Large Language Models (LLMs) have made significant progress in code generation, offering developers groundbreaking automated programming support. However, LLMs often generate code that is syntactically correct and even semantically plausible, but may not execute as expected or fulfill specified requirements. This phenomenon of hallucinations in the code domain has not been systematically explored. To advance the community's understanding and research on this issue, we introduce the concept of code hallucinations and propose a classification method for code hallucination based on execution verification. We categorize code hallucinations into four main types: mapping, naming, resource, and logic hallucinations, with each category further divided into different subcategories to understand and address the unique challenges faced by LLMs in code generation with finer granularity. Additionally, we present a dynamic detection algorithm called CodeHalu designed to detect and quantify code hallucinations. We also introduce the CodeHaluEval benchmark, which includes 8,883 samples from 699 tasks, to systematically and quantitatively evaluate code hallucinations. By evaluating 17 popular LLMs using this benchmark, we reveal significant differences in their accuracy and reliability in code generation, offering detailed insights for further improving the code generation capabilities of LLMs.

Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) have showcased impressive code generation capabilities, primarily evaluated through language-to-code benchmarks. However, these benchmarks may not fully capture a model’s code understanding abilities. We introduce CodeJudge-Eval (CJ-Eval), a novel benchmark designed to assess LLMs’ code understanding abilities from the perspective of code judging rather than code generation. CJ-Eval challenges models to determine the correctness of provided code solutions, encompassing various error types and compilation issues. By leveraging a diverse set of problems and a fine-grained judging system, CJ-Eval addresses the limitations of traditional benchmarks, including the potential memorization of solutions. Evaluation of 12 well-known LLMs on CJ-Eval reveals that even state-of-the-art models struggle, highlighting the benchmark’s ability to probe deeper into models’ code understanding abilities. Our benchmark is available at https://github.com/CodeLLM-Research/CodeJudge-Eval .

With the increasing integration of Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) into the medical field, comprehensive evaluation of their performance in various medical domains becomes critical. However, existing benchmarks primarily assess general medical tasks, inadequately capturing performance in nuanced areas like the spine, which relies heavily on visual input. To address this, we introduce SpineBench, a comprehensive Visual Question Answering (VQA) benchmark designed for fine-grained analysis and evaluation of MLLMs in the spinal domain. SpineBench comprises 64,878 QA pairs from 40,263 spine images, covering 11 spinal diseases through two critical clinical tasks: spinal disease diagnosis and spinal lesion localization, both in multiple-choice format. SpineBench is built by integrating and standardizing image-label pairs from open-source spinal disease datasets, and samples challenging hard negative options for each VQA pair based on visual similarity (similar but not the same disease), simulating real-world challenging scenarios. We evaluate 12 leading MLLMs on SpineBench. The results reveal that these models exhibit poor performance in spinal tasks, highlighting limitations of current MLLM in the spine domain and guiding future improvements in spinal medicine applications. SpineBench is publicly available at https://zhangchenghanyu.github.io/SpineBench.github.io/.

Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has become a powerful post-training paradigm for aligning large language models with human preferences. A core challenge in RLHF is constructing accurate reward signals, where the conventional Bradley-Terry reward models (BT RMs) often suffer from sensitivity to data size and coverage, as well as vulnerability to reward hacking. Generative reward models (GenRMs) offer a more robust alternative by generating chain-of-thought (CoT) rationales followed by a final verdict. However, existing GenRMs rely on shallow, vertically scaled reasoning, limiting their capacity to handle nuanced or complex tasks. Moreover, their pairwise preference outputs are incompatible with standard RLHF algorithms that require pointwise reward signals. In this work, we introduce Think-RM, a training framework that enables long-horizon reasoning in GenRMs by modeling an internal thinking process. Rather than producing structured, externally provided rationales, Think-RM generates flexible, self-guided reasoning traces that support advanced capabilities such as self-reflection, hypothetical reasoning, and divergent reasoning. To elicit these reasoning abilities, we first warm-up the models by supervised fine-tuning (SFT) over long CoT data. We then further improve the model's long-horizon abilities by rule-based reinforcement learning (RL). In addition, we propose a novel pairwise RLHF pipeline that directly optimizes policies from pairwise comparisons, eliminating the need for pointwise reward conversion. Experiments show that Think-RM outperforms baselines on both in-distribution and out-of-distribution tasks, with particularly strong gains on reasoning-heavy benchmarks: more than 10\% and 5\% on RewardBench's Chat Hard and Reasoning, and 12\% on RM-Bench's Math domain. When combined with our pairwise RLHF pipeline, it demonstrates superior end-policy performance compared to traditional approaches. This depth-oriented approach not only broadens the GenRM design space but also establishes a new paradigm for preference-based policy optimization in RLHF.

