arXiv subjects

Guangya Wan

Publications and source records attributed to Guangya Wan.

9 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

COMPASS: Enhancing Agent Long-Horizon Reasoning with Evolving Context

Long-horizon tasks that require sustained reasoning and multiple tool interactions remain challenging for LLM agents: small errors compound across steps, and even state-of-the-art models often hallucinate or lose coherence. We identify context management as the central bottleneck -- extended histories cause agents to overlook critical evidence or become distracted by irrelevant information, thus failing to replan or reflect from previous mistakes. To address this, we propose COMPASS (Context-Organized Multi-Agent Planning and Strategy System), a lightweight hierarchical framework that separates tactical execution, strategic oversight, and context organization into three specialized components: (1) a Main Agent that performs reasoning and tool use, (2) a Meta-Thinker that monitors progress and issues strategic interventions, and (3) a Context Manager that maintains concise, relevant progress briefs for different reasoning stages. Across three challenging benchmarks -- GAIA, BrowseComp, and Humanity's Last Exam -- COMPASS improves accuracy by up to 20% relative to both single- and multi-agent baselines. We further introduce a test-time scaling extension that elevates performance to match established DeepResearch agents, and a post-training pipeline that delegates context management to smaller models for enhanced efficiency.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

BEACON: Bayesian Optimal Stopping for Efficient LLM Sampling

Sampling multiple responses is a common way to improve LLM output quality, but it comes at the cost of additional computation. The key challenge is deciding when to stop generating new samples to balance accuracy gains against efficiency. To address this, we introduce BEACON (Bayesian Efficient Adaptive Criterion for Optimal N-stopping), a principled adaptive sampling framework grounded in Sequential Search with Bayesian Learning. BEACON sequentially generates responses from the policy LLM, updates posterior belief over reward distributions in real time without further training, and determines when to stop by weighing expected gains against computational cost. Sampling terminates once the marginal utility of further exploration no longer justifies the expense. We establish both theoretical optimality guarantees and practical tractability, and show empirically that BEACON reduces average sampling by up to 80% while maintaining response quality. We further demonstrate BEACON's utility for cost-efficient preference data generation and outline practical extensions, offering actionable insights for future researchers.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

MedGUIDE: Benchmarking Clinical Decision-Making in Large Language Models

Clinical guidelines, typically structured as decision trees, are central to evidence-based medical practice and critical for ensuring safe and accurate diagnostic decision-making. However, it remains unclear whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can reliably follow such structured protocols. In this work, we introduce MedGUIDE, a new benchmark for evaluating LLMs on their ability to make guideline-consistent clinical decisions. MedGUIDE is constructed from 55 curated NCCN decision trees across 17 cancer types and uses clinical scenarios generated by LLMs to create a large pool of multiple-choice diagnostic questions. We apply a two-stage quality selection process, combining expert-labeled reward models and LLM-as-a-judge ensembles across ten clinical and linguistic criteria, to select 7,747 high-quality samples. We evaluate 25 LLMs spanning general-purpose, open-source, and medically specialized models, and find that even domain-specific LLMs often underperform on tasks requiring structured guideline adherence. We also test whether performance can be improved via in-context guideline inclusion or continued pretraining. Our findings underscore the importance of MedGUIDE in assessing whether LLMs can operate safely within the procedural frameworks expected in real-world clinical settings.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Disparities in LLM Reasoning Accuracy and Explanations: A Case Study on African American English

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in reasoning tasks, leading to their widespread deployment. However, recent studies have highlighted concerning biases in these models, particularly in their handling of dialectal variations like African American English (AAE). In this work, we systematically investigate dialectal disparities in LLM reasoning tasks. We develop an experimental framework comparing LLM performance given Standard American English (SAE) and AAE prompts, combining LLM-based dialect conversion with established linguistic analyses. We find that LLMs consistently produce less accurate responses and simpler reasoning chains and explanations for AAE inputs compared to equivalent SAE questions, with disparities most pronounced in social science and humanities domains. These findings highlight systematic differences in how LLMs process and reason about different language varieties, raising important questions about the development and deployment of these systems in our multilingual and multidialectal world. Our code repository is publicly available at https://github.com/Runtaozhou/dialect_bias_eval.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

WiseMind: a knowledge-guided multi-agent framework for accurate and empathetic psychiatric diagnosis

Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promising opportunities to support mental healthcare workflows, yet they often lack the structured clinical reasoning needed for reliable diagnosis and may struggle to provide the emotionally attuned communication essential for patient trust. Here, we introduce WiseMind, a novel multi-agent framework inspired by the theory of Dialectical Behavior Therapy designed to facilitate psychiatric assessment. By integrating a "Reasonable Mind" Agent for evidence-based logic and an "Emotional Mind" Agent for empathetic communication, WiseMind effectively bridges the gap between instrumental accuracy and humanistic care. Our framework utilizes a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)-guided Structured Knowledge Graph to steer diagnostic inquiries, significantly reducing hallucinations compared to standard prompting methods. Using a combination of virtual standard patients, simulated interactions, and real human interaction datasets, we evaluate WiseMind across three common psychiatric conditions. WiseMind outperforms state-of-the-art LLM methods in both identifying critical diagnostic nodes and establishing accurate differential diagnoses. Across 1206 simulated conversations and 180 real user sessions, the system achieves 85.6% top-1 diagnostic accuracy, approaching reported diagnostic performance ranges of board-certified psychiatrists and surpassing knowledge-enhanced single-agent baselines by 15-54 percentage points. Expert review by psychiatrists further validates that WiseMind generates responses that are not only clinically sound but also psychologically supportive, demonstrating the feasibility of empathetic, reliable AI agents to conduct psychiatric assessments under appropriate human oversight.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Reasoning Aware Self-Consistency: Leveraging Reasoning Paths for Efficient LLM Sampling

