Shaojing Fu

Andrea Kang, Jun Yu Chen, Zoe Lee-Youngzie et al.

Automatic detection of depression is a rapidly growing field of research at the intersection of psychology and machine learning. However, with its exponential interest comes a growing concern for data privacy and scarcity due to the sensitivity of such a topic. In this paper, we propose a pipeline for Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate synthetic data to improve the performance of depression prediction models. Starting from unstructured, naturalistic text data from recorded transcripts of clinical interviews, we utilize an open-source LLM to generate synthetic data through chain-of-thought prompting. This pipeline involves two key steps: the first step is the generation of the synopsis and sentiment analysis based on the original transcript and depression score, while the second is the generation of the synthetic synopsis/sentiment analysis based on the summaries generated in the first step and a new depression score. Not only was the synthetic data satisfactory in terms of fidelity and privacy-preserving metrics, it also balanced the distribution of severity in the training dataset, thereby significantly enhancing the model's capability in predicting the intensity of the patient's depression. By leveraging LLMs to generate synthetic data that can be augmented to limited and imbalanced real-world datasets, we demonstrate a novel approach to addressing data scarcity and privacy concerns commonly faced in automatic depression detection, all while maintaining the statistical integrity of the original dataset. This approach offers a robust framework for future mental health research and applications.

Lihu Chen, Shuojie Fu, Gabriel Freedman et al.

A significant and growing number of published scientific articles is found to involve fraudulent practices, posing a serious threat to the credibility and safety of research in fields such as medicine. We propose Pub-Guard-LLM, the first large language model-based system tailored to fraud detection of biomedical scientific articles. We provide three application modes for deploying Pub-Guard-LLM: vanilla reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation, and multi-agent debate. Each mode allows for textual explanations of predictions. To assess the performance of our system, we introduce an open-source benchmark, PubMed Retraction, comprising over 11K real-world biomedical articles, including metadata and retraction labels. We show that, across all modes, Pub-Guard-LLM consistently surpasses the performance of various baselines and provides more reliable explanations, namely explanations which are deemed more relevant and coherent than those generated by the baselines when evaluated by multiple assessment methods. By enhancing both detection performance and explainability in scientific fraud detection, Pub-Guard-LLM contributes to safeguarding research integrity with a novel, effective, open-source tool.

Claas Beger, Ryan Yi, Shuhao Fu et al.

OpenAI's o3-preview reasoning model exceeded human accuracy on the ARC-AGI benchmark, but does that mean state-of-the-art models recognize and reason with the abstractions that the task creators intended? We investigate models' abstraction abilities on ConceptARC. We evaluate models under settings that vary the input modality (textual vs. visual), whether the model is permitted to use external Python tools, and, for reasoning models, the amount of reasoning effort. In addition to measuring output accuracy, we perform fine-grained evaluation of the natural-language rules that models generate to explain their solutions. This dual evaluation lets us assess whether models solve tasks using the abstractions ConceptARC was designed to elicit, rather than relying on surface-level patterns. Our results show that, while some models using text-based representations match human output accuracy, the best models' rules are often based on surface-level ``shortcuts'' and capture intended abstractions far less often than humans. Thus their capabilities for general abstract reasoning may be overestimated by evaluations based on accuracy alone. In the visual modality, AI models' output accuracy drops sharply, yet our rule-level analysis reveals that models might be underestimated, as they still exhibit a substantial share of rules that capture intended abstractions, but are often unable to correctly apply these rules. In short, our results show that models still lag humans in abstract reasoning, and that using accuracy alone to evaluate abstract reasoning on ARC-like tasks may overestimate abstract-reasoning capabilities in textual modalities and underestimate it in visual modalities. We believe that our evaluation framework offers a more faithful picture of multimodal models' abstract reasoning abilities and a more principled way to track progress toward human-like, abstraction-centered intelligence.