Supervised learning relies on high-quality labeled data, but obtaining such data through human annotation is both expensive and time-consuming. Recent work explores using large language models (LLMs) for annotation, but LLM-generated labels still fall short of human-level quality. To address this problem, we propose the Annotation with Critical Thinking (ACT) data pipeline, where LLMs serve not only as annotators but also as judges to critically identify potential errors. Human effort is then directed towards reviewing only the most "suspicious" cases, significantly improving the human annotation efficiency. Our major contributions are as follows: (1) ACT is applicable to a wide range of domains, including natural language processing (NLP), computer vision (CV), and multimodal understanding, by leveraging multimodal-LLMs (MLLMs). (2) Through empirical studies, we derive 7 insights on how to enhance annotation quality while efficiently reducing the human cost, and then translate these findings into user-friendly guidelines. (3) We theoretically analyze how to modify the loss function so that models trained on ACT data achieve similar performance to those trained on fully human-annotated data. Our experiments show that the performance gap can be reduced to less than 2% on most benchmark datasets while saving up to 90% of human costs.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are used for Register-Transfer Level (RTL) code generation, but they face two main challenges: functional correctness and Power, Performance, and Area (PPA) optimization. Iterative, feedback-based methods partially address these, but they are limited to local search, hindering the discovery of a global optimum. This paper introduces REvolution, a framework that combines Evolutionary Computation (EC) with LLMs for automatic RTL generation and optimization. REvolution evolves a population of candidates in parallel, each defined by a design strategy, RTL implementation, and evaluation feedback. The framework includes a dual-population algorithm that divides candidates into Fail and Success groups for bug fixing and PPA optimization, respectively. An adaptive mechanism further improves search efficiency by dynamically adjusting the selection probability of each prompt strategy according to its success rate. Experiments on the VerilogEval and RTLLM benchmarks show that REvolution increased the initial pass rate of various LLMs by up to 24.0 percentage points. The DeepSeek-V3 model achieved a final pass rate of 95.5\%, comparable to state-of-the-art results, without the need for separate training or domain-specific tools. Additionally, the generated RTL designs showed significant PPA improvements over reference designs. This work introduces a new RTL design approach by combining LLMs' generative capabilities with EC's broad search power, overcoming the local-search limitations of previous methods.

Currently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable results in machine translation. However, their performance in multi-domain translation (MDT) is less satisfactory, the meanings of words can vary across different domains, highlighting the significant ambiguity inherent in MDT. Therefore, evaluating the disambiguation ability of LLMs in MDT, remains an open problem. To this end, we present an evaluation and analysis of LLMs on disambiguation in multi-domain translation (DMDTEval), our systematic evaluation framework consisting of three critical aspects: (1) we construct a translation test set with multi-domain ambiguous word annotation, (2) we curate a diverse set of disambiguation prompt strategies, and (3) we design precise disambiguation metrics, and study the efficacy of various prompt strategies on multiple state-of-the-art LLMs. We conduct comprehensive experiments across 4 language pairs and 13 domains, our extensive experiments reveal a number of crucial findings that we believe will pave the way and also facilitate further research in the critical area of improving the disambiguation of LLMs.

Traditional static analysis methods struggle to detect semantic design flaws, such as violations of the SOLID principles, which require a strong understanding of object-oriented design patterns and principles. Existing solutions typically focus on individual SOLID principles or specific programming languages, leaving a gap in the ability to detect violations across all five principles in multi-language codebases. This paper presents a new approach: a methodology that leverages tailored prompt engineering to assess LLMs on their ability to detect SOLID violations across multiple languages. We present a benchmark of four leading LLMs-CodeLlama, DeepSeekCoder, QwenCoder, and GPT-4o Mini-on their ability to detect violations of all five SOLID principles. For this evaluation, we construct a new benchmark dataset of 240 manually validated code examples. Using this dataset, we test four distinct prompt strategies inspired by established zero-shot, few-shot, and chain-of-thought techniques to systematically measure their impact on detection accuracy. Our emerging results reveal a stark hierarchy among models, with GPT-4o Mini decisively outperforming others, yet even struggles with challenging principles like DIP. Crucially, we show that prompt strategy has a dramatic impact, but no single strategy is universally best; for instance, a deliberative ENSEMBLE prompt excels at OCP detection while a hint-based EXAMPLE prompt is superior for DIP violations. Across all experiments, detection accuracy is heavily influenced by language characteristics and degrades sharply with increasing code complexity. These initial findings demonstrate that effective, AI-driven design analysis requires not a single best model, but a tailored approach that matches the right model and prompt to the specific design context, highlighting the potential of LLMs to support maintainability through AI-assisted code analysis.

Hierarchical Text Classification (HTC) aims to assign texts to structured label hierarchies; however, it faces challenges due to data scarcity and model complexity. This study explores the feasibility of using black box Large Language Models (LLMs) accessed via APIs for HTC, as an alternative to traditional machine learning methods that require extensive labeled data and computational resources. We evaluate three prompting strategies -- Direct Leaf Label Prediction (DL), Direct Hierarchical Label Prediction (DH), and Top-down Multi-step Hierarchical Label Prediction (TMH) -- in both zero-shot and few-shot settings, comparing the accuracy and cost-effectiveness of these strategies. Experiments on two datasets show that a few-shot setting consistently improves classification accuracy compared to a zero-shot setting. While a traditional machine learning model achieves high accuracy on a dataset with a shallow hierarchy, LLMs, especially DH strategy, tend to outperform the machine learning model on a dataset with a deeper hierarchy. API costs increase significantly due to the higher input tokens required for deeper label hierarchies on DH strategy. These results emphasize the trade-off between accuracy improvement and the computational cost of prompt strategy. These findings highlight the potential of black box LLMs for HTC while underscoring the need to carefully select a prompt strategy to balance performance and cost.

