arXiv subjects

Qiyang Xie

Publications and source records attributed to Qiyang Xie.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Evolutionary Physics-Informed Temporal Fusion for Lane-Change Intention Prediction

Early lane-change intention prediction is essential for autonomous driving and ADAS, but it remains challenging because lane-changing behavior depends on evolving traffic risk, surrounding-vehicle interactions, and target-lane feasibility rather than only instantaneous vehicle states. This study proposes an evolutionary physics-informed temporal fusion framework for three-class lane-change intention prediction, including left lane change, right lane change, and no lane change. Instead of using static physics-informed variables alone, the proposed method derives temporal descriptors from conventional traffic signals, including risk evolution, gap persistence, counterfactual lane utility, interaction pressure gradient, maneuver feasibility, and intent consistency. These descriptors are fused with temporal embeddings learned from raw trajectory sequences through a sequence encoder, and the fused representation is used for final classification. Experiments are conducted on the highD and exiD datasets under 1\,s, 2\,s, and 3\,s prediction horizons. The proposed model achieves Macro F1-scores of 0.9514, 0.9256, and 0.8872 on highD, and 0.9386, 0.9070, and 0.8531 on exiD, respectively. The improvement is especially pronounced in exiD ramp-adjacent scenarios, indicating that temporal physical evolution is particularly useful in interaction-rich environments. These results demonstrate that combining evolutionary physics-informed descriptors with learned temporal representations provides a more dynamic and interpretable solution for early lane-change intention prediction.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

MemoryDocDataSet: A Benchmark for Joint Conversational Memory and Long Document Reasoning

AI systems increasingly need to combine two demanding capabilities: navigating multi-session conversation history and performing deep reading comprehension within long documents. Yet no existing benchmark evaluates both simultaneously. We introduce MemoryDocDataSet, a synthetic benchmark of 50 micro-worlds and 1,000 QA pairs in which each instance comprises 3-5 personas, a temporal event graph spanning months of activity, 3-5 real long documents (20,000-50,000 tokens each sourced from the Caselaw Access Project), multi-session conversations grounded on those documents, and 20 question-answer pairs across five reasoning categories. The defining feature is the Hybrid source tag: questions requiring a system to first navigate conversation history to identify which document is relevant, then extract the answer from within that document. Hybrid questions account for 75.1% of the dataset. Dataset quality is characterised through a prompt-sensitivity self-consistency analysis using LLM-as-judge, yielding a median Cohen's $κ= 0.634$ across all 50 micro-worlds. We evaluate six baseline configurations spanning truncated context, long-context LLMs, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and memory systems. The best baseline (RAG-Both) achieves 0.358 overall F1 and 0.342 on Hybrid. Document-only retrieval (RAG-Doc) collapses to 0.267 on Hybrid despite achieving 0.453 on Doc-only questions, demonstrating a clear joint-retrieval gap that motivates architectures unifying conversational memory with long-document navigation. We release the dataset, generation pipeline, and all baseline implementations.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

When Does Persona Prompting Actually Help? A Retrieval and Metric Analysis of Expert Role Injection in LLMs

Persona prompting is widely used to steer large language models, yet its practical value remains unclear. Prior work often evaluates persona prompting using aggregate scores, making it difficult to determine whether expert-role prompting consistently improves response quality or instead changes responses along different quality dimensions. We study this question through a controlled comparison of four prompting conditions across 1,140 open-ended questions spanning 38 expert roles and six domains: no role prompt, a generic domain-expert prompt, embedding-based role retrieval, and a hybrid retrieval method combining embedding search with LLM-based role selection. Aggregate results show only small overall differences between conditions. However, metric-level analysis reveals a consistent tradeoff that aggregate averages obscure: role prompting systematically increases expertise depth while reducing clarity. These effects are highly conditional rather than universal. Role prompting performs best on advisory questions and in domains such as medicine and psychology, where structured expert framing and risk communication are intrinsically valuable. In contrast, baseline prompting performs better on conceptual and explanatory questions in finance, legal, science, and technology domains, where concise plain-language explanation is more important. We further show that hybrid retrieval significantly improves over embedding-only role selection, although better role retrieval does not eliminate the broader expertise-depth versus clarity tradeoff. Overall, our findings suggest that persona prompting primarily reshapes response characteristics rather than broadly improving capability, and that multi-metric evaluation is necessary for understanding its effects.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

What Training Data Teaches RL Memory Agents: An Empirical Study of Curriculum Effects in Memory-Augmented QA

Reinforcement learning (RL) has emerged as a viable recipe for training LLM agents to reason over external memory banks in multi-session dialogue. Existing work trains exclusively on a single benchmark, leaving open how the composition of training data shapes the skills a memory agent acquires. We present a controlled empirical study that holds architecture, RL algorithm, and all hyperparameters fixed and varies only the training curriculum across three conditions: in-domain (LoCoMo), mixed-benchmark (LoCoMo + LongMemEval), and out-of-domain (LongMemEval only). Across two benchmarks and ten question types, curriculum composition acts as a fine-grained lever on specialization rather than a uniform scaling factor on performance. The mixed curriculum yields the strongest overall F1 on both evaluation sets. Training on a narrow out-of-domain set transfers a targeted skill - temporal reasoning - despite weak aggregate performance. Per-type differences substantially exceed aggregate differences, indicating that single-number benchmark comparisons systematically underreport curriculum effects. We further report two practical lessons from adapting GRPO to a single-GPU regime: cross-benchmark mixing requires filtering format-specific noise from memory banks to preserve training signal, and binary exact-match reward produces no learning signal at the small group sizes (G = 4) required on one GPU, motivating continuous reward functions in this regime.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Standalone LLM and a Pre-specified Agentic Pipeline for Explaining ICU Mortality Predictions: a Feasibility Study on the eICU Demo Dataset

Machine-learning models can predict ICU mortality accurately, but feature-attribution methods alone rarely provide the clinical narrative needed for bedside use. Large language models (LLMs) may bridge this gap, and multi-step agentic pipelines are a plausible extension because they separate data interpretation, guideline checking, and final explanation. This revised feasibility study preserves the original standalone-versus-agentic comparison while making the main clinical findings more explicit. Using the retained local eICU Demo artifact set (2,353 ICU stays; 8.1\% mortality), XGBoost achieved an AUROC of 0.855 (95\% CI 0.796--0.906) and an AUPRC of 0.332 (95\% CI 0.217--0.494). On a stratified 38-case explanation subset, the standalone LLM produced 1 explanation with explicit outcome leakage, whereas the four-step agentic pipeline produced none. Among the 14 cases that overlapped with the SHAP review subset, the standalone LLM showed higher SHAP alignment (mean Jaccard 0.171 versus 0.077) and higher direction consistency (92.9\% versus 78.6\%), while the agentic pipeline showed higher guideline grounding (0.762 versus 0.143), higher value specificity (0.236 versus 0.143), and slightly higher plausibility (0.700 versus 0.671). Clinically, the results suggest that agentic decomposition may improve safety-relevant grounding and patient-specific detail, but it should be paired with attribution-based checks before use in high-stakes risk explanation.

cs.AI↗