arXiv subjects

Chenglei Si

Publications and source records attributed to Chenglei Si.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

The Last Human-Written Paper: Agent-Native Research Artifacts

Scientific publication compresses a branching, iterative research process into a linear narrative, discarding the majority of what was discovered along the way. This compilation imposes two structural costs: a Storytelling Tax, where failed experiments, rejected hypotheses, and the branching exploration process are discarded to fit a linear narrative; and an Engineering Tax, where the gap between reviewer-sufficient prose and agent-sufficient specification leaves critical implementation details unwritten. Tolerable for human readers, these costs become critical when AI agents must understand, reproduce, and extend published work. We introduce the Agent-Native Research Artifact (ARA), a protocol that replaces the narrative paper with a machine-executable research package structured around four layers: scientific logic, executable code with full specifications, an exploration graph that preserves the failures compilation discards, and evidence grounding every claim in raw outputs. Three mechanisms support the ecosystem: a Live Research Manager that captures decisions and dead ends during ordinary development; an ARA Compiler that translates legacy PDFs and repos into ARAs; and an ARA-native review system that automates objective checks so human reviewers can focus on significance, novelty, and taste. On PaperBench and RE-Bench, ARA raises question-answering accuracy from 72.4% to 93.7% and reproduction success from 57.4% to 64.4%. On RE-Bench's five open-ended extension tasks, preserved failure traces in ARA accelerate progress, but can also constrain a capable agent from stepping outside the prior-run box depending on the agent's capabilities. Our code is open-sourced at https://github.com/Orchestra-Research/Agent-Native-Research-Artifact.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Towards Execution-Grounded Automated AI Research

Automated AI research holds great potential to accelerate scientific discovery. However, current LLMs often generate plausible-looking but ineffective ideas. Execution grounding may help, but it is unclear whether automated execution is feasible and whether LLMs can learn from the execution feedback. To investigate these, we first build an automated executor to implement ideas and launch large-scale parallel GPU experiments to verify their effectiveness. We then convert two realistic research problems - LLM pre-training and post-training - into execution environments and demonstrate that our automated executor can implement a large fraction of the ideas sampled from frontier LLMs. We analyze two methods to learn from the execution feedback: evolutionary search and reinforcement learning. Execution-guided evolutionary search is sample-efficient: it finds a method that significantly outperforms the GRPO baseline (69.4% vs 48.0%) on post-training, and finds a pre-training recipe that outperforms the nanoGPT baseline (19.7 minutes vs 35.9 minutes) on pre-training, all within just ten search epochs. Frontier LLMs often generate meaningful algorithmic ideas during search, but they tend to saturate early and only occasionally exhibit scaling trends. Reinforcement learning from execution reward, on the other hand, suffers from mode collapse. It successfully improves the average reward of the ideator model but not the upper-bound, due to models converging on simple ideas. We thoroughly analyze the executed ideas and training dynamics to facilitate future efforts towards execution-grounded automated AI research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Completion $\neq$ Collaboration: Scaling Collaborative Effort with Agents

Current evaluations of agents remain centered around one-shot task completion, failing to account for the inherently iterative and collaborative nature of many real-world problems, where human goals are often underspecified and evolve. We argue for a shift from building and assessing task completion agents to developing collaborative agents, assessed not only by the quality of their final outputs but by how well they engage with and enhance human effort throughout the problem-solving process. To support this shift, we introduce collaborative effort scaling, a framework that captures how an agent's utility grows with increasing user involvement. Through case studies and simulated evaluations, we show that state-of-the-art agents often underperform in multi-turn, real-world scenarios, revealing a missing ingredient in agent design: the ability to sustain engagement and scaffold user understanding. Collaborative effort scaling offers a lens for diagnosing agent behavior and guiding development toward more effective interactions.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

The Ramon Llull's Thinking Machine for Automated Ideation

This paper revisits Ramon Llull's Ars combinatoria - a medieval framework for generating knowledge through symbolic recombination - as a conceptual foundation for building a modern Llull's thinking machine for research ideation. Our approach defines three compositional axes: Theme (e.g., efficiency, adaptivity), Domain (e.g., question answering, machine translation), and Method (e.g., adversarial training, linear attention). These elements represent high-level abstractions common in scientific work - motivations, problem settings, and technical approaches - and serve as building blocks for LLM-driven exploration. We mine elements from human experts or conference papers and show that prompting LLMs with curated combinations produces research ideas that are diverse, relevant, and grounded in current literature. This modern thinking machine offers a lightweight, interpretable tool for augmenting scientific creativity and suggests a path toward collaborative ideation between humans and AI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

The Ideation-Execution Gap: Execution Outcomes of LLM-Generated versus Human Research Ideas

