Wang Zhu

Amirmohammad Nazari, Sadra Sabouri, Wang Bill Zhu et al.

Many software development tasks, such as implementing features and fixing bugs, begin with developers posing questions about a codebase. However, answering questions about codebases that span millions of lines of code across thousands of files is non-trivial. Standard tools like grep cannot answer questions requiring semantic or inter-procedural reasoning, and large language models (LLMs) struggle with large codebases due to resource and context constraints. In this paper, we present Merlin, a new system for answering free-form questions that require analytical reasoning about code. Merlin integrates an LLM with CodeQL, a program analysis framework that supports expressive queries over large codebases. We face two principal challenges in the design of such systems: First, program analysis queries are diverse and semantically complex; as a result, even syntactically well-formed queries frequently produce degenerate/empty results. Furthermore, relatively few CodeQL queries are available online, limiting the out-of-the-box effectiveness of LLMs as CodeQL query generators. We address these challenges by developing a RAG-based iterative query-generation approach and a novel self-test technique. Our query debugging technique builds on the idea of assistive queries, which generate concrete witnesses that expose and explain semantic flaws in candidate queries. We evaluate Merlin through both experimental and user studies. Over a set of natural language questions derived from common bug-finding tasks, Merlin discovered not only the majority of software issues reported by other approaches, but also issues that would have otherwise remained undetected. Through a within-subject user study, we found that access to Merlin increased task accuracy by an average of 3.8* and simultaneously reduced the time for programmers to complete all tasks by 31%.

Wang Bill Zhu, Miaosen Chai, Shangshang Wang et al.

Unlike code completion, debugging requires localizing faults and applying targeted edits. We observe that frontier LLMs often regenerate correct but over-edited solutions during debugging. To evaluate how far LLMs are from precise debugging, we introduce the Precise Debugging Benchmark (PDB) framework, which automatically converts any coding dataset into a debugging benchmark with precision-aware evaluation. PDB generates buggy programs by synthesizing verified atomic bugs and composing them into multi-bug programs. We define two novel metrics, edit-level precision and bug-level recall, which measures how many necessary edits are made and how many bugs are resolved. We release two evaluation benchmarks: PDB-Single-Hard on single-line bugs, and PDB-Multi on multi-line bugs. Experiments show that frontier models, such as GPT-5.1-Codex and DeepSeek-V3.2-Thinking, achieve unit-test pass rates above 76% but exhibit precision below 45%, even when explicitly instructed to perform minimal debugging. Finally, we show that iterative and agentic debugging strategies do not substantially improve precision or recall, highlighting the need to rethink post-training pipelines for coding models.

Ang Li, Charles Wang, Deqing Fu et al.

Humans often use visual aids, for example diagrams or sketches, when solving complex problems. Training multimodal models to do the same, known as Visual Chain of Thought (Visual CoT), is challenging due to: (1) poor off-the-shelf visual CoT performance, which hinders reinforcement learning, and (2) the lack of high-quality visual CoT training data. We introduce $\textbf{Zebra-CoT}$, a diverse large-scale dataset with 182,384 samples, containing logically coherent interleaved text-image reasoning traces. We focus on four categories of tasks where sketching or visual reasoning is especially natural, spanning scientific questions such as geometry, physics, and algorithms; 2D visual reasoning tasks like visual search and jigsaw puzzles; 3D reasoning tasks including 3D multi-hop inference, embodied and robot planning; visual logic problems and strategic games like chess. Fine-tuning the Anole-7B model on the Zebra-CoT training corpus results in an improvement of +12% in our test-set accuracy and yields up to +13% performance gain on standard VLM benchmark evaluations. Fine-tuning Bagel-7B yields a model that generates high-quality interleaved visual reasoning chains, underscoring Zebra-CoT's effectiveness for developing multimodal reasoning abilities. We open-source our dataset and models to support development and evaluation of visual CoT.