Self-Consistency mitigates hallucinations in Large Language Models (LLMs) by sampling multiple reasoning paths,but it lacks a systematic approach to determine the optimal number of samples or select the most faithful rationale. To address this limitation, we introduce Reasoning-Aware Self-Consistency (RASC), a novel framework that enhances sampling efficiency and reasoning faithfulness by dynamically evaluating both outputs and rationales. RASC assesses the quality of reasoning and the consistency of answers for each generated sample, using these assessments to guide early stopping decisions and rationale selection. The framework employs criteria-based stopping and weighted majority voting, enabling more informed choices on when to halt sampling and which rationale to select. Our comprehensive experiments across diverse question-answering datasets demonstrate that RASC outperforms existing methods, reducing sample usage by approximately 70% while maintaining accuracy. Moreover, RASC facilitates the selection of high-fidelity rationales, thereby improving the faithfulness of LLM outputs. Our approach effectively addresses the efficiency-accuracy trade-off in LLM reasoning tasks, offering a new perspective for more nuanced, faithful, and effective utilization of LLMs in resource-constrained environments.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Derailer-Rerailer: Adaptive Verification for Efficient and Reliable Language Model Reasoning

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive reasoning capabilities, yet existing prompting methods face a critical trade-off: simple approaches often struggle with complex tasks and reasoning stability, while more sophisticated methods require multiple inferences and substantial computational resources, limiting their practical deployment. To address this challenge, we propose Derailer-Rerailer, a novel framework that adaptively balances reasoning accuracy and computational efficiency. At its core, our framework employs a lightweight Derailer mechanism to assess reasoning stability and selectively triggers an advanced Rerailer verification process only when necessary, thereby optimizing computational resource usage. Extensive evaluation across both open and closed-source models on more than 20 categories of mathematical, symbolic, and commonsense reasoning tasks demonstrates our framework's effectiveness: Derailer-Rerailer achieves significant accuracy improvements (8-11\% across various reasoning tasks) while maintaining 2-3 times better efficiency than existing verification methods, with particularly strong performance in mathematical and symbolic reasoning, offering a practical solution for enhancing LLM reasoning reliability while significantly reducing computational overhead.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Large Language Models for Causal Discovery: Current Landscape and Future Directions

Causal discovery (CD) and Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative fields in artificial intelligence that have evolved largely independently. While CD specializes in uncovering cause-effect relationships from data, and LLMs excel at natural language processing and generation, their integration presents unique opportunities for advancing causal understanding. This survey examines how LLMs are transforming CD across three key dimensions: direct causal extraction from text, integration of domain knowledge into statistical methods, and refinement of causal structures. We systematically analyze approaches that leverage LLMs for CD tasks, highlighting their innovative use of metadata and natural language for causal inference. Our analysis reveals both LLMs' potential to enhance traditional CD methods and their current limitations as imperfect expert systems. We identify key research gaps, outline evaluation frameworks and benchmarks for LLM-based causal discovery, and advocate future research efforts for leveraging LLMs in causality research. As the first comprehensive examination of the synergy between LLMs and CD, this work lays the groundwork for future advances in the field.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2022

Fair admission risk prediction with proportional multicalibration

Fair calibration is a widely desirable fairness criteria in risk prediction contexts. One way to measure and achieve fair calibration is with multicalibration. Multicalibration constrains calibration error among flexibly-defined subpopulations while maintaining overall calibration. However, multicalibrated models can exhibit a higher percent calibration error among groups with lower base rates than groups with higher base rates. As a result, it is possible for a decision-maker to learn to trust or distrust model predictions for specific groups. To alleviate this, we propose \emph{proportional multicalibration}, a criteria that constrains the percent calibration error among groups and within prediction bins. We prove that satisfying proportional multicalibration bounds a model's multicalibration as well its \emph{differential calibration}, a fairness criteria that directly measures how closely a model approximates sufficiency. Therefore, proportionally calibrated models limit the ability of decision makers to distinguish between model performance on different patient groups, which may make the models more trustworthy in practice. We provide an efficient algorithm for post-processing risk prediction models for proportional multicalibration and evaluate it empirically. We conduct simulation studies and investigate a real-world application of PMC-postprocessing to prediction of emergency department patient admissions. We observe that proportional multicalibration is a promising criteria for controlling simultaneous measures of calibration fairness of a model over intersectional groups with virtually no cost in terms of classification performance.

cs.LG↗