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved significant performance progress in various natural language processing applications. However, LLMs still struggle to meet the strict requirements for accuracy and reliability in the medical field and face many challenges in clinical applications. Existing clinical diagnostic evaluation benchmarks for evaluating medical agents powered by LLMs have severe limitations. To address these limitations, we introduce ClinicalLab, a comprehensive clinical diagnosis agent alignment suite. ClinicalLab includes ClinicalBench, an end-to-end multi-departmental clinical diagnostic evaluation benchmark for evaluating medical agents and LLMs. ClinicalBench is based on real cases that cover 24 departments and 150 diseases. We ensure that ClinicalBench does not have data leakage. ClinicalLab also includes four novel metrics (ClinicalMetrics) for evaluating the effectiveness of LLMs in clinical diagnostic tasks. We evaluate 17 general and medical-domain LLMs and find that their performance varies significantly across different departments. Based on these findings, in ClinicalLab, we propose ClinicalAgent, an end-to-end clinical agent that aligns with real-world clinical diagnostic practices. We systematically investigate the performance and applicable scenarios of variants of ClinicalAgent on ClinicalBench. Our findings demonstrate the importance of aligning with modern medical practices in designing medical agents.

Human cognition typically involves thinking through abstract, fluid concepts rather than strictly using discrete linguistic tokens. Current Large Language Models (LLMs), however, are constrained to reasoning within the boundaries of human language, processing discrete token embeddings that represent fixed points in semantic space. This discrete constraint restricts the expressive power and upper potential of such reasoning models, often causing incomplete exploration of reasoning paths, as standard Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods rely on sampling one token per step. In this work, we introduce Soft Thinking, a training-free method that emulates human-like ``soft'' reasoning by generating abstract concept tokens in a continuous concept space. These concept tokens are created by the probability-weighted mixture of token embeddings, which span the continuous concept space, enabling smooth transitions and richer representations that transcend traditional discrete boundaries. In essence, each generated concept token encapsulates multiple meanings from related discrete tokens, implicitly exploring various reasoning paths to converge effectively toward the correct answer. Empirical evaluations on diverse mathematical and coding benchmarks consistently demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of Soft Thinking, improving pass@1 accuracy by up to 2.48 points while simultaneously reducing token usage by up to 22.4\% compared to standard CoT. Qualitative analysis further reveals that Soft Thinking outputs remain highly interpretable and readable, highlighting the potential of Soft Thinking to break the inherent limits of discrete language-based reasoning.

Weixiang Yan, Haitian Liu, Yunkun Wang, Yunzhe Li, Qian Chen, Wen Wang, Tingyu Lin, Weishan Zhao, Li Zhu, Hari Sundaram, Shuiguang Deng. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.

Yunzhe Li, Qian Chen, Weixiang Yan, Wen Wang, Qinglin Zhang, Hari Sundaram. Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers). 2024.

Despite tremendous advancements, current state-of-the-art Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are still far from perfect.They tend to hallucinate and may generate biased responses.In such circumstances, having a way to assess the reliability of a given response generated by a VLM is quite useful.Existing methods, such as estimating uncertainty using answer likelihoods or prompt-based confidence generation, often suffer from overconfidence.Other methods use self-consistency comparison but are affected by confirmation biases.To alleviate these, we propose Decompose and Compare Consistency (DeCC) for reliability measurement.By comparing the consistency between the direct answer generated using the VLM's internal reasoning process, and the indirect answers obtained by decomposing the question into sub-questions and reasoning over the sub-answers produced by the VLM, DeCC measures the reliability of VLM's direct answer.Experiments across six vision-language tasks with three VLMs show DeCC's reliability estimation achieves better correlation with task accuracy compared to the existing methods.The code is publicly available at https: //github.com/MyLittleChange/DeCC.

Form understanding is an important task in many fields such as software testing, AI assistants, and improving accessibility. One key goal of understanding a complex set of forms is to identify the dependencies between form elements. However, it remains a challenge to capture the dependencies accurately due to the diversity of UI design patterns and the variety in development experiences. In this paper, we propose a deep-learning-based approach called DependEX, which integrates convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and transformers to help understand dependencies within forms. DependEX extracts semantic features from UI images using CNN-based models, captures contextual patterns using a multilayer transformer encoder module, and models dependencies between form elements using two embedding layers. We evaluate DependEX with a large-scale dataset from mobile Web applications. Experimental results show that our proposed model achieves over 92% accuracy in identifying dependencies between UI elements, which significantly outperforms other competitive methods, especially for heuristic-based methods. We also conduct case studies on automatic form filling and test case generation from natural language (NL) instructions, which demonstrates the applicability of our approach.