Jing Ma

Yuwei Zhao, Ziyang Luo, Yuchen Tian et al.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have showcased impressive code generation capabilities, primarily evaluated through language-to-code benchmarks. However, these benchmarks may not fully capture a model's code understanding abilities. We introduce CodeJudge-Eval (CJ-Eval), a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs' code understanding abilities from the perspective of code judging rather than code generation. CJ-Eval challenges models to determine the correctness of provided code solutions, encompassing various error types and compilation issues. By leveraging a diverse set of problems and a fine-grained judging system, CJ-Eval addresses the limitations of traditional benchmarks, including the potential memorization of solutions. Evaluation of 12 well-known LLMs on CJ-Eval reveals that even state-of-the-art models struggle, highlighting the benchmark's ability to probe deeper into models' code understanding abilities. Our codes and benchmark are available at \url{https://github.com/CodeLLM-Research/CodeJudge-Eval}.

Ruichao Yang, Wei Gao, Jing Ma et al.

In recent years, we witness the explosion of false and unconfirmed information (i.e., rumors) that went viral on social media and shocked the public. Rumors can trigger versatile, mostly controversial stance expressions among social media users. Rumor verification and stance detection are different yet relevant tasks. Fake news debunking primarily focuses on determining the truthfulness of news articles, which oversimplifies the issue as fake news often combines elements of both truth and falsehood. Thus, it becomes crucial to identify specific instances of misinformation within the articles. In this research, we investigate a novel task in the field of fake news debunking, which involves detecting sentence-level misinformation. One of the major challenges in this task is the absence of a training dataset with sentence-level annotations regarding veracity. Inspired by the Multiple Instance Learning (MIL) approach, we propose a model called Weakly Supervised Detection of Misinforming Sentences (WSDMS). This model only requires bag-level labels for training but is capable of inferring both sentence-level misinformation and article-level veracity, aided by relevant social media conversations that are attentively contextualized with news sentences. We evaluate WSDMS on three real-world benchmarks and demonstrate that it outperforms existing state-of-the-art baselines in debunking fake news at both the sentence and article levels.

Yuchen Tian, Ruiyuan Huang, Xuanwu Wang et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) for formal theorem proving have shown significant promise, yet they often lack generalizability and are fragile to even minor transformations of problem statements. To address this limitation, we introduce a novel data augmentation pipeline designed to enhance model robustness from two perspectives: symmetry and difficulty. From the symmetry perspective, we propose two complementary methods: EvolAST, an Abstract Syntax Tree (AST) based approach that targets syntactic symmetry to generate semantically equivalent problem variants, and EvolDomain, which leverages LLMs to address semantic symmetry by translating theorems across mathematical domains. From the difficulty perspective, we propose EvolDifficulty, which uses carefully designed evolutionary instructions to guide LLMs in generating new theorems with a wider range of difficulty. We then use the evolved data to train EvolProver, a 7B-parameter non-reasoning theorem prover. EvolProver establishes a new state-of-the-art (SOTA) on FormalMATH-Lite with a 53.8% pass@32 rate, surpassing all models of comparable size, including reasoning-based models. It also sets new SOTA records for non-reasoning models on MiniF2F-Test (69.8% pass@32), Ineq-Comp-Seed (52.2% pass@32), and Ineq-Comp-Transformed (34.0% pass@32). Ablation studies further confirm our data augmentation pipeline's effectiveness across multiple benchmarks.

Hongzhan Lin, Ziyang Luo, Wei Gao et al.

The age of social media is flooded with Internet memes, necessitating a clear grasp and effective identification of harmful ones. This task presents a significant challenge due to the implicit meaning embedded in memes, which is not explicitly conveyed through the surface text and image. However, existing harmful meme detection methods do not present readable explanations that unveil such implicit meaning to support their detection decisions. In this paper, we propose an explainable approach to detect harmful memes, achieved through reasoning over conflicting rationales from both harmless and harmful positions. Specifically, inspired by the powerful capacity of Large Language Models (LLMs) on text generation and reasoning, we first elicit multimodal debate between LLMs to generate the explanations derived from the contradictory arguments. Then we propose to fine-tune a small language model as the debate judge for harmfulness inference, to facilitate multimodal fusion between the harmfulness rationales and the intrinsic multimodal information within memes. In this way, our model is empowered to perform dialectical reasoning over intricate and implicit harm-indicative patterns, utilizing multimodal explanations originating from both harmless and harmful arguments. Extensive experiments on three public meme datasets demonstrate that our harmful meme detection approach achieves much better performance than state-of-the-art methods and exhibits a superior capacity for explaining the meme harmfulness of the model predictions.