arXiv subjects

James Xu Zhao

Publications and source records attributed to James Xu Zhao.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

FineVerify: Scaling Test-Time Compute with Fine-Grained Self-Verification for Agentic Search

Agentic search requires language model agents to explore many sources and answer complex information-seeking questions. Scaling test-time compute is a promising way to improve these agents, but current approaches can fail, because correct answers are often sparse and score-based selection depends on model calibration. We propose FineVerify, a fine-grained self-verification framework that decomposes each question into checkable sub-questions, verifies sampled candidates against each sub-question, and selects the candidate with the highest aggregated score. This per-check structure turns selection into simpler local judgments and produces scores under the same explicit criteria. Across four agentic search benchmarks and two models, FineVerify consistently outperforms standard scaling baselines. With only four sampled trajectories, it improves GPT-5-mini by 8.2 accuracy points and Gemini-3-flash by 5.6% on average. With 12 samples, FineVerify enables GPT-5-mini to surpass frontier GPT-5 on BrowseComp-Plus. Beyond accuracy, FineVerify produces interpretable verification traces that help audit benchmark errors, suggesting broader applications for inspecting agentic search systems. Code and data are available at https://github.com/XuZhao0/fineverify

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Test-Time Scaling in Reasoning Models Is Not Effective for Knowledge-Intensive Tasks Yet

Test-time scaling increases inference-time computation through longer reasoning chains and has shown strong performance gains across many domains. However, frontier models still suffer from factuality hallucinations, raising the question of whether increased computation is effective on closed-book knowledge-intensive tasks. In this work, we evaluate 14 reasoning models under different test-time scaling strategies. Our results challenge its effectiveness: increasing test-time computation does not consistently improve accuracy and often leads to more hallucinations. We find that changes in hallucination rates are largely driven by the model's willingness to answer, as longer reasoning encourages more attempts, many of which are incorrect. We also observe patterns consistent with confirmation bias, where extended reasoning reinforces early incorrect beliefs with fabricated details. Finally, we provide an information-theoretic perspective showing that compute-only test-time scaling, as a post-processing procedure of a fixed model, cannot introduce new information about the ground-truth answer, explaining the limited performance gains. Overall, our findings highlight important limitations of current test-time scaling methods for closed-book knowledge-intensive tasks. Code and data are available at https://github.com/XuZhao0/tts-knowledge

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

How Does Response Length Affect Long-Form Factuality

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used for long-form text generation. However, factual errors in the responses would undermine their reliability. Despite growing attention to LLM factuality, the effect of response length on factuality remains underexplored. In this work, we systematically investigate this relationship by first introducing an automatic and bi-level long-form factuality evaluation framework, which achieves high agreement with human annotations while being cost-effective. Using this framework, we conduct controlled experiments and find that longer responses exhibit lower factual precision, confirming the presence of length bias. To explain this phenomenon, we empirically examine three hypotheses: error propagation, long context, and facts exhaustion. Our results reveal that facts exhaustion, where the model gradually exhausts more reliable knowledge, is the primary cause of factual degradation, rather than the other two hypotheses.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Prompt Optimization via Adversarial In-Context Learning

We propose a new method, Adversarial In-Context Learning (adv-ICL), to optimize prompt for in-context learning (ICL) by employing one LLM as a generator, another as a discriminator, and a third as a prompt modifier. As in traditional adversarial learning, adv-ICL is implemented as a two-player game between the generator and discriminator, where the generator tries to generate realistic enough output to fool the discriminator. In each round, given an input prefixed by task instructions and several exemplars, the generator produces an output. The discriminator is then tasked with classifying the generator input-output pair as model-generated or real data. Based on the discriminator loss, the prompt modifier proposes possible edits to the generator and discriminator prompts, and the edits that most improve the adversarial loss are selected. We show that adv-ICL results in significant improvements over state-of-the-art prompt optimization techniques for both open and closed-source models on 11 generation and classification tasks including summarization, arithmetic reasoning, machine translation, data-to-text generation, and the MMLU and big-bench hard benchmarks. In addition, because our method uses pre-trained models and updates only prompts rather than model parameters, it is computationally efficient, easy to extend to any LLM and task, and effective in low-resource settings.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2023

Automatic Model Selection with Large Language Models for Reasoning

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Program-Aided Language Models (PAL) represent two distinct reasoning methods, each with its own strengths. CoT employs natural language, offering flexibility and interpretability, while PAL utilizes programming language, yielding more structured and rigorous logic. We introduce a model selection method to combine the best of both worlds by employing a large language model (LLM) to dynamically select between them. Our theoretical analysis underscores the feasibility of this method, which is further corroborated by empirical results. Our proposed method demonstrates significant performance improvements across eight reasoning datasets with Codex, ChatGPT, and GPT-4. Additionally, our method is complementary to self-consistency; when integrated, it can further enhance performance while significantly reducing computation costs. Moreover, we achieve new state-of-the-art results on GSM8K and SVAMP, with respective accuracies of 96.8% and 93.7%. Our code, data and prompts are available at https://github.com/XuZhao0/Model-Selection-Reasoning

cs.CL↗