arXiv subjects

Simeng Han

Publications and source records attributed to Simeng Han.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Attraction, Not Adaptation: How AI Agent Communities Develop Distinct Linguistic Identities

When tens of thousands of autonomous AI agents interact in topical online forums, do they develop distinct community-specific linguistic identities? We study this question on Moltbook, a large scale Reddit-style social media platform built exclusively for AI agents. Using the public Moltbook Observatory Archive dataset with over 3.1 million posts and 1.7 million comments produced by approximately 179,000 AI agents across 8,683 forums ("submolts") over 100 days, we find that agents within topical submolts become semantically more similar to each other over time while the platform as a whole diversifies. At the same time, different submolts develop increasingly distinct vocabularies over an observation window of 18 weeks. Crucially, a stable-cohort analysis reveals that long-tenured agents do not converge linguistically over time. Instead, community-level linguistic differentiation operates through selective attraction - newcomers arrive already linguistically compatible with their chosen community - and differential retention - conforming agents remain active longer. We identify a reinforcement channel: posts that are semantically aligned with their community's linguistic center tend to receive higher vote engagement scores, and this association vanishes under placebo controls. Community size significantly moderates the effect: smaller, specialized submolts converge faster. Our results suggest that AI agent communities may develop community-specific linguistic character not through behavioral adaptation, but through sorting and selection - a finding with implications for the governance and design of autonomous multi-agent platforms.

cs.SI↗

arXiv2026

Do Recommendation Algorithms Work When Users Are LLM Agents? A Case Study on Moltbook

Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly populating web platforms, raising a fundamental question for recommender systems: do algorithms designed for human users still work when users are LLM agents that may not have well-defined content consumption preferences? We study this question by formulating a forum recommendation problem on Moltbook, a large-scale social media platform exclusively for autonomous AI agents running on the OpenClaw framework. We evaluate nine recommendation methods spanning simple heuristic rules, matrix factorization, itemand user-based collaborative filtering, graph-based, and sequential models on the task of predicting which forums an agent will engage with next. We find that simple popularity-based rules or item-side collaborative filtering leveraging the platform and item structural information outperform techniques that explicitly learn a user representation. The static agent persona descriptions, the closest analog to a preference profile, fail to add value in predicting engagement. These results suggest that, on Moltbook, recommendation depends more on platform- and item-level structural signals than on user-specific personalization. We present multiple lines of empirical evidence that the observed content consumption patterns on Moltbook differ from well-established findings on human recommendation datasets, providing a new angle for studying agent societies and designing robust recommendation algorithms as agents increasingly populate the web.

cs.IR↗

arXiv2026

RENDER: Controlling Reader-Facing Evidence in LLM Memory Evaluation

Memory and RAG evaluations often treat the answering model's input as an implementation detail, even though systems may render the same history as a memory entry, summary, typed record, or raw excerpt. We introduce RENDER, a benchmark control that fixes the conversation while varying the reader-facing artifact. RENDER combines a five-level packet ladder, localizing when answer-bearing content enters the input, with deterministic templates approximating ChatGPT-style entries, LangChain summaries, MemGPT-style typed records, and raw conversation. On 500 LongMemEval questions and nine models, matched-budget resolved packets beat recency-truncated raw dialogue by 42.4-72.6 points. In deployed-style templates, best-worst spread is 24.6-48.8 points per model; under the primary scorer, ChatGPT-style entries have higher point estimates than raw conversation on 7 of 9 models. Judge rescoring preserves the positive aggregate effect, but model-specific significance is mixed. Three models scoring 0 percent on formal ledger packets answer the same facts from natural-language entries at 45.4-53.4 percent. The effect persists under retrieval noise and transfers to HotpotQA, suggesting that memory/RAG evaluations should report or control the reader-facing artifact.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

ScratchEval : A Multimodal Evaluation Framework for LLMs in Block-Based Programming

