Test cases are essential for validating the reliability and quality of software applications. Recent studies have demonstrated the capability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate useful test cases for given source code. However, the existing work primarily relies on human-written plain prompts, which often leads to suboptimal results since the performance of LLMs can be highly influenced by the prompts. Moreover, these approaches use the same prompt for all LLMs, overlooking the fact that different LLMs might be best suited to different prompts. Given the wide variety of possible prompt formulations, automatically discovering the optimal prompt for each LLM presents a significant challenge. Although there are methods on automated prompt optimization in the natural language processing field, they are hard to produce effective prompts for the test case generation task. First, the methods iteratively optimize prompts by simply combining and mutating existing ones without proper guidance, resulting in prompts that lack diversity and tend to repeat the same errors in the generated test cases. Second, the prompts are generally lack of domain contextual knowledge, limiting LLMs' performance in the task.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly attracting the attention of healthcare professionals for their potential to assist in diagnostic assessments, which could alleviate the strain on the healthcare system caused by a high patient load and a shortage of providers. For LLMs to be effective in supporting diagnostic assessments, it is essential that they closely replicate the standard diagnostic procedures used by clinicians. In this paper, we specifically examine the diagnostic assessment processes described in the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for major depressive disorder (MDD) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) questionnaire for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). We investigate various prompting and fine-tuning techniques to guide both proprietary and open-source LLMs in adhering to these processes, and we evaluate the agreement between LLM-generated diagnostic outcomes and expert-validated ground truth. For fine-tuning, we utilize the Mentalllama and Llama models, while for prompting, we experiment with proprietary models like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4o, as well as open-source models such as llama-3.1-8b and mixtral-8x7b.

Question answering systems are rapidly advancing, but their opaque nature may impact user trust. We explored trust through an anti-monitoring framework, where trust is predicted to be correlated with presence of citations and inversely related to checking citations. We tested this hypothesis with a live question-answering experiment that presented text responses generated using a commercial Chatbot along with varying citations (zero, one, or five), both relevant and random, and recorded if participants checked the citations and their self-reported trust in the generated responses. We found a significant increase in trust when citations were present, a result that held true even when the citations were random; we also found a significant decrease in trust when participants checked the citations. These results highlight the importance of citations in enhancing trust in AI-generated content.

Despite recent advances in AI, the development of systems capable of executing complex, multi-step reasoning tasks involving multiple tools remains a significant challenge. Current benchmarks fall short in capturing the real-world complexity of tool-use reasoning, where verifying the correctness of not only the final answer but also the intermediate steps is important for evaluation, development, and identifying failures during inference time. To bridge this gap, we introduce ToolComp, a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate multi-step tool-use reasoning. ToolComp is developed through a collaboration between models and human annotators, featuring human-edited/verified prompts, final answers, and process supervision labels, allowing for the evaluation of both final outcomes and intermediate reasoning. Evaluation across six different model families demonstrates the challenging nature of our dataset, with the majority of models achieving less than 50% accuracy. Additionally, we generate synthetic training data to compare the performance of outcome-supervised reward models (ORMs) with process-supervised reward models (PRMs) to assess their ability to improve complex tool-use reasoning as evaluated by ToolComp. Our results show that PRMs generalize significantly better than ORMs, achieving a 19% and 11% improvement in rank@1 accuracy for ranking base and fine-tuned model trajectories, respectively. These findings highlight the critical role of process supervision in both the evaluation and training of AI models, paving the way for more robust and capable systems in complex, multi-step tool-use tasks.

Vision-language models (VLMs) have advanced human-AI interaction but struggle with cultural understanding, often misinterpreting symbols, gestures, and artifacts due to biases in predominantly Western-centric training data. In this paper, we construct CultureVerse, a large-scale multimodal benchmark covering 19, 682 cultural concepts, 188 countries/regions, 15 cultural concepts, and 3 question types, with the aim of characterizing and improving VLMs' multicultural understanding capabilities. Then, we propose CultureVLM, a series of VLMs fine-tuned on our dataset to achieve significant performance improvement in cultural understanding. Our evaluation of 16 models reveals significant disparities, with a stronger performance in Western concepts and weaker results in African and Asian contexts. Fine-tuning on our CultureVerse enhances cultural perception, demonstrating cross-cultural, cross-continent, and cross-dataset generalization without sacrificing performance on models' general VLM benchmarks. We further present insights on cultural generalization and forgetting. We hope that this work could lay the foundation for more equitable and culturally aware multimodal AI systems.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have recently emerged, attracting considerable attention due to their ability to generate highly natural, human-like text. This study compares the latent community structures of LLM-generated text and human-written text within a hypothesis testing procedure. Specifically, we analyze three text sets: original human-written texts ($\mathcal{O}$), their LLM-paraphrased versions ($\mathcal{G}$), and a twice-paraphrased set ($\mathcal{S}$) derived from $\mathcal{G}$. Our analysis addresses two key questions: (1) Is the difference in latent community structures between $\mathcal{O}$ and $\mathcal{G}$ the same as that between $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{S}$? (2) Does $\mathcal{G}$ become more similar to $\mathcal{O}$ as the LLM parameter controlling text variability is adjusted? The first question is based on the assumption that if LLM-generated text truly resembles human language, then the gap between the pair ($\mathcal{O}$, $\mathcal{G}$) should be similar to that between the pair ($\mathcal{G}$, $\mathcal{S}$), as both pairs consist of an original text and its paraphrase. The second question examines whether the degree of similarity between LLM-generated and human text varies with changes in the breadth of text generation. To address these questions, we propose a statistical hypothesis testing framework that leverages the fact that each text has corresponding parts across all datasets due to their paraphrasing relationship. This relationship enables the mapping of one dataset's relative position to another, allowing two datasets to be mapped to a third dataset. As a result, both mapped datasets can be quantified with respect to the space characterized by the third dataset, facilitating a direct comparison between them. Our results indicate that GPT-generated text remains distinct from human-authored text.

