Wenchun Jing

Haiyang Shen, Taian Guo, Xuanzhong Chen et al.

Although LLMs have made substantial progress in reasoning, systematically producing frontier-level reasoning data remains difficult. Existing synthesis methods often have limited visibility into the structural factors that govern problem difficulty, which can result in narrow diversity and unstable difficulty control. In this work, we view the difficulty of a reasoning problem as arising from the accumulation of atomic knowledge-reasoning transformations, which we term thought modes. Building on this perspective, we propose MindLoom, a framework for synthesizing frontier-level reasoning data through compositional thought mode engineering. Given a collection of hard problems with verified solutions, MindLoom first decomposes those solutions into thought mode chains that reveal each problem's construction logic. It then trains a retrieval model that matches problem states to compatible thought modes, providing guidance on which reasoning challenges to introduce during synthesis. New problems are composed by iteratively applying retrieved thought modes to seed questions, with distribution-aligned sampling to encourage diverse reasoning coverage. Finally, a rollout-based judging stage labels generated questions by difficulty and supplies judged-correct responses for supervised fine-tuning. We evaluate MindLoom on nine benchmarks covering five STEM disciplines and four mathematical reasoning tasks across multiple model families and sizes. Models fine-tuned on MindLoom-generated data achieves favorable performances over base models, distillation, and external-data baselines across the reported benchmarks. Ablation studies indicate the contribution of each component, and further analysis suggests that MindLoom covers a broad range of reasoning patterns while maintaining useful difficulty control. We have open-sourced our implementation at https://github.com/EachSheep/MindLoom.

Haiyang Shen, Jiuzheng Wang, Taian Guo et al.

As AI becomes part of everyday learning, many courses teach students to use it mainly as a productivity tool: how to prompt, search, summarize, write, code, and use tools more efficiently. We argue that AI education also needs a setting in which students learn to test AI and understand their own role in judging machine-produced knowledge. To this end, we introduce a course-based practice that teaches AI through benchmark construction, using deep research systems as a concrete example of AI-era knowledge work. Students turn disciplinary knowledge into verifiable expert-level questions, review one another's designs for ambiguity and shortcuts, and evaluate AI systems on the resulting tasks. This activity gives students direct exposure to a powerful tool while asking them to specify what a trustworthy answer would require. The produced benchmark, QuestBench, consists of 256 questions across 14 humanities and social-science domains. Evaluation on QuestBench shows that student-designed tasks reveal hidden failures in current deep research systems: across thirteen evaluated systems, the mean question-level pass rate is only 16.85%, and the best-performing system, GPT-5.5, reaches a 57.58% pass rate. The failures are educationally useful because they show how fluent, source-backed answers can still miss the right query, source, term, or evidence standard. Reflections from five student contributors suggest that benchmark construction can help students see professional knowledge not only as content AI may retrieve, but as the basis for judging AI outputs. We present QuestBench as a benchmark artifact and as a reusable classroom setting for a larger educational question: how students can remain responsible knowledge actors as AI enters learning and professional work. The dataset is available at https://huggingface.co/datasets/PKUAIWeb/QuestBench/tree/main.

Dongming Jin, Zhi Jin, Yaotian Yang et al.

Requirements elicitation interviews are crucial and time-consuming in requirements engineering, but heavily rely on the experience of requirements analysts. Although recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have created new opportunities to automate this process, existing approaches rely solely on LLMs for free-form chat without taking into account the interview and development experience. That leads to the omission of implicit requirements and redundant questions. Practically, experienced analysts implicitly follow a structured cognitive framework when conducting requirements elicitation. Inspired by this observation, this paper proposes an interview agent named OntoAgent for the elicitation of requirements guided by an experience ontology. OntoAgent automatically analyzes domain-specific requirements descriptions to construct an experience ontology, which organizes requirements concerns into an ontology to support systematic and explainable interviews. During the interview, OntoAgent first performs four operations (i.e., ParseUser, ScoreOnto, ReRankOnto, GatePrune) guided by the ontology to identify the relevant requirement concerns. The selected concern is then combined with the current dialogue context to generate the elicitation question. To validate OntoAgent, we conduct comprehensive quantitative experiments using the widely adopted website application domain. The results show that OntoAgent significantly outperforms existing baselines in both elicitation effectiveness and questioning efficiency, achieving a 33% improvement in IRE and a 21% improvement in TKQR. Ablation studies further validate the contribution of each key design component. In addition, a qualitative user study demonstrates its practical advantages in real-world scenarios. We believe that OntoAgent can also be extended to requirements interview tasks in other domains.