Hehai Lin

Kangyu Yuan, Guanzheng Chen, Sizhe Liang et al.

Critical news reading (CNR), which requires grasping the holistic ideas of and raising critical thoughts on the news, is beneficial yet challenging for general people who usually get information on daily social media. Comments under the news can aid CNR by providing complementary information and other readers' diverse and critical thoughts. However, it is under-investigated how to leverage these comments to support users in CNR. In this paper, we first derive user requirements for a comment-based CNR tool from literature and a formative study (N=12). Then, we develop CoNewsReader, a comment-based interactive CNR tool powered by a large language model. CoNewsReader supports users in grasping the news idea with complementary information from comments, filtering useful comments for CNR, and getting questions generated based on the comments to conduct critical thinking. Our within-subjects study with 24 university students indicates that compared to a baseline news reading interface in social media, participants with CoNewsReader have a more engaging CNR experience and perform better on comprehending the news and raising critical thoughts. We discuss design considerations for supporting reading tasks with user- and machine-generated content.

Hehai Lin, Hui Liu, Shilei Cao et al.

Numerous multimodal misinformation benchmarks exhibit bias toward specific modalities, allowing detectors to make predictions based solely on one modality. While previous research has quantified bias at the dataset level or manually identified spurious correlations between modalities and labels, these approaches lack meaningful insights at the sample level and struggle to scale to the vast amount of online information. In this paper, we investigate the design for automated recognition of modality bias at the sample level. Specifically, we propose three bias quantification methods based on theories/views of different levels of granularity: 1) a coarse-grained evaluation of modality benefit; 2) a medium-grained quantification of information flow; and 3) a fine-grained causality analysis. To verify the effectiveness, we conduct a human evaluation on two popular benchmarks. Experimental results reveal three interesting findings that provide potential direction toward future research: 1)~Ensembling multiple views is crucial for reliable automated analysis; 2)~Automated analysis is prone to detector-induced fluctuations; and 3)~Different views produce a higher agreement on modality-balanced samples but diverge on biased ones.

Prathyusha Jwalapuram, Hehai Lin, Chuyuan Li et al.

Prevailing wisdom posits that Multi-Agent Systems (MAS) are superior to Single-Agent Systems (SAS), citing advantages like context protection, parallel processing and distributed decision-making. However, empirical support for this claim relies primarily on comparisons with SAS baselines using benchmarks that prioritize isolated reasoning tasks, which do not adequately assess these advantages. Focusing on automatically generated MAS that are designed for enhanced generalizability over manually-designed counterparts, we perform a rigorous, systematic evaluation against SAS, specifically Chain-of-Thought with Self-Consistency (CoT-SC). Across traditional reasoning datasets and tasks with interactive multi-step workflows (e.g., BrowseComp-Plus), we demonstrate that automatic MAS consistently underperform CoT-SC despite being up to 10x more expensive. To isolate these failures from limitations inherent to task structure, we introduce a diagnostic synthetic dataset tailored for MAS featuring explicit task decomposition, context separation and parallelization potential. We show that expert-architected MAS consistently outperforms automatically generated architectures in both raw performance and cost-efficiency on this dataset, demonstrating that existing evaluation frameworks mask critical architectural gaps and inefficiencies of complex MAS by failing to account for the marginal utility of increased computational cost. Critically, systematic deconstruction of the generated MAS architectures reveals that current automated design paradigms produce architectural bloat that prioritizes superficial complexity which does not translate into functional utility, exposing a fundamental misalignment with multi-agent principles.

Hehai Lin, Shilei Cao, Sudong Wang et al.

Existing multi-agent learning approaches have developed interactive training environments to explicitly promote collaboration among multiple Large Language Models (LLMs), thereby constructing stronger multi-agent systems (MAS). However, during inference, they require re-executing the MAS to obtain final solutions, which diverges from human cognition that individuals can enhance their reasoning capabilities through interactions with others and resolve questions independently in the future. To investigate whether multi-agent interaction can enhance LLMs' independent problem-solving ability, we introduce ILR, a novel co-learning framework for MAS that integrates two key components: Dynamic Interaction and Perception Calibration. Specifically, Dynamic Interaction first adaptively selects either cooperative or competitive strategies depending on question difficulty and model ability. LLMs then exchange information through Idea3 (Idea Sharing, Idea Analysis, and Idea Fusion), an innovative interaction paradigm designed to mimic human discussion, before deriving their respective final answers. In Perception Calibration, ILR employs Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) to train LLMs while integrating one LLM's reward distribution characteristics into another's reward function, thereby enhancing the cohesion of multi-agent interactions. We validate ILR on three LLMs across two model families of varying scales, evaluating performance on five mathematical benchmarks and one coding benchmark. Experimental results show that ILR consistently outperforms single-agent learning, yielding an improvement of up to 5% over the strongest baseline. We further discover that Idea3 can enhance the robustness of stronger LLMs during multi-agent inference, and dynamic interaction types can boost multi-agent learning compared to pure cooperative or competitive strategies.