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in accelerating the scientific research pipeline. A key capability for this process is the ability to generate novel research ideas, and prior studies have found settings in which LLM-generated research ideas were judged as more novel than human-expert ideas. However, a good idea should not simply appear to be novel, it should also result in better research after being executed. To test whether AI-generated ideas lead to better research outcomes, we conduct an execution study by recruiting 43 expert researchers to execute randomly-assigned ideas, either written by experts or generated by an LLM. Each expert spent over 100 hours implementing the idea and wrote a 4-page short paper to document the experiments. All the executed projects are then reviewed blindly by expert NLP researchers. Comparing the review scores of the same ideas before and after execution, the scores of the LLM-generated ideas decrease significantly more than expert-written ideas on all evaluation metrics (novelty, excitement, effectiveness, and overall; p < 0.05), closing the gap between LLM and human ideas observed at the ideation stage. When comparing the aggregated review scores from the execution study, we even observe that for many metrics there is a flip in rankings where human ideas score higher than LLM ideas. This ideation-execution gap highlights the limitations of current LLMs in generating truly effective research ideas and the challenge of evaluating research ideas in the absence of execution outcomes.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Contextual Experience Replay for Self-Improvement of Language Agents

Large language model (LLM) agents have been applied to sequential decision-making tasks such as web navigation, but without any environment-specific experiences, they often fail in these complex tasks. Moreover, current LLM agents are not designed to continually learn from past experiences during inference time, which could be crucial for them to gain these environment-specific experiences. To address this, we propose Contextual Experience Replay (CER), a training-free framework to enable efficient self-improvement for language agents in their context window. Specifically, CER accumulates and synthesizes past experiences into a dynamic memory buffer. These experiences encompass environment dynamics and common decision-making patterns, allowing the agents to retrieve and augment themselves with relevant knowledge in new tasks, enhancing their adaptability in complex environments. We evaluate CER on the challenging WebArena and VisualWebArena benchmarks. On VisualWebArena, CER achieves a competitive performance of 31.9%. On WebArena, CER also gets a competitive average success rate of 36.7%, relatively improving the success rate of the GPT-4o agent baseline by 51.0%. We also conduct a comprehensive analysis on it to prove its efficiency, validity and understand it better.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Predicting Empirical AI Research Outcomes with Language Models

Many promising-looking ideas in AI research fail to deliver, but their validation takes substantial human labor and compute. Predicting an idea's chance of success is thus crucial for accelerating empirical AI research, a skill that even expert researchers can only acquire through substantial experience. We build the first benchmark for this task and compare LMs with human experts. Concretely, given two research ideas (e.g., two jailbreaking methods), we aim to predict which will perform better on a set of benchmarks. We scrape ideas and experimental results from conference papers, yielding 1,585 human-verified idea pairs published after our base model's cut-off date for testing, and 6,000 pairs for training. We then develop a system that combines a fine-tuned GPT-4.1 with a paper retrieval agent, and we recruit 25 human experts to compare with. In the NLP domain, our system beats human experts by a large margin (64.4% v.s. 48.9%). On the full test set, our system achieves 77% accuracy, while off-the-shelf frontier LMs like o3 perform no better than random guessing, even with the same retrieval augmentation. We verify that our system does not exploit superficial features like idea complexity through extensive human-written and LM-designed robustness tests. Finally, we evaluate our system on unpublished novel ideas, including ideas generated by an AI ideation agent. Our system achieves 63.6% accuracy, demonstrating its potential as a reward model for improving idea generation models. Altogether, our results outline a promising new direction for LMs to accelerate empirical AI research.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

SPHERE: An Evaluation Card for Human-AI Systems

In the era of Large Language Models (LLMs), establishing effective evaluation methods and standards for diverse human-AI interaction systems is increasingly challenging. To encourage more transparent documentation and facilitate discussion on human-AI system evaluation design options, we present an evaluation card SPHERE, which encompasses five key dimensions: 1) What is being evaluated?; 2) How is the evaluation conducted?; 3) Who is participating in the evaluation?; 4) When is evaluation conducted?; 5) How is evaluation validated? We conduct a review of 39 human-AI systems using SPHERE, outlining current evaluation practices and areas for improvement. We provide three recommendations for improving the validity and rigor of evaluation practices.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

Can LLMs Generate Novel Research Ideas? A Large-Scale Human Study with 100+ NLP Researchers

