Jianming Long

Weihang Su, Jianming Long, Changyue Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit hallucinations, generating content that appears fluent and coherent but is factually incorrect. Such errors undermine trust and hinder their adoption in real-world applications. To address this challenge, two distinct research paradigms have emerged: model-centric Hallucination Detection (HD) and text-centric Fact Verification (FV). Despite sharing the same goal, these paradigms have evolved in isolation, using distinct assumptions, datasets, and evaluation protocols. This separation has created a research schism that hinders their collective progress. In this work, we take a decisive step toward bridging this divide. We introduce UniFact, a unified evaluation framework that enables direct, instance-level comparison between FV and HD by dynamically generating model outputs and corresponding factuality labels. Through large-scale experiments across multiple LLM families and detection methods, we reveal three key findings: (1) No paradigm is universally superior; (2) HD and FV capture complementary facets of factual errors; and (3) hybrid approaches that integrate both methods consistently achieve state-of-the-art performance. Beyond benchmarking, we provide the first in-depth analysis of why FV and HD diverged, as well as empirical evidence supporting the need for their unification. The comprehensive experimental results call for a new, integrated research agenda toward unifying Hallucination Detection and Fact Verification in LLMs. We have open-sourced all the code, data, and baseline implementation at: https://github.com/oneal2000/UniFact/

Weihang Su, Anzhe Xie, Qingyao Ai et al.

The rapid growth of academic literature makes the manual creation of scientific surveys increasingly infeasible. While large language models show promise for automating this process, progress in this area is hindered by the absence of standardized benchmarks and evaluation protocols. To bridge this critical gap, we introduce SurGE (Survey Generation Evaluation), a new benchmark for scientific survey generation in computer science. SurGE consists of (1) a collection of test instances, each including a topic description, an expert-written survey, and its full set of cited references, and (2) a large-scale academic corpus of over one million papers. In addition, we propose an automated evaluation framework that measures the quality of generated surveys across four dimensions: comprehensiveness, citation accuracy, structural organization, and content quality. Our evaluation of diverse LLM-based methods demonstrates a significant performance gap, revealing that even advanced agentic frameworks struggle with the complexities of survey generation and highlighting the need for future research in this area. We have open-sourced all the code, data, and models at: https://github.com/oneal2000/SurGE

Weihang Su, Jianming Long, Qingyao Ai et al.

As large language models (LLMs) evolve into agentic problem solvers, they increasingly rely on external, reusable skills to handle tasks beyond their native parametric capabilities. In existing agent systems, the dominant strategy for incorporating skills is to explicitly enumerate available skills within the context window. However, this strategy fails to scale: as skill corpora expand, context budgets are consumed rapidly, and the agent becomes markedly less accurate in identifying the right skill. To this end, this paper formulates Skill Retrieval Augmentation (SRA), a new paradigm in which agents dynamically retrieve, incorporate, and apply relevant skills from large external skill corpora on demand. To make this problem measurable, we construct a large-scale skill corpus and introduce SRA-Bench, the first benchmark for decomposed evaluation of the full SRA pipeline, covering skill retrieval, skill incorporation, and end-task execution. SRA-Bench contains 5,400 capability-intensive test instances and 636 manually constructed gold skills, which are mixed with web-collected distractor skills to form a large-scale corpus of 26,262 skills. Extensive experiments show that retrieval-based skill augmentation can substantially improve agent performance, validating the promise of the paradigm. At the same time, we uncover a fundamental gap in skill incorporation: current LLM agents tend to load skills at similar rates, regardless of whether a gold skill is retrieved or whether the task actually requires external capabilities. This shows that the bottleneck in skill augmentation lies not only in retrieval but also in the base model's ability to determine which skill to load and when external loading is actually needed. These findings position SRA as a distinct research problem and establish a foundation for the scalable augmentation of capabilities in future agent systems.

Qingyao Ai, Yichen Tang, Changyue Wang et al.

Scaling up data, parameters, and test-time computation has been the mainstream methods to improve LLM systems (LLMsys), but their upper bounds are almost reached due to the gradual depletion of high-quality data and marginal gains obtained from larger computational resource consumption. Inspired by the abilities of human and traditional AI systems in learning from practice, constructing memory and continual learning frameworks for LLMsys has become an important and popular research direction in recent literature. Yet, existing benchmarks for LLM memory often focus on evaluating the system on homogeneous reading comprehension tasks with long-form inputs rather than testing their abilities to learn from accumulated user feedback in service time. Therefore, we propose a user feedback simulation framework and a comprehensive benchmark covering multiple domains, languages, and types of tasks to evaluate the continual learning abilities of LLMsys. Experiments show that the effectiveness and efficiency of state-of-the-art baselines are far from satisfying, and we hope this benchmark could pave the way for future studies on LLM memory and optimization algorithms.