Yuhang Yan | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

TerraLogic: A Benchmark for Hierarchical Geospatial Reasoning in Earth Observation

Beyond perception, reasoning is essential in remote sensing for advanced interpretation, inference, and decision-making. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled tool-augmented agents that leverage external tools to perform complex analytical tasks. However, existing studies in remote sensing primarily focus on perception-oriented tasks, leaving cognitive geospatial reasoning largely underexplored. To address this gap, we introduce TerraLogic, a benchmark for geospatial reasoning. TerraLogic comprises 545 scenario-driven, hierarchy-aware tasks, such as hazard vulnerability assessment, urban heat island analysis, and forest fragmentation dynamics, spanning optical, Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR), and infrared (IR) imagery. It advances evaluation beyond recognition and monitoring toward cognitive-level geospatial analysis. To facilitate evaluation on TerraLogic, we further propose HieraPlan, a tool-augmented agent that organizes toolkits into functional hierarchies and performs fault-tolerant reasoning. HieraPlan enables structured abstraction, robust recovery from tool failures, and stable long-horizon planning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that current approaches struggle with hierarchical geospatial reasoning, while HieraPlan provides a strong baseline with improved reasoning, cross-modal generalization, and error handling. The dataset and agent code are publicly available at https://github.com/Ireliya/TerraLogic.

cs.CV↗

arXiv2025

Where Fact Ends and Fairness Begins: Redefining AI Bias Evaluation through Cognitive Biases

Recent failures such as Google Gemini generating people of color in Nazi-era uniforms illustrate how AI outputs can be factually plausible yet socially harmful. AI models are increasingly evaluated for "fairness," yet existing benchmarks often conflate two fundamentally different dimensions: factual correctness and normative fairness. A model may generate responses that are factually accurate but socially unfair, or conversely, appear fair while distorting factual reality. We argue that identifying the boundary between fact and fair is essential for meaningful fairness evaluation. We introduce Fact-or-Fair, a benchmark with (i) objective queries aligned with descriptive, fact-based judgments, and (ii) subjective queries aligned with normative, fairness-based judgments. Our queries are constructed from 19 statistics and are grounded in cognitive psychology, drawing on representativeness bias, attribution bias, and ingroup-outgroup bias to explain why models often misalign fact and fairness. Experiments across ten frontier models reveal different levels of fact-fair trade-offs. By reframing fairness evaluation, we provide both a new theoretical lens and a practical benchmark to advance the responsible model assessments. Our test suite is publicly available at https://github.com/uclanlp/Fact-or-Fair.

cs.CL↗