Wenjie Luo

Weiqi Zhai, Zhihai Wang, Jinghang Wang et al.

Humanity's Last Exam (HLE) has become a widely used benchmark for evaluating frontier large language models on challenging, multi-domain questions. However, community-led analyses have raised concerns that HLE contains a non-trivial number of noisy items, which can bias evaluation results and distort cross-model comparisons. To address this challenge, we introduce HLE-Verified, a verified and revised version of HLE with a transparent verification protocol and fine-grained error taxonomy. Our construction follows a two-stage validation-and-repair workflow resulting in a certified benchmark. In Stage I, each item undergoes binary validation of the problem and final answer through domain-expert review and model-based cross-checks, yielding 641 verified items. In Stage II, flawed but fixable items are revised under strict constraints preserving the original evaluation intent, through dual independent expert repairs, model-assisted auditing, and final adjudication, resulting in 1,170 revised-and-certified items. The remaining 689 items are released as a documented uncertain set with explicit uncertainty sources and expertise tags for future refinement. We evaluate seven state-of-the-art language models on HLE and HLE-Verified, observing an average absolute accuracy gain of 7--10 percentage points on HLE-Verified. The improvement is particularly pronounced on items where the original problem statement and/or reference answer is erroneous, with gains of 30--40 percentage points. Our analyses further reveal a strong association between model confidence and the presence of errors in the problem statement or reference answer, supporting the effectiveness of our revisions. Overall, HLE-Verified improves HLE-style evaluations by reducing annotation noise and enabling more faithful measurement of model capabilities. Data is available at: https://github.com/SKYLENAGE-AI/HLE-Verified

Xiang Zheng, Han Li, Wenjie Luo et al.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to health management, showing promise across disease prevention, clinical decision-making, and long-term care. However, existing medical benchmarks remain largely static and task-isolated, failing to capture the openness, longitudinal structure, and safety-critical complexity of real-world clinical workflows. We introduce ClinConsensus, a Chinese medical benchmark curated, validated, and quality-controlled by clinical experts. ClinConsensus comprises 2500 open-ended cases spanning the full continuum of care--from prevention and intervention to long-term follow-up--covering 36 medical specialties, 12 common clinical task types, and progressively increasing levels of complexity. To enable reliable evaluation of such complex scenarios, we adopt a rubric-based grading protocol and propose the Clinically Applicable Consistency Score (CACS@k). We further introduce a dual-judge evaluation framework, combining a high-capability LLM-as-judge with a distilled, locally deployable judge model trained via supervised fine-tuning, enabling scalable and reproducible evaluation aligned with physician judgment. Using ClinConsensus, we conduct a comprehensive assessment of several leading LLMs and reveal substantial heterogeneity across task themes, care stages, and medical specialties. While top-performing models achieve comparable overall scores, they differ markedly in reasoning, evidence use, and longitudinal follow-up capabilities, and clinically actionable treatment planning remains a key bottleneck. We release ClinConsensus as an extensible benchmark to support the development and evaluation of medical LLMs that are robust, clinically grounded, and ready for real-world deployment.

Shidong He, Haoyu Wang, Wenjie Luo

Aspect-based sentiment analysis (ABSA) extracts aspect-level sentiment signals from user-generated text, supports product analytics, experience monitoring, and public-opinion tracking, and is central to fine-grained opinion mining. A key challenge in ABSA is aspect sentiment quad prediction (ASQP), which requires identifying four elements: the aspect term, the aspect category, the opinion term, and the sentiment polarity. However, existing studies usually linearize the unordered quad set into a fixed-order template and decode it left-to-right. With teacher forcing training, the resulting training-inference mismatch (exposure bias) lets early prefix errors propagate to later elements. The linearization order determines which elements appear earlier in the prefix, so this propagation becomes order-sensitive and is hard to repair in a single pass. To address this, we propose a method, Generate-then-Correct (G2C): a generator drafts quads and a corrector performs a single-shot, sequence-level global correction trained on LLM-synthesized drafts with common error patterns. On the Rest15 and Rest16 datasets, G2C outperforms strong baseline models.