Yihao Qin

Yihao Qin, Junyi Zhao, Changsheng Ma et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show promise in psychological counseling, yet existing benchmarks rely heavily on highly cooperative simulated clients. We observe a critical counselor-following phenomenon: these clients often rapidly shift from resistance to compliance after only a few turns, creating an illusion of therapeutic progress and inflating scores under current evaluation protocols through superficial empathy. To address this evaluation mismatch, we propose a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)-grounded resistance-aware framework. We introduce CARS, a client simulator that explicitly models dynamic resistance via Cognitive Conceptualization Diagrams (CCDs). We present STREAMS, a dual-module framework that decouples strategic reasoning (Thinker) from response generation (Presenter) and optimizes it via reinforcement learning. We further propose EWTS-MI, an entropy-weighted metric for evaluating responsiveness under high-friction interactions. Experiments across resistant and non-resistant counseling settings validate our findings on evaluation mismatch and demonstrate the effectiveness of resistance-aware training for improving strategic robustness under challenging counseling interactions.

Kang Yang, Xinjun Mao, Shangwen Wang et al.

Pre-trained code models rely heavily on high-quality pre-training data, particularly human-written reference comments that bridge code and natural language. However, these comments often become outdated as software evolves, degrading model performance. Large language models (LLMs) excel at generating high-quality code comments. We investigate whether replacing human-written comments with LLM-generated ones improves pre-training datasets. Since standard metrics cannot assess reference comment quality, we propose two novel reference-free evaluation tasks: code-comment inconsistency detection and semantic code search. Results show that LLM-generated comments are more semantically consistent with code than human-written ones, as confirmed by manual evaluation. Leveraging this finding, we rebuild the CodeSearchNet dataset with LLM-generated comments and re-pre-train CodeT5. Evaluations demonstrate that models trained on LLM-enhanced data outperform those using original human comments in code summarization, generation, and translation tasks. This work validates rebuilding pre-training datasets with LLMs to advance code intelligence, challenging the traditional reliance on human reference comments.

Steffen Herbold, Alexander Trautsch, Benjamin Ledel et al.

Context: Tangled commits are changes to software that address multiple concerns at once. For researchers interested in bugs, tangled commits mean that they actually study not only bugs, but also other concerns irrelevant for the study of bugs. Objective: We want to improve our understanding of the prevalence of tangling and the types of changes that are tangled within bug fixing commits. Methods: We use a crowd sourcing approach for manual labeling to validate which changes contribute to bug fixes for each line in bug fixing commits. Each line is labeled by four participants. If at least three participants agree on the same label, we have consensus. Results: We estimate that between 17% and 32% of all changes in bug fixing commits modify the source code to fix the underlying problem. However, when we only consider changes to the production code files this ratio increases to 66% to 87%. We find that about 11% of lines are hard to label leading to active disagreements between participants. Due to confirmed tangling and the uncertainty in our data, we estimate that 3% to 47% of data is noisy without manual untangling, depending on the use case. Conclusion: Tangled commits have a high prevalence in bug fixes and can lead to a large amount of noise in the data. Prior research indicates that this noise may alter results. As researchers, we should be skeptics and assume that unvalidated data is likely very noisy, until proven otherwise.