Yibo Wang

Shanghao Li, Jinda Han, Yibo Wang et al.

Graph-based Retrieval-Augmented Generation (GraphRAG) enhances Large Language Models (LLMs) by incorporating external knowledge from linearized subgraphs retrieved from knowledge graphs. However, LLMs struggle to interpret the relational and topological information in these inputs, resulting in hallucinations that are inconsistent with the retrieved knowledge. To analyze how LLMs attend to and retain structured knowledge during generation, we propose two lightweight interpretability metrics: Path Reliance Degree (PRD), which measures over-reliance on shortest-path triples, and Semantic Alignment Score (SAS), which assesses how well the model's internal representations align with the retrieved knowledge. Through empirical analysis on a knowledge-based QA task, we identify failure patterns associated with over-reliance on salient paths and weak semantic grounding, as indicated by high PRD and low SAS scores. We further develop a lightweight post-hoc hallucination detector, Graph Grounding and Alignment (GGA), which outperforms strong semantic and confidence-based baselines across AUC and F1. By grounding hallucination analysis in mechanistic interpretability, our work offers insights into how structural limitations in LLMs contribute to hallucinations, informing the design of more reliable GraphRAG systems in the future.

Kailai Zhou, Yibo Wang, Tao Lv et al.

Object detection, a fundamental and challenging problem in computer vision, has experienced rapid development due to the effectiveness of deep learning. The current objects to be detected are mostly rigid solid substances with apparent and distinct visual characteristics. In this paper, we endeavor on a scarcely explored task named Gaseous Object Detection (GOD), which is undertaken to explore whether the object detection techniques can be extended from solid substances to gaseous substances. Nevertheless, the gas exhibits significantly different visual characteristics: 1) saliency deficiency, 2) arbitrary and ever-changing shapes, 3) lack of distinct boundaries. To facilitate the study on this challenging task, we construct a GOD-Video dataset comprising 600 videos (141,017 frames) that cover various attributes with multiple types of gases. A comprehensive benchmark is established based on this dataset, allowing for a rigorous evaluation of frame-level and video-level detectors. Deduced from the Gaussian dispersion model, the physics-inspired Voxel Shift Field (VSF) is designed to model geometric irregularities and ever-changing shapes in potential 3D space. By integrating VSF into Faster RCNN, the VSF RCNN serves as a simple but strong baseline for gaseous object detection. Our work aims to attract further research into this valuable albeit challenging area.

Jiangshu Du, Yibo Wang, Wenting Zhao et al.

This work is motivated by two key trends. On one hand, large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks such as writing, drawing, and question answering, significantly reducing the time required for many routine tasks. On the other hand, researchers, whose work is not only time-consuming but also highly expertise-demanding, face increasing challenges as they have to spend more time reading, writing, and reviewing papers. This raises the question: how can LLMs potentially assist researchers in alleviating their heavy workload? This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers, particularly examining the effectiveness of LLM in assisting paper (meta-)reviewing and its recognizability. To address this, we constructed the ReviewCritique dataset, which includes two types of information: (i) NLP papers (initial submissions rather than camera-ready) with both human-written and LLM-generated reviews, and (ii) each review comes with "deficiency" labels and corresponding explanations for individual segments, annotated by experts. Using ReviewCritique, this study explores two threads of research questions: (i) "LLMs as Reviewers", how do reviews generated by LLMs compare with those written by humans in terms of quality and distinguishability? (ii) "LLMs as Metareviewers", how effectively can LLMs identify potential issues, such as Deficient or unprofessional review segments, within individual paper reviews? To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.