Chunhui Zhang

Xingjian Diao, Chunhui Zhang, Tingxuan Wu et al.

Music performances are representative scenarios for audio-visual modeling. Unlike common scenarios with sparse audio, music performances continuously involve dense audio signals throughout. While existing multimodal learning methods on the audio-video QA demonstrate impressive capabilities in general scenarios, they are incapable of dealing with fundamental problems within the music performances: they underexplore the interaction between the multimodal signals in performance and fail to consider the distinctive characteristics of instruments and music. Therefore, existing methods tend to answer questions regarding musical performances inaccurately. To bridge the above research gaps, (i) given the intricate multimodal interconnectivity inherent to music data, our primary backbone is designed to incorporate multimodal interactions within the context of music; (ii) to enable the model to learn music characteristics, we annotate and release rhythmic and music sources in the current music datasets; (iii) for time-aware audio-visual modeling, we align the model's music predictions with the temporal dimension. Our experiments show state-of-the-art effects on the Music AVQA datasets. Our code is available at https://github.com/xid32/Amuse.

Yi-Long Lu, Chunhui Zhang, Wei Wang

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in tasks such as psychological text analysis and decision-making in automated workflows. However, their reliability remains a concern due to potential biases inherited from their training process. In this study, we examine how different response format: binary versus continuous, may systematically influence LLMs' judgments. In a value statement judgments task and a text sentiment analysis task, we prompted LLMs to simulate human responses and tested both formats across several models, including both open-source and commercial models. Our findings revealed a consistent negative bias: LLMs were more likely to deliver "negative" judgments in binary formats compared to continuous ones. Control experiments further revealed that this pattern holds across both tasks. Our results highlight the importance of considering response format when applying LLMs to decision tasks, as small changes in task design can introduce systematic biases.

Yi-Long Lu, Chunhui Zhang, Jiajun Song et al.

Theory of Mind (ToM), the ability to attribute mental states to others, is fundamental for human social intelligence and a critical capability for advanced Artificial Intelligence. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promising performance on ToM benchmarks, raising the question: Do these benchmarks necessitate explicit human-like reasoning processes, or can models succeed through alternative strategies? We investigate this question empirically by applying Reinforcement Learning (RL) and Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT) to LLMs of varying scales (0.5B to 7B parameters) and evaluating them across multiple ToM datasets. Our results reveal a scale-dependent impact of RL: while RL significantly improves accuracy and fosters high-quality, interpretable, and transferable belief-tracking reasoning in larger models (7B), it leads to "reasoning collapse" in smaller models ($\leq$3B), where high accuracy and generalization ability are achieved via drastically shortened, less meaningful responses. Surprisingly, further SFT achieves competitive and generalizable performance across these benchmarks, often matching or exceeding RL models in accuracy, despite not being explicitly trained to produce structured reasoning traces. These findings highlight a critical discrepancy between benchmark accuracy and the nature of learned reasoning. Our work suggests that current ToM benchmarks may be solvable without requiring the explicit, human-like simulation of mental states they were designed to probe. LLMs, particularly when scale is limited or training signals focus solely on output correctness, may leverage alternative rules effective for benchmark data structures.