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have sparked optimism about their potential to accelerate scientific discovery, with a growing number of works proposing research agents that autonomously generate and validate new ideas. Despite this, no evaluations have shown that LLM systems can take the very first step of producing novel, expert-level ideas, let alone perform the entire research process. We address this by establishing an experimental design that evaluates research idea generation while controlling for confounders and performs the first head-to-head comparison between expert NLP researchers and an LLM ideation agent. By recruiting over 100 NLP researchers to write novel ideas and blind reviews of both LLM and human ideas, we obtain the first statistically significant conclusion on current LLM capabilities for research ideation: we find LLM-generated ideas are judged as more novel (p < 0.05) than human expert ideas while being judged slightly weaker on feasibility. Studying our agent baselines closely, we identify open problems in building and evaluating research agents, including failures of LLM self-evaluation and their lack of diversity in generation. Finally, we acknowledge that human judgements of novelty can be difficult, even by experts, and propose an end-to-end study design which recruits researchers to execute these ideas into full projects, enabling us to study whether these novelty and feasibility judgements result in meaningful differences in research outcome.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Configurable Foundation Models: Building LLMs from a Modular Perspective

Advancements in LLMs have recently unveiled challenges tied to computational efficiency and continual scalability due to their requirements of huge parameters, making the applications and evolution of these models on devices with limited computation resources and scenarios requiring various abilities increasingly cumbersome. Inspired by modularity within the human brain, there is a growing tendency to decompose LLMs into numerous functional modules, allowing for inference with part of modules and dynamic assembly of modules to tackle complex tasks, such as mixture-of-experts. To highlight the inherent efficiency and composability of the modular approach, we coin the term brick to represent each functional module, designating the modularized structure as configurable foundation models. In this paper, we offer a comprehensive overview and investigation of the construction, utilization, and limitation of configurable foundation models. We first formalize modules into emergent bricks - functional neuron partitions that emerge during the pre-training phase, and customized bricks - bricks constructed via additional post-training to improve the capabilities and knowledge of LLMs. Based on diverse functional bricks, we further present four brick-oriented operations: retrieval and routing, merging, updating, and growing. These operations allow for dynamic configuration of LLMs based on instructions to handle complex tasks. To verify our perspective, we conduct an empirical analysis on widely-used LLMs. We find that the FFN layers follow modular patterns with functional specialization of neurons and functional neuron partitions. Finally, we highlight several open issues and directions for future research. Overall, this paper aims to offer a fresh modular perspective on existing LLM research and inspire the future creation of more efficient and scalable foundational models.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Position: Towards Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment

Recent advances in general-purpose AI underscore the urgent need to align AI systems with human goals and values. Yet, the lack of a clear, shared understanding of what constitutes "alignment" limits meaningful progress and cross-disciplinary collaboration. In this position paper, we argue that the research community should explicitly define and critically reflect on "alignment" to account for the bidirectional and dynamic relationship between humans and AI. Through a systematic review of over 400 papers spanning HCI, NLP, ML, and more, we examine how alignment is currently defined and operationalized. Building on this analysis, we introduce the Bidirectional Human-AI Alignment framework, which not only incorporates traditional efforts to align AI with human values but also introduces the critical, underexplored dimension of aligning humans with AI -- supporting cognitive, behavioral, and societal adaptation to rapidly advancing AI technologies. Our findings reveal significant gaps in current literature, especially in long-term interaction design, human value modeling, and mutual understanding. We conclude with three central challenges and actionable recommendations to guide future research toward more nuanced, reciprocal, and human-AI alignment approaches.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2024

The Prompt Report: A Systematic Survey of Prompt Engineering Techniques

Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) systems are increasingly being deployed across diverse industries and research domains. Developers and end-users interact with these systems through the use of prompting and prompt engineering. Although prompt engineering is a widely adopted and extensively researched area, it suffers from conflicting terminology and a fragmented ontological understanding of what constitutes an effective prompt due to its relatively recent emergence. We establish a structured understanding of prompt engineering by assembling a taxonomy of prompting techniques and analyzing their applications. We present a detailed vocabulary of 33 vocabulary terms, a taxonomy of 58 LLM prompting techniques, and 40 techniques for other modalities. Additionally, we provide best practices and guidelines for prompt engineering, including advice for prompting state-of-the-art (SOTA) LLMs such as ChatGPT. We further present a meta-analysis of the entire literature on natural language prefix-prompting. As a culmination of these efforts, this paper presents the most comprehensive survey on prompt engineering to date.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Best Practices and Lessons Learned on Synthetic Data

The success of AI models relies on the availability of large, diverse, and high-quality datasets, which can be challenging to obtain due to data scarcity, privacy concerns, and high costs. Synthetic data has emerged as a promising solution by generating artificial data that mimics real-world patterns. This paper provides an overview of synthetic data research, discussing its applications, challenges, and future directions. We present empirical evidence from prior art to demonstrate its effectiveness and highlight the importance of ensuring its factuality, fidelity, and unbiasedness. We emphasize the need for responsible use of synthetic data to build more powerful, inclusive, and trustworthy language models.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Design2Code: Benchmarking Multimodal Code Generation for Automated Front-End Engineering

