Weiqi Zhai

Junyi Bian, Rongze Jiang, Weiqi Zhai et al.

Biomedical named entity recognition (BNER) serves as the foundation for numerous biomedical text mining tasks. Unlike general NER, BNER require a comprehensive grasp of the domain, and incorporating external knowledge beyond training data poses a significant challenge. In this study, we propose a novel BNER framework called DMNER. By leveraging existing entity representation models SAPBERT, we tackle BNER as a two-step process: entity boundary detection and biomedical entity matching. DMNER exhibits applicability across multiple NER scenarios: 1) In supervised NER, we observe that DMNER effectively rectifies the output of baseline NER models, thereby further enhancing performance. 2) In distantly supervised NER, combining MRC and AutoNER as span boundary detectors enables DMNER to achieve satisfactory results. 3) For training NER by merging multiple datasets, we adopt a framework similar to DS-NER but additionally leverage ChatGPT to obtain high-quality phrases in the training. Through extensive experiments conducted on 10 benchmark datasets, we demonstrate the versatility and effectiveness of DMNER.

Lingyan Wu, Xiang Zheng, Weiqi Zhai et al.

Process-Level Reward Models (PRMs) are essential for guiding complex reasoning in large language models, yet existing PRM benchmarks cover only general domains such as mathematics, failing to address medical reasoning -- which is uniquely characterized by safety criticality, knowledge intensity, and diverse error patterns. Without a reliable medical PRM evaluation framework, we cannot quantify models' error detection capabilities in clinical reasoning, leaving their safety in real-world healthcare applications unverified. We propose MedPRMBench, the first process-level reward model benchmark for the medical domain. Built through a three-phase pipeline based on Clinical Reasoning Blueprints (CRBs), MedPRMBench systematically generates high-quality evaluation data from seven medical QA sources, covering 14 fine-grained error types across three categories (Simplicity, Soundness, and Sensitivity) with the first 4-level severity grading system to quantify clinical impact. The benchmark comprises 6{,}500 questions with 13{,}000 reasoning chains and 113{,}910 step-level labels, plus 6{,}879 questions for training. Our medical PRM baseline achieves an 87.1\% overall PRMScore -- substantially surpassing all baselines -- and serves as a plug-and-play verifier that improves downstream medical QA accuracy by 3.2--6.7 percentage points. Systematic evaluation spanning proprietary frontier models, open-source reasoning models, and medical-specialized models reveals critical weaknesses in current models' medical reasoning error detection capabilities, providing clear directions for future PRM improvement.

Junyi Biana, Weiqi Zhai, Xiaodi Huang et al.

Prevalent solution for BioNER involves using representation learning techniques coupled with sequence labeling. However, such methods are inherently task-specific, demonstrate poor generalizability, and often require dedicated model for each dataset. To leverage the versatile capabilities of recently remarkable large language models (LLMs), several endeavors have explored generative approaches to entity extraction. Yet, these approaches often fall short of the effectiveness of previouly sequence labeling approaches. In this paper, we utilize the open-sourced LLM LLaMA2 as the backbone model, and design specific instructions to distinguish between different types of entities and datasets. By combining the LLM's understanding of instructions with sequence labeling techniques, we use mix of datasets to train a model capable of extracting various types of entities. Given that the backbone LLMs lacks specialized medical knowledge, we also integrate external entity knowledge bases and employ instruction tuning to compel the model to densely recognize carefully curated entities. Our model VANER, trained with a small partition of parameters, significantly outperforms previous LLMs-based models and, for the first time, as a model based on LLM, surpasses the majority of conventional state-of-the-art BioNER systems, achieving the highest F1 scores across three datasets.

Weiqi Zhai, Zhihai Wang, Jinghang Wang et al.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified

Xiang Zheng, Han Li, Wenjie Luo et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to health management, showing promise across disease prevention, clinical decision-making, and long-term care. However, existing medical benchmarks remain largely static and task-isolated, failing to capture the openness, longitudinal structure, and safety-critical complexity of real-world clinical workflows. We introduce ClinConsensus, a Chinese medical benchmark curated, validated, and quality-controlled by clinical experts. ClinConsensus comprises 2500 open-ended cases spanning the full continuum of care--from prevention and intervention to long-term follow-up--covering 36 medical specialties, 12 common clinical task types, and progressively increasing levels of complexity. To enable reliable evaluation of such complex scenarios, we adopt a rubric-based grading protocol and propose the Clinically Applicable Consistency Score (CACS@k). We further introduce a dual-judge evaluation framework, combining a high-capability LLM-as-judge with a distilled, locally deployable judge model trained via supervised fine-tuning, enabling scalable and reproducible evaluation aligned with physician judgment. Using ClinConsensus, we conduct a comprehensive assessment of several leading LLMs and reveal substantial heterogeneity across task themes, care stages, and medical specialties. While top-performing models achieve comparable overall scores, they differ markedly in reasoning, evidence use, and longitudinal follow-up capabilities, and clinically actionable treatment planning remains a key bottleneck. We release ClinConsensus as an extensible benchmark to support the development and evaluation of medical LLMs that are robust, clinically grounded, and ready for real-world deployment.

Hu Wei, Ze Xu, Boyu Yang et al.

Large language models (LLMs) now perform strongly on many public math suites, yet frontier separation within mathematics increasingly suffers from ceiling effects. We present two complementary benchmarks: SKYLENAGE-ReasoningMATH, a 100-item, structure-aware diagnostic set with per-item metadata on length, numeric density, and symbolic complexity; and SKYLENAGE-MATH, a 150-item contest-style suite spanning four stages from high school to doctoral under a seven-subject taxonomy. We evaluate fifteen contemporary LLM variants under a single setup and analyze subject x model and grade x model performance. On the contest suite, the strongest model reaches 44% while the runner-up reaches 37%; accuracy declines from high school to doctoral, and top systems exhibit a doctoral-to-high-school retention near 79%. On the reasoning set, the best model attains 81% overall, and hardest-slice results reveal clear robustness gaps between leaders and the mid-tier. In summary, we release SKYLENAGE-ReasoningMATH and report aggregate results for SKYLENAGE-MATH; together, SKYLENAGE provides a hard, reasoning-centered and broadly covering math benchmark with calibrated difficulty and rich metadata, serving as a reference benchmark for future evaluations of mathematical reasoning.