LLMs have achieved strong performance on text-based programming tasks, yet they remain unreliable for block-based languages such as Scratch. Scratch programs exhibit deeply nested, non-linear structures, event-driven concurrency across multiple sprites, and tight coupling between code and multimedia assets, properties that differ fundamentally from textual code. As a result, LLMs often misinterpret Scratch semantics and generate large, invasive edits that are syntactically valid but semantically incorrect when repairing buggy programs. We introduce ScratchEval, the first executable benchmark designed to evaluate LLM-based repair for Scratch programs, covering program understanding, debugging, analysis, and repair. The benchmark contains 100 curated Scratch projects from the public repository, selected for structural and semantic complexity. Each project is paired with executable test suites, bug descriptions with corresponding fixes, block-level edit constraints defining minimal semantically correct repairs, and required multimedia assets. The benchmark is constructed through a human-in-the-loop pipeline combining automated project mining with expert validation of trigger-outcome semantics and representative bug patterns, with emphasis on event ordering, concurrency, and state management. To enable rigorous and reproducible evaluation, we propose a three-layer executable protocol measuring functional correctness via VM-level execution, repair quality using block-level edit distance and behavioral trajectory comparisons, and explanation quality via structured rubrics assessing alignment between model reasoning and generated patches. Using ScratchEval, we study domain-specific fine-tuning, training data effectiveness, and model generalization to unseen bug types. ScratchEval provides a reproducible foundation for evaluating and post-training LLMs on block-based programming tasks.

cs.SE↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating Legal Reasoning Traces with Legal Issue Tree Rubrics

Evaluating the quality of LLM-generated reasoning traces in expert domains (e.g., law) is essential for ensuring credibility and explainability, yet remains challenging due to the inherent complexity of such reasoning tasks. We introduce LEGIT (LEGal Issue Trees), a novel large-scale (24K instances) expert-level legal reasoning dataset with an emphasis on reasoning trace evaluation. We convert court judgments into hierarchical trees of opposing parties' arguments and the court's conclusions, which serve as rubrics for evaluating the issue coverage and correctness of the reasoning traces. We verify the reliability of these rubrics via human expert annotations and comparison with coarse, less informative rubrics. Using the LEGIT dataset, we show that (1) LLMs' legal reasoning ability is seriously affected by both legal issue coverage and correctness, and that (2) retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and RL with rubrics bring complementary benefits for legal reasoning abilities, where RAG improves overall reasoning capability, whereas RL improves correctness albeit with reduced coverage.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

TeamPath: Building MultiModal Pathology Experts with Reasoning AI Copilots

Advances in AI have introduced several strong models in computational pathology to usher it into the era of multi-modal diagnosis, analysis, and interpretation. However, the current pathology-specific visual language models still lack capacities in making the diagnosis with rigorous reasoning paths as well as handling divergent tasks, and thus, challenges of building AI Copilots for real scenarios still exist. Here we introduce TeamPath, an AI system powered by reinforcement learning and router-enhanced solutions based on large-scale histopathology multimodal datasets, to work as a virtual assistant for expert-level disease diagnosis, patch-level information summarization, and cross-modality generation to integrate transcriptomic information for clinical usage. We also collaborate with pathologists from Yale School of Medicine to demonstrate that TeamPath can assist them in working more efficiently by identifying and correcting expert conclusions and reasoning paths. We also discuss the human evaluation results to support the reasoning quality from TeamPath. Overall, TeamPath can flexibly choose the best settings according to the needs, and serve as an innovative and reliable system for information communication across different modalities and experts.

q-bio.QM↗

arXiv2025

Measuring what Matters: Construct Validity in Large Language Model Benchmarks

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) is crucial for both assessing their capabilities and identifying safety or robustness issues prior to deployment. Reliably measuring abstract and complex phenomena such as 'safety' and 'robustness' requires strong construct validity, that is, having measures that represent what matters to the phenomenon. With a team of 29 expert reviewers, we conduct a systematic review of 445 LLM benchmarks from leading conferences in natural language processing and machine learning. Across the reviewed articles, we find patterns related to the measured phenomena, tasks, and scoring metrics which undermine the validity of the resulting claims. To address these shortcomings, we provide eight key recommendations and detailed actionable guidance to researchers and practitioners in developing LLM benchmarks.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Learning to Reason via Mixture-of-Thought for Logical Reasoning