Generative AI has made rapid advancements in recent years, achieving unprecedented capabilities in multimodal understanding and code generation. This can enable a new paradigm of front-end development in which multimodal large language models (MLLMs) directly convert visual designs into code implementations. In this work, we construct Design2Code - the first real-world benchmark for this task. Specifically, we manually curate 484 diverse real-world webpages as test cases and develop a set of automatic evaluation metrics to assess how well current multimodal LLMs can generate the code implementations that directly render into the given reference webpages, given the screenshots as input. We also complement automatic metrics with comprehensive human evaluations to validate the performance ranking. To rigorously benchmark MLLMs, we test various multimodal prompting methods on frontier models such as GPT-4o, GPT-4V, Gemini, and Claude. Our fine-grained break-down metrics indicate that models mostly lag in recalling visual elements from the input webpages and generating correct layout designs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Ignore This Title and HackAPrompt: Exposing Systemic Vulnerabilities of LLMs through a Global Scale Prompt Hacking Competition

Large Language Models (LLMs) are deployed in interactive contexts with direct user engagement, such as chatbots and writing assistants. These deployments are vulnerable to prompt injection and jailbreaking (collectively, prompt hacking), in which models are manipulated to ignore their original instructions and follow potentially malicious ones. Although widely acknowledged as a significant security threat, there is a dearth of large-scale resources and quantitative studies on prompt hacking. To address this lacuna, we launch a global prompt hacking competition, which allows for free-form human input attacks. We elicit 600K+ adversarial prompts against three state-of-the-art LLMs. We describe the dataset, which empirically verifies that current LLMs can indeed be manipulated via prompt hacking. We also present a comprehensive taxonomical ontology of the types of adversarial prompts.

cs.CR↗

arXiv2023

Large Language Models Help Humans Verify Truthfulness -- Except When They Are Convincingly Wrong

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for accessing information on the web. Their truthfulness and factuality are thus of great interest. To help users make the right decisions about the information they get, LLMs should not only provide information but also help users fact-check it. Our experiments with 80 crowdworkers compare language models with search engines (information retrieval systems) at facilitating fact-checking. We prompt LLMs to validate a given claim and provide corresponding explanations. Users reading LLM explanations are significantly more efficient than those using search engines while achieving similar accuracy. However, they over-rely on the LLMs when the explanation is wrong. To reduce over-reliance on LLMs, we ask LLMs to provide contrastive information - explain both why the claim is true and false, and then we present both sides of the explanation to users. This contrastive explanation mitigates users' over-reliance on LLMs, but cannot significantly outperform search engines. Further, showing both search engine results and LLM explanations offers no complementary benefits compared to search engines alone. Taken together, our study highlights that natural language explanations by LLMs may not be a reliable replacement for reading the retrieved passages, especially in high-stakes settings where over-relying on wrong AI explanations could lead to critical consequences.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Getting MoRE out of Mixture of Language Model Reasoning Experts

While recent large language models (LLMs) improve on various question answering (QA) datasets, it remains difficult for a single model to generalize across question types that require distinct reasoning abilities. We provide empirical evidence that state-of-the-art LLMs suffer from poor generalizability on reasoning types beyond those seen in the prompt. To remedy this, we propose a Mixture-of-Reasoning-Experts (MoRE) framework that ensembles diverse specialized language models. We specialize the backbone language model with prompts optimized for different reasoning categories, including factual, multihop, mathematical, and commonsense reasoning. Our key insight is to leverage agreement among the specialized experts to select the best answer for each question, or to abstain from answering. This gives MoRE higher accuracy than any single specialized model on a collection of 12 QA datasets from four reasoning types. Beyond generalizability, the interpretable design of MoRE improves selective question answering results compared to baselines without incorporating inter-expert agreement. This framework is also more interpretable and useful to human consumers of QA outputs. Our human study confirms that presenting expert predictions and the answer selection process helps annotators more accurately calibrate when to trust the system's output. We release all code and data to facilitate future work.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Measuring Inductive Biases of In-Context Learning with Underspecified Demonstrations

In-context learning (ICL) is an important paradigm for adapting large language models (LLMs) to new tasks, but the generalization behavior of ICL remains poorly understood. We investigate the inductive biases of ICL from the perspective of feature bias: which feature ICL is more likely to use given a set of underspecified demonstrations in which two features are equally predictive of the labels. First, we characterize the feature biases of GPT-3 models by constructing underspecified demonstrations from a range of NLP datasets and feature combinations. We find that LLMs exhibit clear feature biases - for example, demonstrating a strong bias to predict labels according to sentiment rather than shallow lexical features, like punctuation. Second, we evaluate the effect of different interventions that are designed to impose an inductive bias in favor of a particular feature, such as adding a natural language instruction or using semantically relevant label words. We find that, while many interventions can influence the learner to prefer a particular feature, it can be difficult to overcome strong prior biases. Overall, our results provide a broader picture of the types of features that ICL may be more likely to exploit and how to impose inductive biases that are better aligned with the intended task.

cs.CL↗