Self-Correction aims to enable large language models (LLMs) to self-verify and self-refine their initial responses without external feedback. However, LLMs often fail to effectively self-verify and generate correct feedback, further misleading refinement and leading to the failure of self-correction, especially in complex reasoning tasks. In this paper, we propose Program-driven Self-Correction (ProgCo). First, program-driven verification (ProgVe) achieves complex verification logic and extensive validation through self-generated, self-executing verification pseudo-programs. Then, program-driven refinement (ProgRe) receives feedback from ProgVe, conducts dual reflection and refinement on both responses and verification programs to mitigate misleading of incorrect feedback in complex reasoning tasks. Experiments on three instruction-following and mathematical benchmarks indicate that ProgCo achieves effective self-correction, and can be further enhance performance when combined with real program tools.

In recent years, toxic content and hate speech have become widespread phenomena on the internet. Moderators of online newspapers and forums are now required, partly due to legal regulations, to carefully review and, if necessary, delete reader comments. This is a labor-intensive process. Some providers of large language models already offer solutions for automated hate speech detection or the identification of toxic content. These include GPT-4o from OpenAI, Jigsaw's (Google) Perspective API, and OpenAI's Moderation API. Based on the selected German test dataset HOCON34k, which was specifically created for developing tools to detect hate speech in reader comments of online newspapers, these solutions are compared with each other and against the HOCON34k baseline. The test dataset contains 1,592 annotated text samples. For GPT-4o, three different promptings are used, employing a Zero-Shot, One-Shot, and Few-Shot approach. The results of the experiments demonstrate that GPT-4o outperforms both the Perspective API and the Moderation API, and exceeds the HOCON34k baseline by approximately 5 percentage points, as measured by a combined metric of MCC and F2-score.

Integrating large language models (LLMs) with rule-based reasoning offers a powerful solution for improving the flexibility and reliability of Knowledge Base Completion (KBC). Traditional rule-based KBC methods offer verifiable reasoning yet lack flexibility, while LLMs provide strong semantic understanding yet suffer from hallucinations. With the aim of combining LLMs' understanding capability with the logical and rigor of rule-based approaches, we propose a novel framework consisting of a Subgraph Extractor, an LLM Proposer, and a Rule Reasoner. The Subgraph Extractor first samples subgraphs from the KB. Then, the LLM uses these subgraphs to propose diverse and meaningful rules that are helpful for inferring missing facts. To effectively avoid hallucination in LLMs' generations, these proposed rules are further refined by a Rule Reasoner to pinpoint the most significant rules in the KB for Knowledge Base Completion. Our approach offers several key benefits: the utilization of LLMs to enhance the richness and diversity of the proposed rules and the integration with rule-based reasoning to improve reliability. Our method also demonstrates strong performance across diverse KB datasets, highlighting the robustness and generalizability of the proposed framework.

Human action understanding is crucial for the advancement of multimodal systems. While recent developments, driven by powerful large language models (LLMs), aim to be general enough to cover a wide range of categories, they often overlook the need for more specific capabilities. In this work, we address the more challenging task of Fine-grained Action Recognition (FAR), which focuses on detailed semantic labels within shorter temporal duration (e.g., "salto backward tucked with 1 turn"). Given the high costs of annotating fine-grained labels and the substantial data needed for fine-tuning LLMs, we propose to adopt semi-supervised learning (SSL). Our framework, SeFAR, incorporates several innovative designs to tackle these challenges. Specifically, to capture sufficient visual details, we construct Dual-level temporal elements as more effective representations, based on which we design a new strong augmentation strategy for the Teacher-Student learning paradigm through involving moderate temporal perturbation. Furthermore, to handle the high uncertainty within the teacher model's predictions for FAR, we propose the Adaptive Regulation to stabilize the learning process. Experiments show that SeFAR achieves state-of-the-art performance on two FAR datasets, FineGym and FineDiving, across various data scopes. It also outperforms other semi-supervised methods on two classical coarse-grained datasets, UCF101 and HMDB51. Further analysis and ablation studies validate the effectiveness of our designs. Additionally, we show that the features extracted by our SeFAR could largely promote the ability of multimodal foundation models to understand fine-grained and domain-specific semantics.