Zhitao He

Dadi Guo, Jiayu Liu, Zhiyuan Fan et al.

Large reasoning models (e.g., R1, o3) have demonstrated remarkable mathematical problem-solving abilities. However, the high reported accuracy of these advanced models on popular datasets, reliance on purely numerical evaluation and potential benchmark leakage, often masks their true reasoning shortcomings. To address this, we propose leveraging the inherent rigor and methodological complexity of mathematical proofs as a diagnostic tool to expose these hidden failures. Specifically, we introduce the RFMDataset (Reveal Failure Modes), a collection of 200 diverse mathematical proof problems, and thoroughly evaluate advanced models' performance on it. Our in-depth analysis of their failures uncovers 10 fine-grained error types, which shows fundamental limitations in current large reasoning models: 1) large reasoning models grapple profoundly with mathematical proofs, with some generating entirely correct proofs for less than 20% of problems and failing even on basic ones; 2) models exhibit a diverse spectrum of reasoning failures, prominently demonstrating the lack of guarantees for the correctness and rigor of single-step reasoning; and 3) models show hallucination and incompleteness during the reasoning process. Our findings reveal that models' self-reflection is insufficient to resolve the current logical dilemmas, necessitating formalized and fine-grained logical training.

Minghao Liu, Zhitao He, Zhiyuan Fan et al.

Text-guided image editing has seen significant progress in natural image domains, but its application in medical imaging remains limited and lacks standardized evaluation frameworks. Such editing could revolutionize clinical practices by enabling personalized surgical planning, enhancing medical education, and improving patient communication. To bridge this gap, we introduce MedEBench1, a robust benchmark designed to diagnose reliability in text-guided medical image editing. MedEBench consists of 1,182 clinically curated image-prompt pairs covering 70 distinct editing tasks and 13 anatomical regions. It contributes in three key areas: (1) a clinically grounded evaluation framework that measures Editing Accuracy, Context Preservation, and Visual Quality, complemented by detailed descriptions of intended edits and corresponding Region-of-Interest (ROI) masks; (2) a comprehensive comparison of seven state-of-theart models, revealing consistent patterns of failure; and (3) a diagnostic error analysis technique that leverages attention alignment, using Intersection-over-Union (IoU) between model attention maps and ROI masks to identify mislocalization issues, where models erroneously focus on incorrect anatomical regions. MedEBench sets the stage for developing more reliable and clinically effective text-guided medical image editing tools.