Human beings naturally utilize multiple reasoning modalities to learn and solve logical problems, i.e., different representational formats such as natural language, code, and symbolic logic. In contrast, most existing LLM-based approaches operate with a single reasoning modality during training, typically natural language. Although some methods explored modality selection or augmentation at inference time, the training process remains modality-blind, limiting synergy among modalities. To fill in this gap, we propose Mixture-of-Thought (MoT), a framework that enables LLMs to reason across three complementary modalities: natural language, code, and a newly introduced symbolic modality, truth-table, which systematically enumerates logical cases and partially mitigates key failure modes in natural language reasoning. MoT adopts a two-phase design: (1) self-evolving MoT training, which jointly learns from filtered, self-generated rationales across modalities; and (2) MoT inference, which fully leverages the synergy of three modalities to produce better predictions. Experiments on logical reasoning benchmarks including FOLIO and ProofWriter demonstrate that our MoT framework consistently and significantly outperforms strong LLM baselines with single-modality chain-of-thought approaches, achieving up to +11.7pp average accuracy gain. Further analyses show that our MoT framework benefits both training and inference stages; that it is particularly effective on harder logical reasoning problems; and that different modalities contribute complementary strengths, with truth-table reasoning helping to overcome key bottlenecks in natural language inference.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Creativity or Brute Force? Using Brainteasers as a Window into the Problem-Solving Abilities of Large Language Models

Accuracy remains a standard metric for evaluating AI systems, but it offers limited insight into how models arrive at their solutions. In this work, we introduce a benchmark based on brainteasers written in long narrative form to probe more deeply into the types of reasoning strategies that models use. Brainteasers are well-suited for this goal because they can be solved with multiple approaches, such as a few-step solution that uses a creative insight or a longer solution that uses more brute force. We investigate large language models (LLMs) across multiple layers of reasoning, focusing not only on correctness but also on the quality and creativity of their solutions. We investigate many aspects of the reasoning process: (1) semantic parsing of the brainteasers into precise mathematical competition style formats; (2) generating solutions from these mathematical forms; (3) self-correcting solutions based on gold solutions; (4) producing step-by-step sketches of solutions; and (5) making use of hints. We find that LLMs are in many cases able to find creative, insightful solutions to brainteasers, suggesting that they capture some of the capacities needed to solve novel problems in creative ways. Nonetheless, there also remain situations where they rely on brute force despite the availability of more efficient, creative solutions, highlighting a potential direction for improvement in the reasoning abilities of LLMs.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Advancing AI Research Assistants with Expert-Involved Learning

Large language models (LLMs) and large multimodal models (LMMs) promise to accelerate biomedical discovery, yet their reliability remains unclear. We introduce ARIEL (AI Research Assistant for Expert-in-the-Loop Learning), an open-source evaluation and optimization framework that pairs a curated multimodal biomedical corpus with expert-vetted tasks to probe two capabilities: full-length article summarization and fine-grained figure interpretation. Using uniform protocols and blinded PhD-level evaluation, we find that state-of-the-art models generate fluent but incomplete summaries, whereas LMMs struggle with detailed visual reasoning. We later observe that prompt engineering and lightweight fine-tuning substantially improve textual coverage, and a compute-scaled inference strategy enhances visual question answering. We build an ARIEL agent that integrates textual and visual cues, and we show it can propose testable mechanistic hypotheses. ARIEL delineates current strengths and limitations of foundation models, and provides a reproducible platform for advancing trustworthy AI in biomedicine.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Meta-Reasoner: Dynamic Guidance for Optimized Inference-time Reasoning in Large Language Models

Large Language Models (LLMs) often struggle with computational efficiency and error propagation in multi-step reasoning tasks. While recent advancements on prompting and post-training have enabled LLMs to perform step-wise reasoning, they still tend to explore unproductive solution paths without effective backtracking or strategy adjustment. In this paper, we propose Meta-Reasoner, a new framework that empowers LLMs to "think about how to think". It optimizes the inference process by dynamically adapting reasoning strategies in real-time. Our approach employs contextual multi-armed bandits (CMABs) to learn an adaptive policy. It learns to evaluate the current state of LLM's reasoning and determine optimal strategy that is most likely to lead to a successful outcome during inference, like whether to backtrack, switch to a new approach, or restart the problem-solving process. This meta-guidance helps avoid unproductive paths exploration during inference and hence improves computational efficiency. We evaluate Meta-Reasoner on math problems (e.g., Game-of-24, TheoremQA) and scientific tasks (e.g., SciBench). Results show that our method outperform previous SOTA methods by 9-12% in accuracy, while reducing inference time by 28-35% under the same compute budget. Additional experiments on creative writing demonstrate the generalizability of our approach to diverse reasoning-intensive tasks.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