Jun Rui Huang, Wang Bill Zhu, Ziyi Liu et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as conversational partners for companionship, emotional disclosure, and interpersonal advice, but the social dynamics of these interactions can create harms that are not captured by capability-oriented or traditional safety evaluations. We introduce the Social AI Design Code, a framework for evaluating whether LLMs align with user welfare in social interactions, including whether they encourage harmful intimacy, dependence, or prolonged engagement. To evaluate these risks in natural and diverse user-LLM interactions, we operationalize the code with EUDAIMONIA, a benchmark of 969 user inputs and 3,147 design-requirement violation checks built from WildChat through weak-to-strong filtration, multi-model relabeling, and controlled rewriting. Evaluating 22 recent LLMs, we find that even the strongest models, Claude-Opus-4.7 and GPT-5.5, violate 30.7% and 27.2% of checks, respectively. Extended thinking does not reduce violation rates, suggesting that these failures are persistent social-alignment problems rather than deficits solvable through test-time reasoning alone.

Wang Bill Zhu, Qiutong Tony Yi, Robin Jia et al.

Large language models (LLMs) perform substantially below human level on existing theory-of-mind (ToM) benchmarks, even when augmented with chain-of-thought prompting or probabilistic belief updates. We argue that these failures primarily arise from unreliable implicit state tracking rather than limitations in high-level reasoning. We introduce PDDL-Mind, a neuro-symbolic framework that decouples environment state evolution from belief inference. By translating narrative descriptions into explicit states and actions expressed in Planning Domain Definition Language (PDDL), and by verifying action-induced state transitions against a predefined domain, PDDL-Mind provides LLMs with a logically consistent and explicit representation of world states for ToM tasks. Experiments on MMToM-QA, MuMA and FanToM show that PDDL-Mind achieves over 5% absolute accuracy gain over the best existing state-of-the-art method on ToM benchmark questions.

Yuqing Yang, Tengxiao Liu, Wang Bill Zhu et al.

As LLM-based assistants become persistent and personalized, they must extract and retain useful information from past conversations as memory. However, the types of information worth remembering vary considerably across tasks. We formalize the \textit{heterogeneous memory extraction} task and introduce \textbf{BEHEMOTH}, a benchmark that repurposes 18 existing datasets spanning personalization, problem-solving, and agentic tasks, using a downstream utility-driven metric for systematic evaluation. Our empirical analysis confirms that no single static extraction prompt dominates across all task categories, and that existing self-evolving prompt optimization frameworks, originally designed for homogeneous distributions, degrade when training tasks are heterogeneous. To address this, we propose \textbf{CluE}, a cluster-based self-evolving strategy that groups training examples into clusters by extraction scenarios, analyzes each cluster independently, and synthesizes cross-cluster insights to update the extraction prompt. Experiments on BEHEMOTH show that CluE generalizes effectively across heterogeneous tasks ($+$9.04\% relative gain), consistently outperforming prior self-evolving frameworks.

Wang Bill Zhu, Tianqi Chen, Xinyan Velocity Yu et al.

Cancer patients are increasingly turning to large language models (LLMs) for medical information, making it critical to assess how well these models handle complex, personalized questions. However, current medical benchmarks focus on medical exams or consumer-searched questions and do not evaluate LLMs on real patient questions with patient details. In this paper, we first have three hematology-oncology physicians evaluate cancer-related questions drawn from real patients. While LLM responses are generally accurate, the models frequently fail to recognize or address false presuppositions in the questions, posing risks to safe medical decision-making. To study this limitation systematically, we introduce Cancer-Myth, an expert-verified adversarial dataset of 585 cancer-related questions with false presuppositions. On this benchmark, no frontier LLM -- including GPT-5, Gemini-2.5-Pro, and Claude-4-Sonnet -- corrects these false presuppositions more than $43\%$ of the time. To study mitigation strategies, we further construct a 150-question Cancer-Myth-NFP set, in which physicians confirm the absence of false presuppositions. We find typical mitigation strategies, such as adding precautionary prompts with GEPA optimization, can raise accuracy on Cancer-Myth to $80\%$, but at the cost of misidentifying presuppositions in $41\%$ of Cancer-Myth-NFP questions and causing a $10\%$ relative performance drop on other medical benchmarks. These findings highlight a critical gap in the reliability of LLMs, show that prompting alone is not a reliable remedy for false presuppositions, and underscore the need for more robust safeguards in medical AI systems.