Zhenghao Xiang

Ming Zhang, Jiabao Zhuang, Wenqing Jing et al.

Deep Research Agents increasingly automate survey generation, yet whether they match human experts at retrieving essential papers and organizing them into expert-like taxonomies remains unclear. Existing benchmarks emphasize writing quality or citation correctness, while standard clustering metrics ignore hierarchical structure. We introduce TaxoBench, a benchmark of 72 highly-cited LLM surveys with expert-authored taxonomy trees and 3,815 papers mapped to paper categories. TaxoBench evaluates (1) retrieval via Recall/Precision/F1, and (2) organization at a leaf level (paper-to-category assignment) and a hierarchy level via novel metrics, namely Unordered Semantic Tree Edit Distance US-TED/US-NTED and Semantic Path Similarity Sem-Path. Two modes are supported: Deep Research (topic-only, end-to-end) and Bottom-Up (expert paper set provided, organization-only). To distinguish disagreement with a single expert reference from genuine model failure, we explicitly partition findings into capability-based (reference-free) and alignment-based (reference-dependent). Evaluating 7 Deep Research Agents and 12 frontier LLMs reveals a dual bottleneck: capability-side, the best agent retrieves only 20.92% of expert-cited papers, and 1,000 model taxonomies show 75.9% sibling overlap, 51.2% MECE violations, and 83.4% structural imbalance, all detectable without any reference; alignment-side, all 12 LLMs converge to Sem-Path 28--29%, well below 47--58% achieved by three independent human-annotator groups on the same paper sets. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/KongLongGeFDU/TaxoBench

Changhao Jiang, Jiahao Chen, Zhenghao Xiang et al.

Recent commercial systems such as Suno demonstrate strong capabilities in long-form song generation, while academic research remains largely non-reproducible due to the lack of publicly available training data, hindering fair comparison and progress. To this end, we release a fully open-source system for long-form song generation with fine-grained style conditioning, including a licensed synthetic dataset, training and evaluation pipelines, and Muse, an easy-to-deploy song generation model. The dataset consists of 116k fully licensed synthetic songs with automatically generated lyrics and style descriptions paired with audio synthesized by SunoV5. We train Muse via single-stage supervised finetuning of a Qwen-based language model extended with discrete audio tokens using MuCodec, without task-specific losses, auxiliary objectives, or additional architectural components. Our evaluations find that although Muse is trained with a modest data scale and model size, it achieves competitive performance on phoneme error rate, text--music style similarity, and audio aesthetic quality, while enabling controllable segment-level generation across different musical structures. All data, model weights, and training and evaluation pipelines will be publicly released, paving the way for continued progress in controllable long-form song generation research. The project repository is available at https://github.com/yuhui1038/Muse.

Ming Zhang, Qiyuan Peng, Yinxi Wei et al.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on natural-language logical reasoning is essential because rule-governed tasks require conclusions to follow strictly from stated premises. Many existing logical-reasoning benchmarks are generated by templating natural-language items from sampled formulas, provide only coarse or unaudited formal annotations, and are now quickly saturated by frontier reasoning models. We present LLMEval-Logic, a Chinese logical reasoning benchmark built from realistic situational scenarios. Its pipeline forward-authors and expert-audits natural-language items together with their reference formalizations, verifies annotated answers with Z3, constructs expert rubrics for natural-to-formal grading, and hardens selected items through a closed-loop adversarial workflow. The benchmark is released in two paired subsets: a 246-item Base subset shipped with 1,400 expert-developed rubric atoms, and a 190-item Hard subset with 938 multi-step sub-questions over closed model spaces. Evaluating 14 frontier LLMs on LLMEval-Logic reveals substantial gaps in current models: the best model reaches only 37.5% Hard Item Accuracy, and even with reference symbols the highest joint Z3+Rubric formalization score among evaluated models reaches only 60.16%. Our benchmark is publicly available at https://github.com/llmeval/LLMEval-Logic.