “It led me to want to learn more,” he says of the play and his experience watching it. “Its focus on the Revolution made the era more exciting for me.”

While conducting research for another poetry project, Skow read an interview with American diplomat, inventor, and publisher Benjamin Franklin in the House of Commons conducted in 1766. “There were lots of amazing poetic moments in the interview,” he says. Skow began reading additional pamphlets, letters, and other writings, disconnecting his work as a philosopher from the research that would yield the book.

“I wanted to remove my philosopher hat with this project,” he says. “Poetry can encourage ambiguity and, unlike philosophy, can focus on emotional and non-rational connections between ideas.” 

Although eager to approach the work as a poet and author, rather than a philosopher, Skow discovered that more primary sources than he expected were themselves often philosophical treatises. “Early in the resistance movement there were sophisticated arguments, often printed in newspapers, that it was unjust to tax the colonies without granting them representation in Parliament,” he notes. 

A series of new perspectives and lessons

Skow made some discoveries that further enhanced his passion for the project. “Samuel Adams is an important figure who isn’t as well-known as he should be,” he says. “I wanted to raise his profile.”

Skow also notes that American separatists used strong-arm tactics to “encourage” support for independence, and that prevailing narratives regarding America and its eventual separation from England are more complex and layered than we might believe. “There were arguments underway about legitimate forms of government and which kind of government was right,” he says, “and many Americans wanted to retain the existing relationship with England.”

Skow says the American Revolution is a useful benchmark when considering subsequent political movements, a notion he hopes readers will take away from the book. “The book is meant to be fun and not just a collection of dry, abstract ideas,” he believes. 

“There’s a simple version of the independence story we tell when we’re in a hurry; and there is the more complex truth, printed in long history books,” he continues. “I wanted to write something that was both short and included a variety of perspectives.”

Skow believes the book and its subjects are a testament to ideas he’d like to see return to political and practical discourse. “The ideals around which this country rallied for its independence are still good ideals, and the courage the participants exhibited is still worth admiring,” he says.

Growing energy demand means the U.S. will almost certainly have to expand its electricity grid in coming years. What’s the best way to do this? A new study by MIT researchers examines legislation introduced in Congress and identifies relative tradeoffs involving reliability, cost, and emissions, depending on the proposed approach.

The researchers evaluated two policy approaches to expanding the U.S. electricity grid: One would concentrate on regions with more renewable energy sources, and the other would create more interconnections across the country. For instance, some of the best untapped wind-power resources in the U.S. lie in the center of the country, so one type of grid expansion would situate relatively more grid infrastructure in those regions. Alternatively, the other scenario involves building more infrastructure everywhere in roughly equal measure, which the researchers call the “prescriptive” approach. How does each pencil out?

After extensive modeling, the researchers found that a grid expansion could make improvements on all fronts, with each approach offering different advantages. A more geographically unbalanced grid buildout would be 1.13 percent less expensive, and would reduce carbon emissions by 3.65 percent compared to the prescriptive approach. And yet, the prescriptive approach, with more national interconnection, would significantly reduce power outages due to extreme weather, among other things.

“There’s a tradeoff between the two things that are most on policymakers’ minds: cost and reliability,” says Christopher Knittel, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, who helped direct the research. “This study makes it more clear that the more prescriptive approach ends up being better in the face of extreme weather and outages.”

The paper, “Implications of Policy-Driven Transmission Expansion on Costs, Emissions and Reliability in the United States,” is published today in Nature Energy.

The authors are Juan Ramon L. Senga, a postdoc in the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; Audun Botterud, a principal research scientist in the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems; John E. Parson, the deputy director for research at MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; Drew Story, the managing director at MIT’s Policy Lab; and Knittel, who is the George P. Schultz Professor at MIT Sloan, and associate dean for climate and sustainability at MIT.

The new study is a product of the MIT Climate Policy Center, housed within MIT Sloan and committed to bipartisan research on energy issues. The center is also part of the Climate Project at MIT, founded in 2024 as a high-level Institute effort to develop practical climate solutions.

In this case, the project was developed from work the researchers did with federal lawmakers who have introduced legislation aimed at bolstering and expanding the U.S. electric grid. One of these bills, the BIG WIRES Act, co-sponsored by Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Rep. Scott Peters of California, would require each transmission region in the U.S. to be able to send at least 30 percent of its peak load to other regions by 2035.

That would represent a substantial change for a national transmission scenario where grids have largely been developed regionally, without an enormous amount of national oversight.

