Wenjing Cao

Zhewen Zheng, Wenjing Cao, Hongkang Yu et al.

Parameter tuning in real-world experiments is constrained by the limited evaluation budget available on hardware. The path-following controller studied in this paper reflects a typical situation in nonlinear geometric controller, where multiple gains influence the dynamics through coupled nonlinear terms. Such interdependence makes manual tuning inefficient and unlikely to yield satisfactory performance within a practical number of trials. To address this challenge, we propose a Bayesian optimization (BO) framework that treats the closed-loop system as a black box and selects controller gains using a Gaussian-process surrogate. BO offers model-free exploration, quantified uncertainty, and data-efficient search, making it well suited for tuning tasks where each evaluation is costly. The framework is implemented on Honda's AI-Formula three-wheeled robot and assessed through repeated full-lap experiments on a fixed test track. The results show that BO improves controller performance within 32 trials, including 15 warm-start initial evaluations, indicating that it can efficiently locate high-performing regions of the parameter space under real-world conditions. These findings demonstrate that BO provides a practical, reliable, and data-efficient tuning approach for nonlinear path-following controllers on real robotic platforms.

Sitong Fang, Wenjing Cao, Jiahao Li et al.

Reasoning models have attracted increasing attention for their ability to tackle complex tasks, embodying the System II (slow thinking) paradigm in contrast to System I (fast, intuitive responses). Yet a key question remains: Does slower reasoning necessarily lead to more truthful answers? Our findings suggest otherwise. We conduct the first systematic study of the inverse scaling law in slow-thinking paradigms for multimodal reasoning. We find that when confronted with incomplete or misleading visual inputs, slow-thinking models are more prone to fabricating plausible yet false details to justify untruthful reasoning. To analyze this behavior, we construct a 5,000-sample hierarchical prompt dataset annotated by 50 human participants. The prompts progressively increase in complexity, revealing a consistent pattern: slower reasoning models tend to follow depth-first search (DFS) thinking, persistently exploring flawed premises, while faster chat models favor breadth-first search (BFS) inference, showing greater caution under uncertainty. These findings reveal a critical vulnerability of reasoning models: while effective in structured domains such as math, their DFS-style reasoning becomes fragile when confronted with ambiguous, multimodal inputs.