Zhuochun Li

Yuelyu Ji, Zhuochun Li, Hui Ji et al.

We present \textbf{StepGap}, a hybrid NLI-LLM decision tree that detects step-level evidence gaps in multi-hop QA and emits one of three typed labels: \textsc{Contradicted Claim} (CC), \textsc{Irrelevant Evidence} (IE), or \textsc{Missing Bridge} (MB), each tied to a concrete repair action. On 82 multi-hop questions (181 annotated steps, $κ{=}0.704$), StepGap reaches sF1$=$72.0, within the bootstrap confidence interval of an LLM-only baseline (70.1) but with a more decomposable structure: every StepGap stage \emph{hurts} F1 when removed, while three of four LLM-only removals \emph{improve} F1 -- a sign of \emph{competing-error cancellation}, where internal stages mask each other's errors. We further expose a \emph{Q-F1 trap}: question-level F1 is mechanically inflated by checkers that flag every step, making step-level F1 the necessary diagnostic. Used as a typed GRPO process reward, StepGap improves Qwen2.5-7B-Instruct Exact Match from $32.1{\pm}0.3$ to $35.4{\pm}0.9$ across three seeds, with the single-run comparison showing a $+5.6$ Avg EM gain over the matched Search-R1 GRPO reproduction.

Zhuochun Li, Yong Zhang, Ming Li et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are widely used as reference-free evaluators via prompting, but this "LLM-as-a-Judge" paradigm is costly, opaque, and sensitive to prompt design. In this work, we investigate whether smaller models can serve as efficient evaluators by leveraging internal representations instead of surface generation. We uncover a consistent empirical pattern: small LMs, despite with weak generative ability, encode rich evaluative signals in their hidden states. This motivates us to propose the Semantic Capacity Asymmetry Hypothesis: evaluation requires significantly less semantic capacity than generation and can be grounded in intermediate representations, suggesting that evaluation does not necessarily need to rely on large-scale generative models but can instead leverage latent features from smaller ones. Our findings motivate a paradigm shift from LLM-as-a-Judge to Representation-as-a-Judge, a decoding-free evaluation strategy that probes internal model structure rather than relying on prompted output. We instantiate this paradigm through INSPECTOR, a probing-based framework that predicts aspect-level evaluation scores from small model representations. Experiments on reasoning benchmarks (GSM8K, MATH, GPQA) show that INSPECTOR substantially outperforms prompting-based small LMs and closely approximates full LLM judges, while offering a more efficient, reliable, and interpretable alternative for scalable evaluation.

Yuelyu Ji, Zhuochun Li, Rui Meng et al.

Multi-hop question answering (QA) requires systems to iteratively retrieve evidence and reason across multiple hops. While recent RAG and agentic methods report strong results, the underlying retrieval--reasoning \emph{process} is often left implicit, making procedural choices hard to compare across model families. This survey takes the execution procedure as the unit of analysis and introduces a four-axis framework covering (A) overall execution plan, (B) index structure, (C) next-step control (strategies and triggers), and (D) stop/continue criteria. Using this schema, we map representative multi-hop QA systems and synthesize reported ablations and tendencies on standard benchmarks (e.g., HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, MuSiQue), highlighting recurring trade-offs among effectiveness, efficiency, and evidence faithfulness. We conclude with open challenges for retrieval--reasoning agents, including structure-aware planning, transferable control policies, and robust stopping under distribution shift.

Yuelyu Ji, Zhuochun Li, Rui Meng et al.

This paper introduces the RAG-RLRC-LaySum framework, designed to make complex biomedical research understandable to laymen through advanced Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. Our Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) solution, enhanced by a reranking method, utilizes multiple knowledge sources to ensure the precision and pertinence of lay summaries. Additionally, our Reinforcement Learning for Readability Control (RLRC) strategy improves readability, making scientific content comprehensible to non-specialists. Evaluations using the publicly accessible PLOS and eLife datasets show that our methods surpass Plain Gemini model, demonstrating a 20% increase in readability scores, a 15% improvement in ROUGE-2 relevance scores, and a 10% enhancement in factual accuracy. The RAG-RLRC-LaySum framework effectively democratizes scientific knowledge, enhancing public engagement with biomedical discoveries.