“The U.S. grid is aging and it needs an upgrade,” Senga says. “Implementing these kinds of policies is an important step for us to get to that future where we improve the grid, lower costs, lower emissions, and improve reliability. Some progress is better than none, and in this case, it would be important.”

To conduct the study, the researchers looked at how policies like the BIG WIRES Act would affect energy distribution. The scholars used a model of energy generation developed at the MIT Energy Initiative — the model is called “Gen X” — and examined the changes proposed by the legislation.

With a 30 percent level of interregional connectivity, the study estimates, the number of outages due to extreme cold would drop by 39 percent, for instance, a substantial increase in reliability. That would help avoid scenarios such as the one Texas experienced in 2021, when winter storms damaged distribution capacity.

“Reliability is what we find to be most salient to policymakers,” Senga says.

On the other hand, as the paper details, a future grid that is “optimized” with more transmission capacity near geographic spots of new energy generation would be less expensive.

“On the cost side, this kind of optimized system looks better,” Senga says.

A more geographically imbalanced grid would also have a greater impact on reducing emissions. Globally, the levelized cost of wind and solar dropped by 89 percent and 69 percent, respectively, from 2010 to 2022, meaning that incorporating less-expensive renewables into the grid would help with both cost and emissions.

“On the emissions side, a priori it’s not clear the optimized system would do better, but it does,” Knittel says. “That’s probably tied to cost, in the sense that it’s building more transmission links to where the good, cheap renewable resources are, because they’re cheap. Emissions fall when you let the optimizing action take place.”

To be sure, these two differing approaches to grid expansion are not the only paths forward. The study also examines a hybrid approach, which involves both national interconnectivity requirements and local buildouts based around new power sources on top of that. Still, the model does show that there may be some tradeoffs lawmakers will want to consider when developing and considering future grid legislation.

“You can find a balance between these factors, where you’re still going to still have an increase in reliability while also getting the cost and emission reductions,” Senga observes.

For his part, Knittel emphasizes that working with legislation as the basis for academic studies, while not generally common, can be productive for everyone involved. Scholars get to apply their research tools and models to real-world scenarios, and policymakers get a sophisticated evaluation of how their proposals would work.

“Compared to the typical academic path to publication, this is different, but at the Climate Policy Center, we’re already doing this kind of research,” Knittel says. 

To make large language models (LLMs) more accurate when answering harder questions, researchers can let the model spend more time thinking about potential solutions.

But common approaches that give LLMs this capability set a fixed computational budget for every problem, regardless of how complex it is. This means the LLM might waste computational resources on simpler questions or be unable to tackle intricate problems that require more reasoning.

To address this, MIT researchers developed a smarter way to allocate computational effort as the LLM solves a problem. Their method enables the model to dynamically adjust its computational budget based on the difficulty of the question and the likelihood that each partial solution will lead to the correct answer.

The researchers found that their new approach enabled LLMs to use as little as one-half the computation as existing methods, while achieving comparable accuracy on a range of questions with varying difficulties. In addition, their method allows smaller, less resource-intensive LLMs to perform as well as or even better than larger models on complex problems.

By improving the reliability and efficiency of LLMs, especially when they tackle complex reasoning tasks, this technique could reduce the energy consumption of generative AI systems and enable the use of LLMs in more high-stakes and time-sensitive applications.

“The computational cost of inference has quickly become a major bottleneck for frontier model providers, and they are actively trying to find ways to improve computational efficiency per user queries. For instance, the recent GPT-5.1 release highlights the efficacy of the ‘adaptive reasoning’ approach our paper proposes. By endowing the models with the ability to know what they don’t know, we can enable them to spend more compute on the hardest problems and most promising solution paths, and use far fewer tokens on easy ones. That makes reasoning both more reliable and far more efficient,” says Navid Azizan, the Alfred H. and Jean M. Hayes Career Development Assistant Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering and the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society (IDSS), a principal investigator of the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS), and the senior author of a paper on this technique.

Azizan is joined on the paper by lead author Young-Jin Park, a LIDS/MechE graduate student; Kristjan Greenewald, a research scientist in the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab; Kaveh Alim, an IDSS graduate student; and Hao Wang, a research scientist at the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab and the Red Hat AI Innovation Team. The research is being presented this week at the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems.

Computation for contemplation

A recent approach called inference-time scaling lets a large language model take more time to reason about difficult problems.

