Hanyi Liu

Hanyi Liu, Zhonghao Jiu, Minghao Wang et al.

Implicit artistic influence, although visually plausible, is often undocumented and thus poses a historically constrained attribution problem: resemblance is necessary but not sufficient evidence. Most prior systems reduce influence discovery to embedding similarity or label-driven graph completion, while recent multimodal large language models (LLMs) remain vulnerable to temporal inconsistency and unverified attributions. This paper introduces M-ArtAgent, an evidence-based multimodal agent that reframes implicit influence discovery as probabilistic adjudication. It follows a four-phase protocol consisting of Investigation, Corroboration, Falsification, and Verdict governed by a Reasoning and Acting (ReAct)-style controller that assembles verifiable evidence chains from images and biographies, enforces art-historical axioms, and subjects each hypothesis to adversarial falsification via a prompt-isolated critic. Two theory-grounded operators, StyleComparator for Wolfflin formal analysis and ConceptRetriever for ICONCLASS-based iconographic grounding, ensure that intermediate claims are formally auditable. On the balanced WikiArt Influence Benchmark-100 (WIB-100) of 100 artists and 2,000 directed pairs, M-ArtAgent achieves 83.7% positive-class F1, 0.666 Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC), and 0.910 area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC-AUC), with leakage-control and robustness checks confirming that the gains persist when explicit influence phrases are masked. By coupling multimodal perception with domain-constrained falsification, M-ArtAgent demonstrates that implicit influence analysis benefits from historically grounded adjudication rather than pattern matching alone.

Dou Liu, Ying Long, Sophia Zuoqiu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted in clinical decision support, yet aligning them with the multifaceted reasoning pathways of real-world medicine remains a major challenge. Using more than 8,000 infertility treatment records, we systematically evaluate four alignment strategies: Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT), Direct Preference Optimization (DPO), Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), and In-Context Learning (ICL) through a dual-layer framework combining automatic benchmarks with blinded doctor-in-the-loop assessments. GRPO achieves the highest algorithmic accuracy across multiple decision layers, confirming the value of reinforcement-based optimization for structured prediction tasks. However, clinicians consistently prefer the SFT model, citing clearer reasoning processes (p = 0.035) and higher therapeutic feasibility (p = 0.019). In blinded pairwise comparisons, SFT attains the highest winning rate (51.2%), outperforming both GRPO (26.2%) and even physicians' original decisions (22.7%). These results reveal an alignment paradox: algorithmic improvements do not necessarily translate into higher clinical trust, and may diverge from human-centered preferences. Our findings highlight the need for alignment strategies that prioritize clinically interpretable and practically feasible reasoning, rather than solely optimizing decision-level accuracy.

Dou Liu, Ying Long, Sophia Zuoqiu et al.

Creating high-quality clinical Chains-of-Thought (CoTs) is crucial for explainable medical Artificial Intelligence (AI) while constrained by data scarcity. Although Large Language Models (LLMs) can synthesize medical data, their clinical reliability remains unverified. This study evaluates the reliability of LLM-generated CoTs and investigates prompting strategies to enhance their quality. In a blinded comparative study, senior clinicians in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) evaluated CoTs generated via three distinct strategies: Zero-shot, Random Few-shot (using shallow examples), and Selective Few-shot (using diverse, high-quality examples). These expert ratings were compared against evaluations from a state-of-the-art AI model (GPT-4o). The Selective Few-shot strategy significantly outperformed other strategies across all human evaluation metrics (p < .001). Critically, the Random Few-shot strategy offered no significant improvement over the Zero-shot baseline, demonstrating that low-quality examples are as ineffective as no examples. The success of the Selective strategy is attributed to two principles: "Gold-Standard Depth" (reasoning quality) and "Representative Diversity" (generalization). Notably, the AI evaluator failed to discern these critical performance differences. The clinical reliability of synthetic CoTs is dictated by strategic prompt curation, not the mere presence of examples. We propose a "Dual Principles" framework as a foundational methodology to generate trustworthy data at scale. This work offers a validated solution to the data bottleneck and confirms the indispensable role of human expertise in evaluating high-stakes clinical AI.