ATEB: Evaluating and Improving Advanced NLP Tasks for Text Embedding Models

Traditional text embedding benchmarks primarily evaluate embedding models' capabilities to capture semantic similarity. However, more advanced NLP tasks require a deeper understanding of text, such as safety and factuality. These tasks demand an ability to comprehend and process complex information, often involving the handling of sensitive content, or the verification of factual statements against reliable sources. We introduce a new benchmark designed to assess and highlight the limitations of embedding models trained on existing information retrieval data mixtures on advanced capabilities, which include factuality, safety, instruction following, reasoning and document-level understanding. This benchmark includes a diverse set of tasks that simulate real-world scenarios where these capabilities are critical and leads to identification of the gaps of the currently advanced embedding models. Furthermore, we propose a novel method that reformulates these various tasks as retrieval tasks. By framing tasks like safety or factuality classification as retrieval problems, we leverage the strengths of retrieval models in capturing semantic relationships while also pushing them to develop a deeper understanding of context and content. Using this approach with single-task fine-tuning, we achieved performance gains of 8\% on factuality classification and 13\% on safety classification. Our code and data will be publicly available.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

P-FOLIO: Evaluating and Improving Logical Reasoning with Abundant Human-Written Reasoning Chains

Existing methods on understanding the capabilities of LLMs in logical reasoning rely on binary entailment classification or synthetically derived rationales, which are not sufficient for proper investigation of model's capabilities. We present P-FOLIO, a human-annotated dataset consisting of diverse and complex reasoning chains for a set of realistic logical reasoning stories also written by humans. P-FOLIO is collected with an annotation protocol that facilitates humans to annotate well-structured natural language proofs for first-order logic reasoning problems in a step-by-step manner. The number of reasoning steps in P-FOLIO span from 0 to 20. We further use P-FOLIO to evaluate and improve large-language-model (LLM) reasoning capabilities. We evaluate LLM reasoning capabilities at a fine granularity via single-step inference rule classification, with more diverse inference rules of more diverse and higher levels of complexities than previous works. Given that a single model-generated reasoning chain could take a completely different path than the human-annotated one, we sample multiple reasoning chains from a model and use pass@k metrics for evaluating the quality of model-generated reasoning chains. We show that human-written reasoning chains significantly boost the logical reasoning capabilities of LLMs via many-shot prompting and fine-tuning. Furthermore, fine-tuning Llama3-7B on P-FOLIO improves the model performance by 10% or more on three other out-of-domain logical reasoning datasets. We also conduct detailed analysis to show where most powerful LLMs fall short in reasoning. We will release the dataset and code publicly.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

GraphIC: A Graph-Based In-Context Example Retrieval Model for Multi-Step Reasoning

In-context learning (ICL) enhances large language models (LLMs) by incorporating demonstration examples, yet its effectiveness heavily depends on the quality of selected examples. Current methods typically use text embeddings to measure semantic similarity, which often introduces bias in multi-step reasoning tasks. This occurs because text embeddings contain irrelevant semantic information and lack deeper reasoning structures. To address this, we propose GraphIC, a graph-based retrieval model that leverages reasoning-aware representation and specialized similarity metric for in-context example retrieval. GraphIC first constructs thought graphs-directed, node-attributed graphs that explicitly model reasoning steps and their dependencies-for candidate examples and queries. This approach filters out superficial semantics while preserving essential reasoning processes. Next, GraphIC retrieves examples using a novel similarity metric tailored for these graphs, capturing sequential reasoning patterns and asymmetry between examples. Comprehensive evaluations across mathematical reasoning, code generation, and logical reasoning tasks demonstrate that GraphIC outperforms 10 baseline methods. Our results highlight the importance of reasoning-aware retrieval in ICL, offering a robust solution for enhancing LLM performance in multi-step reasoning scenarios.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Scheherazade: Evaluating Chain-of-Thought Math Reasoning in LLMs with Chain-of-Problems

