Yuanzi Li

Yuhan Wang, Shuochen Chang, Yalin Feng et al.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have achieved strong performance on visual question answering (VQA). To mitigate individual hallucinations and blind spots, aggregating diverse perspectives via multi-agent collaboration has emerged as a promising paradigm. While this approach has shown great success in textual QA, its potential in the multimodal domain remains under-explored. Existing multi-agent VQA methods predominantly adapt text-centric protocols, focusing on textual discussions while ignoring the alignment of visual information. In this work, we reveal a key insight: answer-level agreement is insufficient for reliable multi-agent VQA; \textit{aligned visual evidence} -- shared support from the image regions agents rely on -- is essential for trustworthy consensus. To leverage this insight, we propose EAGLE (\textbf{E}vidence-\textbf{A}ligned \textbf{G}rounded mu\textbf{L}ti-agent r\textbf{E}asoning), a training-free evidence-centered framework for coordinating multiple VLM agents. EAGLE explicitly exposes each agent's grounding regions as visual evidence, enables mutual verification over the evidence, and uses evidence consistency to guide final decision-making. Experiments on six VQA benchmarks show that EAGLE achieves best average performance across domains while remaining lightweight, interpretable, and practical for deployment.

Yuhan Wang, Shiyu Ni, Zhikai Ding et al.

Confidence calibration is essential for making large language models (LLMs) reliable, yet existing training-free methods have been primarily studied under single-answer question answering. In this paper, we show that these methods break down in the presence of multiple valid answers, where disagreement among equally correct responses leads to systematic underestimation of confidence. To enable a systematic study of this phenomenon, we introduce MACE, a benchmark of 12,000 factual questions spanning six domains with varying numbers of correct answers. Experiments across 15 representative calibration methods and four LLM families (7B-72B) reveal that while accuracy increases with answer cardinality, estimated confidence consistently decreases, causing severe miscalibration for questions with mixed answer counts. To address this issue, we propose Semantic Confidence Aggregation (SCA), which aggregates confidence over multiple high-probability sampled responses. SCA achieves state-of-the-art calibration performance under mixed-answer settings while preserving strong calibration on single-answer questions.

Xu Chen, Yuanzi Li, Lei Wang et al.

Effective community governance hinges on understanding what specific residents think and need. Recent work has used large language models (LLMs) to simulate human respondents, offering a scalable, reproducible way to study human attitudes and behaviors at low cost. However, these studies typically prompt the model with just a few demographic variables (age, gender, income), simulating only general role types. This is insufficient for community governance, where decisions depend on the views of specific residents. We bridge this gap with an integrated research framework covering dataset, benchmark, algorithm, and system. The dataset comprises approximately 1.2 million characters of first-person narrative collected through two-hour semi-structured interviews with each of 92 residents in an urban community, organized around nine community-governance domains. The benchmark probes 18 mainstream LLMs across four prompting strategies and shows that adding rich life-history profiles meaningfully raises fidelity above the no-profile baseline, but this gain comes with more input tokens per call from the longer prompts they require. The algorithm, curriculum-LoRA, is a parameter-efficient personalization framework that, by closing this fidelity-cost gap, matches the strongest baseline's fidelity at roughly 10x lower per-call cost and Pareto-dominates every configuration tested. The system integrates curriculum-LoRA into a closed-loop policy-evaluation pipeline. Together, these results bring individual-level LLM-based resident simulation within reach of resource-constrained local administrations, enabling community-governance decisions to be systematically pre-evaluated in silico before real-world deployment.

Yuanzi Li, Lingjie Wang, Jingyu Zhao et al.

Negative sampling is significant for training sequential recommendation models under implicit feedback. The predominant strategy, self-guided hard negative sampling, selects negatives based on the model's current state but suffers from three limitations: (1) the coupling between sampling and model updates triggers a vicious cycle that drives the model into local optima; (2) relying on current model parameters narrows sampling to a small region of the item space, reducing diversity and harming generalization; (3) identifying a hard negative requires scoring the entire candidate pool, causing substantial computational overhead with minimal information gain. To address these challenges, we propose MDCNS (Multi-source Divergence-Consensus for Negative Sampling), a novel "Teacher-Peer-Self" framework inspired by Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) theory. The proposed method comprises three components, including multi-source scoring, divergence re-ranking, and consensus distillation. Firstly, multi-source scoring incorporates peer and ensemble teacher models to inject external negative signals and break the self-reinforcement loop. Then, divergence re-ranking exploits prediction discrepancy between self and peer models to enhance sampling diversity. Finally, consensus distillation aligns the self model with the teacher via KL divergence, simultaneously improving computational cost utilization. Extensive experiments on six real-world datasets and five backbone models show that MDCNS consistently outperforms state-of-the-art negative sampling methods, demonstrating strong effectiveness and generalization.

Lei Wang, Yuanzi Li, Jinchao Wu et al.

Traditional social science research often requires designing complex experiments across vast methodological spaces and depends on real human participants, making it labor-intensive, costly, and difficult to scale. Here we present S-Researcher, an LLM-agent-based platform that assists researchers in conducting social science research more efficiently and at greater scale by "siliconizing" both the research process and the participant pool. To build S-Researcher, we first develop YuLan-OneSim, a large-scale social simulation system designed around three core requirements: generality via auto-programming from natural language to executable scenarios, scalability via a distributed architecture supporting up to 100,000 concurrent agents, and reliability via feedback-driven LLM fine-tuning. Leveraging this system, S-Researcher supports researchers in designing social experiments, simulating human behavior with LLM agents, analyzing results, and generating reports, forming a complete human-AI collaborative research loop in which researchers retain oversight and intervention at every stage. We operationalize LLM simulation research paradigms into three canonical reasoning modes (induction, deduction, and abduction) and validate S-Researcher through systematic case studies: inductive reproduction of cultural dynamics consistent with Axelrod's theory, deductive testing of competing hypotheses on teacher attention validated against survey data, and abductive identification of a cooperation mechanism in public goods games confirmed by human experiments. S-Researcher establishes a new human--AI collaborative paradigm for social science, in which computational simulation augments human researchers to accelerate discovery across the full spectrum of social inquiry.