Shengming Zhao

Yuheng Huang, Jiayang Song, Zhijie Wang et al.

The recent performance leap of Large Language Models (LLMs) opens up new opportunities across numerous industrial applications and domains. However, erroneous generations, such as false predictions, misinformation, and hallucination made by LLMs, have also raised severe concerns for the trustworthiness of LLMs', especially in safety-, security- and reliability-sensitive scenarios, potentially hindering real-world adoptions. While uncertainty estimation has shown its potential for interpreting the prediction risks made by general machine learning (ML) models, little is known about whether and to what extent it can help explore an LLM's capabilities and counteract its undesired behavior. To bridge the gap, in this paper, we initiate an exploratory study on the risk assessment of LLMs from the lens of uncertainty. In particular, we experiment with twelve uncertainty estimation methods and four LLMs on four prominent natural language processing (NLP) tasks to investigate to what extent uncertainty estimation techniques could help characterize the prediction risks of LLMs. Our findings validate the effectiveness of uncertainty estimation for revealing LLMs' uncertain/non-factual predictions. In addition to general NLP tasks, we extensively conduct experiments with four LLMs for code generation on two datasets. We find that uncertainty estimation can potentially uncover buggy programs generated by LLMs. Insights from our study shed light on future design and development for reliable LLMs, facilitating further research toward enhancing the trustworthiness of LLMs.

Guangya Wan, Yuqi Wu, Hao Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive reasoning capabilities, yet existing prompting methods face a critical trade-off: simple approaches often struggle with complex tasks and reasoning stability, while more sophisticated methods require multiple inferences and substantial computational resources, limiting their practical deployment. To address this challenge, we propose Derailer-Rerailer, a novel framework that adaptively balances reasoning accuracy and computational efficiency. At its core, our framework employs a lightweight Derailer mechanism to assess reasoning stability and selectively triggers an advanced Rerailer verification process only when necessary, thereby optimizing computational resource usage. Extensive evaluation across both open and closed-source models on more than 20 categories of mathematical, symbolic, and commonsense reasoning tasks demonstrates our framework's effectiveness: Derailer-Rerailer achieves significant accuracy improvements (8-11\% across various reasoning tasks) while maintaining 2-3 times better efficiency than existing verification methods, with particularly strong performance in mathematical and symbolic reasoning, offering a practical solution for enhancing LLM reasoning reliability while significantly reducing computational overhead.

Qiang Ke, Yanjie Zhao, Hongjin Leng et al.

While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is increasingly adopted to ground Large Language Models (LLMs) in software artifacts, the optimal configuration of its components remains an open question for software engineering (SE) tasks. The lack of systematic guidance forces practitioners into costly, ad-hoc experimentation. This paper presents a comprehensive, component-wise empirical study that dissects the RAG pipeline, evaluating over 21 distinct models and methods. Our study systematically isolates and evaluates 4 query processing techniques, 7 retrieval models spanning sparse, dense, and hybrid paradigms, 4 context refinement methods, and 6 distinct generators. We test these components on a suite of 3 core SE tasks: code generation, summarization, and repair. Our empirical findings reveal a crucial insight: the retriever-side components, particularly the choice of the retrieval algorithm, often exert a more significant influence on final system performance than the selection of the generator model. Strikingly, the classic lexical retriever BM25 demonstrates exceptionally robust performance across diverse tasks. Our analysis provides a practical, data-driven roadmap for researchers and practitioners, offering clear guidance on prioritizing optimization efforts when constructing effective RAG systems for software engineering contexts.

Baijun Cheng, Shengming Zhao, Kailong Wang et al.

Vulnerability detectors based on deep learning (DL) models have proven their effectiveness in recent years. However, the shroud of opacity surrounding the decision-making process of these detectors makes it difficult for security analysts to comprehend. To address this, various explanation approaches have been proposed to explain the predictions by highlighting important features, which have been demonstrated effective in other domains such as computer vision and natural language processing. Unfortunately, an in-depth evaluation of vulnerability-critical features, such as fine-grained vulnerability-related code lines, learned and understood by these explanation approaches remains lacking. In this study, we first evaluate the performance of ten explanation approaches for vulnerability detectors based on graph and sequence representations, measured by two quantitative metrics including fidelity and vulnerability line coverage rate. Our results show that fidelity alone is not sufficient for evaluating these approaches, as fidelity incurs significant fluctuations across different datasets and detectors. We subsequently check the precision of the vulnerability-related code lines reported by the explanation approaches, and find poor accuracy in this task among all of them. This can be attributed to the inefficiency of explainers in selecting important features and the presence of irrelevant artifacts learned by DL-based detectors.

Shengming Zhao, Yuchen Shao, Yuheng Huang et al.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has emerged as a critical technique for enhancing large language model (LLM) capabilities. However, practitioners face significant challenges when making RAG deployment decisions. While existing research prioritizes algorithmic innovations, a systematic gap persists in understanding fundamental engineering trade-offs that determine RAG success. We present the first comprehensive study of three universal RAG deployment decisions: whether to deploy RAG, how much information to retrieve, and how to integrate retrieved knowledge effectively. Through systematic experiments across three LLMs and six datasets spanning question answering and code generation tasks, we reveal critical insights: (1) RAG deployment must be highly selective, with variable recall thresholds and failure modes affecting up to 12.6\% of samples even with perfect documents. (2) Optimal retrieval volume exhibits task-dependent behavior QA tasks show universal patterns (5-10 documents optimal) while code generation requires scenario-specific optimization. (3) Knowledge integration effectiveness depends on task and model characteristics, with code generation benefiting significantly from prompting methods while question answering shows minimal improvement. These findings demonstrate that universal RAG strategies prove inadequate. Effective RAG systems require context-aware design decisions based on task characteristics and model capabilities. Our analysis provides evidence-based guidance for practitioners and establishes foundational insights for principled RAG deployment.

Yuqi Wu, Guangya Wan, Jingjing Li et al.

Translating state-of-the-art NLP into practice often stalls at the "last mile" owing to insufficient contextualization of the target domain's knowledge, processes, and evaluation. Psychiatric differential diagnosis exemplifies this challenge: accurate assessments depend on nuanced clinical knowledge, a delicate cognitive-affective interview process, and downstream outcomes that extend far beyond benchmark accuracy. We present WiseMind, a systematic interdisciplinary contextualization framework that delivers both instrumental (diagnostic precision) and humanistic (empathy) gains. WiseMind comprises three components:(i) structured knowledge-guided proactive reasoning, which embeds DSM-5 criteria in a knowledge graph to steer questioning; (ii) a theory-informed dual-agent architecture that coordinates a "reasonable-mind" reasoning agent and an "emotional-mind" empathy agent, inspired by Dialectical Behavior Therapy; and (iii) a multi-faceted evaluation strategy covering simulated patients, user studies, clinician review, and ethical assessment. Tested on depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder, WiseMind attains up to 84.2% diagnostic accuracy, which is comparable to human experts, while outperforming single-agent baselines in perceived empathy and trustworthiness. These results show that deep contextualization-across knowledge, process, and evaluation layers-can transform benchmark-driven NLP into clinically meaningful impact.