Using inference-time scaling, the LLM might generate multiple solution attempts at once or explore different reasoning paths, then choose the best ones to pursue from those candidates.

A separate model, known as a process reward model (PRM), scores each potential solution or reasoning path. The LLM uses these scores to identify the most promising ones.     

Typical inference-time scaling approaches assign a fixed amount of computation for the LLM to break the problem down and reason about the steps.

Instead, the researchers’ method, known as instance-adaptive scaling, dynamically adjusts the number of potential solutions or reasoning steps based on how likely they are to succeed, as the model wrestles with the problem.

“This is how humans solve problems. We come up with some partial solutions and then decide, should I go further with any of these, or stop and revise, or even go back to my previous step and continue solving the problem from there?” Wang explains.

To do this, the framework uses the PRM to estimate the difficulty of the question, helping the LLM assess how much computational budget to utilize for generating and reasoning about potential solutions.

At every step in the model’s reasoning process, the PRM looks at the question and partial answers and evaluates how promising each one is for getting to the right solution. If the LLM is more confident, it can reduce the number of potential solutions or reasoning trajectories to pursue, saving computational resources.

But the researchers found that existing PRMs often overestimate the model’s probability of success.

Overcoming overconfidence

“If we were to just trust current PRMs, which often overestimate the chance of success, our system would reduce the computational budget too aggressively. So we first had to find a way to better calibrate PRMs to make inference-time scaling more efficient and reliable,” Park says.

The researchers introduced a calibration method that enables PRMs to generate a range of probability scores rather than a single value. In this way, the PRM creates more reliable uncertainty estimates that better reflect the true probability of success.

With a well-calibrated PRM, their instance-adaptive scaling framework can use the probability scores to effectively reduce computation while maintaining the accuracy of the model’s outputs.

When they compared their method to standard inference-time scaling approaches on a series of mathematical reasoning tasks, it utilized less computation to solve each problem while achieving similar accuracy.

“The beauty of our approach is that this adaptation happens on the fly, as the problem is being solved, rather than happening all at once at the beginning of the process,” says Greenewald.

In the future, the researchers are interested in applying this technique to other applications, such as code generation and AI agents. They are also planning to explore additional uses for their PRM calibration method, like for reinforcement learning and fine-tuning.

“Human employees learn on the job — some CEOs even started as interns — but today’s agents remain largely static pieces of probabilistic software. Work like this paper is an important step toward changing that: helping agents understand what they don’t know and building mechanisms for continual self-improvement. These capabilities are essential if we want agents that can operate safely, adapt to new situations, and deliver consistent results at scale,” says Akash Srivastava, director and chief architect of Core AI at IBM Software, who was not involved with this work.

This work was funded, in part, by the MIT-IBM Watson AI Lab, the MIT-Amazon Science Hub, the MIT-Google Program for Computing Innovation, and MathWorks. 

In the future, tiny flying robots could be deployed to aid in the search for survivors trapped beneath the rubble after a devastating earthquake. Like real insects, these robots could flit through tight spaces larger robots can’t reach, while simultaneously dodging stationary obstacles and pieces of falling rubble.

So far, aerial microrobots have only been able to fly slowly along smooth trajectories, far from the swift, agile flight of real insects — until now.

MIT researchers have demonstrated aerial microrobots that can fly with speed and agility that is comparable to their biological counterparts. A collaborative team designed a new AI-based controller for the robotic bug that enabled it to follow gymnastic flight paths, such as executing continuous body flips.

With a two-part control scheme that combines high performance with computational efficiency, the robot’s speed and acceleration increased by about 450 percent and 250 percent, respectively, compared to the researchers’ best previous demonstrations.

The speedy robot was agile enough to complete 10 consecutive somersaults in 11 seconds, even when wind disturbances threatened to push it off course.

“We want to be able to use these robots in scenarios that more traditional quad copter robots would have trouble flying into, but that insects could navigate. Now, with our bioinspired control framework, the flight performance of our robot is comparable to insects in terms of speed, acceleration, and the pitching angle. This is quite an exciting step toward that future goal,” says Kevin Chen, an associate professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (EECS), head of the Soft and Micro Robotics Laboratory within the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE), and co-senior author of a paper on the robot.

Chen is joined on the paper by co-lead authors Yi-Hsuan Hsiao, an EECS MIT graduate student; Andrea Tagliabue PhD ’24; and Owen Matteson, a graduate student in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AeroAstro); as well as EECS graduate student Suhan Kim; Tong Zhao MEng ’23; and co-senior author Jonathan P. How, the Ford Professor of Engineering in the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and a principal investigator in the Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems (LIDS). The research appears today in Science Advances.