Benchmarks are critical for measuring Large Language Model (LLM) reasoning capabilities. Some benchmarks have even become the de facto indicator of such capabilities. However, as LLM reasoning capabilities improve, existing widely-used benchmarks such as GSM8K marginally encapsulate model reasoning differentials - most state-of-the-art models for example achieve over 94% accuracy on the GSM8K dataset (paperwithcode, 2024). While constructing harder benchmarks is possible, their creation is often manual, expensive, and unscalable. As such, we present Scheherazade, an automated approach to produce large quantities of challenging mathematical reasoning benchmarks by logically chaining a small starting set of problems. We propose two different chaining methods, forward chaining and backward chaining, which include randomized branching techniques to generate complex reasoning problems. We apply Scheherazade on GSM8K to create GSM8K-Scheherazade and evaluate 3 frontier LLMs and OpenAI's o1-preview on it. We show that while other frontier models' performance declines precipitously at only a few questions chained, our evaluation suggests o1-preview's performance persists, with the flagship OpenAI model the only one to perform better at backward reasoning. Our data and code are available at https://github.com/YoshikiTakashima/scheherazade-code-data.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

HYBRIDMIND: Meta Selection of Natural Language and Symbolic Language for Enhanced LLM Reasoning

LLMs approach logical and mathematical reasoning through natural or symbolic languages. While natural language offers human-accessible flexibility but suffers from ambiguity, symbolic reasoning provides precise, machine-executable inferences at the cost of strict domain constraints. We introduce HYBRIDMIND, an adaptive strategy that selects the optimal reasoning approach for each reasoning problem. Through extensive experiments, we evaluate both prompting-based approaches with state-of-the-art LLMs and fine-tuned open-source models. We find that fine-tuning LLaMA-3.1-8B-Instruct as a meta-selector outperforms GPT-4o's natural language reasoning by 4.4\% on FOLIO and 1.3\% on MATH. More notably, using GPT-3.5-turbo as a prompted meta-selector yields a 10\% improvement on FOLIO's challenging subset compared to GPT-4o. We will release our code and data to support future research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Optimizing Language Model's Reasoning Abilities with Weak Supervision

While Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated proficiency in handling complex queries, much of the past work has depended on extensively annotated datasets by human experts. However, this reliance on fully-supervised annotations poses scalability challenges, particularly as models and data requirements grow. To mitigate this, we explore the potential of enhancing LLMs' reasoning abilities with minimal human supervision. In this work, we introduce self-reinforcement, which begins with Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) of the model using a small collection of annotated questions. Then it iteratively improves LLMs by learning from the differences in responses from the SFT and unfinetuned models on unlabeled questions. Our approach provides an efficient approach without relying heavily on extensive human-annotated explanations. However, current reasoning benchmarks typically only include golden-reference answers or rationales. Therefore, we present \textsc{PuzzleBen}, a weakly supervised benchmark that comprises 25,147 complex questions, answers, and human-generated rationales across various domains, such as brainteasers, puzzles, riddles, parajumbles, and critical reasoning tasks. A unique aspect of our dataset is the inclusion of 10,000 unannotated questions, enabling us to explore utilizing fewer supersized data to boost LLMs' inference capabilities. Our experiments underscore the significance of \textsc{PuzzleBen}, as well as the effectiveness of our methodology as a promising direction in future endeavors. Our dataset and code will be published soon on \texttt{Anonymity Link}.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization

While large language models (LLMs) can already achieve strong performance on standard generic summarization benchmarks, their performance on more complex summarization task settings is less studied. Therefore, we benchmark LLMs on instruction controllable text summarization, where the model input consists of both a source article and a natural language requirement for desired summary characteristics. To this end, we curate an evaluation-only dataset for this task setting and conduct human evaluations of five LLM-based systems to assess their instruction-following capabilities in controllable summarization. We then benchmark LLM-based automatic evaluation for this task with 4 different evaluation protocols and 11 LLMs, resulting in 40 evaluation methods. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs, since (1) all LLMs evaluated still make factual and other types of errors in their summaries; (2) no LLM-based evaluation methods can achieve a strong alignment with human annotators when judging the quality of candidate summaries; (3) different LLMs show large performance gaps in summary generation and evaluation capabilities. We make our collected benchmark InstruSum publicly available to facilitate future research in this direction.

cs.CL↗