Fengyuan Lu

Geyang Guo, Jiarong Yang, Fengyuan Lu et al.

Interpreting ancient Chinese has been the key to comprehending vast Chinese literature, tradition, and civilization. In this paper, we propose Erya for ancient Chinese translation. From a dataset perspective, we collect, clean, and classify ancient Chinese materials from various sources, forming the most extensive ancient Chinese resource to date. From a model perspective, we devise Erya training method oriented towards ancient Chinese. We design two jointly-working tasks: disyllabic aligned substitution (DAS) and dual masked language model (DMLM). From an evaluation perspective, we build a benchmark to judge ancient Chinese translation quality in different scenarios and evaluate the ancient Chinese translation capacities of various existing models. Our model exhibits remarkable zero-shot performance across five domains, with over +12.0 BLEU against GPT-3.5 models and better human evaluation results than ERNIE Bot. Subsequent fine-tuning further shows the superior transfer capability of Erya model with +6.2 BLEU gain. We release all the above-mentioned resources at https://github.com/RUCAIBox/Erya.

Zhicheng Zhang, Jiwei Tang, Kuicai Dong et al.

Hard negative mining has become the dominant strategy for training retrievers, yet it faces intrinsic limitations: negatives are bounded by corpus availability, selected by retriever score rather than diagnostic value, and increasingly contaminated by false positives as the retriever improves. LLM-based synthesis offers a principled alternative, where negatives that are unconstrained, targeted, and free from false positive risk. But we show that naively incorporating generated negatives into contrastive learning often degrades retrieval performance. We identify and formalize the root cause as a generative-discriminative gap: LLM generation optimizes for fluent, plausible text, while contrastive learning demands strategic violations of relevance at the decision boundary. Our analysis reveals two compounding failure modes: discriminative-agnostic generation, where the LLM lacks an explicit model of query information needs and defaults to generic or topic-drifted text that provides no contrastive signal; and source-dependent shortcuts, where distributional artifacts enable the model to distinguish negatives by origin rather than relevance, causing gradient drift that actively corrupts optimization. To close this gap, we propose CausalNeg consisting of two main modules: (1) CoT-guided counterfactual perturbation for data construction: decomposes why a document satisfies a query into explicit information requirements, then surgically violates individual requirements to construct negatives with controlled, interpretable hardness. (2) Query-view entropy maximization during training: disperses generated negatives across the similarity spectrum, minimizing the mutual information between source identity and similarity scores to suppress shortcut exploitation. We make our code publicly available at https://github.com/mzhangzhicheng/CausalNeg.

Weijun Zhu, Fengyuan Lu, Xiaoyu Yang et al.

How to accurately classify and diagnose whether an individual has Coronary Stenosis (CS) without invasive physical examination? This problem has not been solved satisfactorily. To this end, the four machine learning (ML) algorithms, i.e., Boosted Tree (BT), Decision Tree (DT), Logistic Regression (LR) and Random Forest (RF) are employed in this paper. First, eleven features including basic information of an individual, symptoms and results of routine physical examination are selected, as well as one label is specified, indicating whether an individual suffers from different severity of coronary artery stenosis or not. On the basis of it, a sample set is constructed. Second, each of these four ML algorithms learns from the sample set to obtain the corresponding optimal classified results, respectively. The experimental results show that: RF performs better than other three algorithms, and the former algorithm classifies whether an individual has CS with an accuracy of 95.7% (=90/94).