An AI controller

Chen’s group has been building robotic insects for more than five years.

They recently developed a more durable version of their tiny robot, a microcassette-sized device that weighs less than a paperclip. The new version utilizes larger, flapping wings that enable more agile movements. They are powered by a set of squishy artificial muscles that flap the wings at an extremely fast rate.

But the controller — the “brain” of the robot that determines its position and tells it where to fly — was hand-tuned by a human, limiting the robot’s performance.

For the robot to fly quickly and aggressively like a real insect, it needed a more robust controller that could account for uncertainty and perform complex optimizations quickly.

Such a controller would be too computationally intensive to be deployed in real time, especially with the complicated aerodynamics of the lightweight robot.

To overcome this challenge, Chen’s group joined forces with How’s team and, together, they crafted a two-step, AI-driven control scheme that provides the robustness necessary for complex, rapid maneuvers, and the computational efficiency needed for real-time deployment.

“The hardware advances pushed the controller so there was more we could do on the software side, but at the same time, as the controller developed, there was more they could do with the hardware. As Kevin’s team demonstrates new capabilities, we demonstrate that we can utilize them,” How says.

For the first step, the team built what is known as a model-predictive controller. This type of powerful controller uses a dynamic, mathematical model to predict the behavior of the robot and plan the optimal series of actions to safely follow a trajectory.

While computationally intensive, it can plan challenging maneuvers like aerial somersaults, rapid turns, and aggressive body tilting. This high-performance planner is also designed to consider constraints on the force and torque the robot could apply, which is essential for avoiding collisions.

For instance, to perform multiple flips in a row, the robot would need to decelerate in such a way that its initial conditions are exactly right for doing the flip again.

“If small errors creep in, and you try to repeat that flip 10 times with those small errors, the robot will just crash. We need to have robust flight control,” How says.

They use this expert planner to train a “policy” based on a deep-learning model, to control the robot in real time, through a process called imitation learning. A policy is the robot’s decision-making engine, which tells the robot where and how to fly.

Essentially, the imitation-learning process compresses the powerful controller into a computationally efficient AI model that can run very fast.

The key was having a smart way to create just enough training data, which would teach the policy everything it needs to know for aggressive maneuvers.

“The robust training method is the secret sauce of this technique,” How explains.

The AI-driven policy takes robot positions as inputs and outputs control commands in real time, such as thrust force and torques.

Insect-like performance

In their experiments, this two-step approach enabled the insect-scale robot to fly 447 percent faster while exhibiting a 255 percent increase in acceleration. The robot was able to complete 10 somersaults in 11 seconds, and the tiny robot never strayed more than 4 or 5 centimeters off its planned trajectory.

“This work demonstrates that soft and microrobots, traditionally limited in speed, can now leverage advanced control algorithms to achieve agility approaching that of natural insects and larger robots, opening up new opportunities for multimodal locomotion,” says Hsiao.

The researchers were also able to demonstrate saccade movement, which occurs when insects pitch very aggressively, fly rapidly to a certain position, and then pitch the other way to stop. This rapid acceleration and deceleration help insects localize themselves and see clearly.

“This bio-mimicking flight behavior could help us in the future when we start putting cameras and sensors on board the robot,” Chen says.

Adding sensors and cameras so the microrobots can fly outdoors, without being attached to a complex motion capture system, will be a major area of future work.

The researchers also want to study how onboard sensors could help the robots avoid colliding with one another or coordinate navigation.

“For the micro-robotics community, I hope this paper signals a paradigm shift by showing that we can develop a new control architecture that is high-performing and efficient at the same time,” says Chen.

“This work is especially impressive because these robots still perform precise flips and fast turns despite the large uncertainties that come from relatively large fabrication tolerances in small-scale manufacturing, wind gusts of more than 1 meter per second, and even its power tether wrapping around the robot as it performs repeated flips,” says Sarah Bergbreiter, a professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, who was not involved with this work.

“Although the controller currently runs on an external computer rather than onboard the robot, the authors demonstrate that similar, but less precise, control policies may be feasible even with the more limited computation available on an insect-scale robot. This is exciting because it points toward future insect-scale robots with agility approaching that of their biological counterparts,” she adds.

This research is funded, in part, by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Office of Naval Research, Air Force Office of Scientific Research, MathWorks, and the Zakhartchenko Fellowship.