Zhuochun Li, Bo Xie, Robin Hilsabeck et al.

Evidence suggests that different prompts lead large language models (LLMs) to generate responses with varying quality. Yet, little is known about prompts' effects on response quality in healthcare domains. In this exploratory study, we address this gap, focusing on a specific healthcare domain: dementia caregiving. We first developed an innovative prompt template with three components: (1) system prompts (SPs) featuring 4 different roles; (2) an initialization prompt; and (3) task prompts (TPs) specifying different levels of details, totaling 12 prompt combinations. Next, we selected 3 social media posts containing complicated, real-world questions about dementia caregivers' challenges in 3 areas: memory loss and confusion, aggression, and driving. We then entered these posts into GPT-4, with our 12 prompts, to generate 12 responses per post, totaling 36 responses. We compared the word count of the 36 responses to explore potential differences in response length. Two experienced dementia care clinicians on our team assessed the response quality using a rating scale with 5 quality indicators: factual, interpretation, application, synthesis, and comprehensiveness (scoring range: 0-5; higher scores indicate higher quality).

Yuelyu Ji, Rui Meng, Zhuochun Li et al.

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language models (LLMs) in up-to-date external evidence, yet existing multi-hop RAG pipelines still issue redundant subqueries, explore too shallowly, or wander through overly long search chains. We introduce EVO-RAG, a curriculum-guided reinforcement learning framework that evolves a query-rewriting agent from broad early-stage exploration to concise late-stage refinement. EVO-RAG couples a seven-factor, step-level reward vector (covering relevance, redundancy, efficiency, and answer correctness) with a time-varying scheduler that reweights these signals as the episode unfolds. The agent is trained with Direct Preference Optimization over a multi-head reward model, enabling it to learn when to search, backtrack, answer, or refuse. Across four multi-hop QA benchmarks (HotpotQA, 2WikiMultiHopQA, MuSiQue, and Bamboogle), EVO-RAG boosts Exact Match by up to 4.6 points over strong RAG baselines while trimming average retrieval depth by 15 %. Ablation studies confirm the complementary roles of curriculum staging and dynamic reward scheduling. EVO-RAG thus offers a general recipe for building reliable, cost-effective multi-hop RAG systems.

Yuelyu Ji, Rui Meng, Zhuochun Li et al.

Multi-hop question answering (QA) requires models to retrieve and reason over multiple pieces of evidence. While Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) has made progress in this area, existing methods often suffer from two key limitations: (1) fixed or overly frequent retrieval steps, and (2) ineffective use of previously retrieved knowledge. We propose MIND (Memory-Informed and INteractive Dynamic RAG), a framework that addresses these challenges through: (i) prompt-based entity extraction to identify reasoning-relevant elements, (ii) dynamic retrieval triggering based on token-level entropy and attention signals, and (iii) memory-aware filtering, which stores high-confidence facts across reasoning steps to enable consistent multi-hop generation.

César Guerra-Solano, Zhuochun Li, Xiang Lorraine Li

Large language models (LLMs) can exhibit biases in reasoning capabilities due to linguistic modality, performing better on tasks in one language versus another, even with similar content. Most previous works evaluate this through reasoning tasks where reliance on strategies or knowledge can ensure success, such as in commonsense or math tasks. However, abstract reasoning is vital to reasoning for everyday life, where people apply "out-of-the-box thinking" to identify and use patterns for solutions, without a reliance on formulaic approaches. Comparatively, little work has evaluated linguistic biases in this task type. In this paper, we propose a task inspired by the New York Times Connections: GlobalGroup, that evaluates models in an abstract reasoning task across several languages. We constructed a game benchmark with five linguistic backgrounds -- English, Spanish, Chinese, Hindi, and Arabic -- in both the native language and an English translation for comparison. We also proposed game difficulty measurements to evaluate models on games with similar difficulty, enabling a more controlled comparison, which is particularly important in reasoning evaluations. Through experimentation, we find English modalities largely lead to better performance in this abstract reasoning task, and performance disparities between open- and closed-source models.