Rapid advances in medical imaging technology underscore the critical need for precise and automated image quality assessment (IQA) to ensure diagnostic accuracy. Existing medical IQA methods, however, struggle to generalize across diverse modalities and clinical scenarios. In response, we introduce MedIQA, the first comprehensive foundation model for medical IQA, designed to handle variability in image dimensions, modalities, anatomical regions, and types. We developed a large-scale multi-modality dataset with plentiful manually annotated quality scores to support this. Our model integrates a salient slice assessment module to focus on diagnostically relevant regions feature retrieval and employs an automatic prompt strategy that aligns upstream physical parameter pre-training with downstream expert annotation fine-tuning. Extensive experiments demonstrate that MedIQA significantly outperforms baselines in multiple downstream tasks, establishing a scalable framework for medical IQA and advancing diagnostic workflows and clinical decision-making.

Reasoning language models have set state-of-the-art (SOTA) records on many challenging benchmarks, enabled by multi-step reasoning induced using reinforcement learning. However, like previous language models, reasoning models are prone to generating confident, plausible responses that are incorrect (hallucinations). Knowing when and how much to trust these models is critical to the safe deployment of reasoning models in real-world applications. To this end, we explore uncertainty quantification of reasoning models in this work. Specifically, we ask three fundamental questions: First, are reasoning models well-calibrated? Second, does deeper reasoning improve model calibration? Finally, inspired by humans' innate ability to double-check their thought processes to verify the validity of their answers and their confidence, we ask: can reasoning models improve their calibration by explicitly reasoning about their chain-of-thought traces? We introduce introspective uncertainty quantification (UQ) to explore this direction. In extensive evaluations on SOTA reasoning models across a broad range of benchmarks, we find that reasoning models: (i) are typically overconfident, with self-verbalized confidence estimates often greater than 85% particularly for incorrect responses, (ii) become even more overconfident with deeper reasoning, and (iii) can become better calibrated through introspection (e.g., o3-Mini and DeepSeek R1) but not uniformly (e.g., Claude 3.7 Sonnet becomes more poorly calibrated). Lastly, we conclude with important research directions to design necessary UQ benchmarks and improve the calibration of reasoning models.

Recent works on large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated the impact of prompting strategies and fine-tuning techniques on their reasoning capabilities. Yet, their effectiveness on clinical natural language inference (NLI) remains underexplored. This study presents the first controlled evaluation of how prompt structure and efficient fine-tuning jointly shape model performance in clinical NLI. We inspect four classes of prompting strategies to elicit reasoning in LLMs at different levels of abstraction, and evaluate their impact on a range of clinically motivated reasoning types. For each prompting strategy, we construct high-quality demonstrations using a frontier model to distil multi-step reasoning capabilities into smaller models (4B parameters) via Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA). Across different language models fine-tuned on the NLI4CT benchmark, we found that prompt type alone accounts for up to 44% of the variance in macro-F1. Moreover, LoRA fine-tuning yields consistent gains of +8 to 12 F1, raises output alignment above 97%, and narrows the performance gap to GPT-4o-mini to within 7.1%. Additional experiments on reasoning generalisation reveal that LoRA improves performance in 75% of the models on MedNLI and TREC Clinical Trials Track. Overall, these findings demonstrate that (i) prompt structure is a primary driver of clinical reasoning performance, (ii) compact models equipped with strong prompts and LoRA can rival frontier-scale systems, and (iii) reasoning-type-aware evaluation is essential to uncover prompt-induced trade-offs. Our results highlight the promise of combining prompt design and lightweight adaptation for more efficient and trustworthy clinical NLP systems, providing insights on the strengths and limitations of widely adopted prompting and parameter-efficient techniques in highly specialised domains.

As a fundamental task in machine learning, text classification plays a crucial role in many areas. With the rapid scaling of Large Language Models (LLMs), particularly through reinforcement learning (RL), there is a growing need for more capable discriminators. Consequently, advances in classification are becoming increasingly vital for enhancing the overall capabilities of LLMs. Traditional discriminative methods map text to labels but overlook LLMs' intrinsic generative strengths. Generative classification addresses this by prompting the model to directly output labels. However, existing studies still rely on simple SFT alone, seldom probing the interplay between training and inference prompts, and no work has systematically leveraged RL for generative text classifiers and unified SFT, RL, and inference-time prompting in one framework. We bridge this gap with GenCLS++, a framework that jointly optimizes SFT and RL while systematically exploring five high-level strategy dimensions-in-context learning variants, category definitions, explicit uncertainty labels, semantically irrelevant numeric labels, and perplexity-based decoding-during both training and inference. After an SFT "policy warm-up," we apply RL with a simple rule-based reward, yielding sizable extra gains. Across seven datasets, GenCLS++ achieves an average accuracy improvement of 3.46% relative to the naive SFT baseline; on public datasets, this improvement rises to 4.00%. Notably, unlike reasoning-intensive tasks that benefit from explicit thinking processes, we find that classification tasks perform better without such reasoning steps. These insights into the role of explicit reasoning provide valuable guidance for future LLM applications.

Designing strategyproof mechanisms for multi-facility location that optimize social costs based on agent preferences had been challenging due to the extensive domain knowledge required and poor worst-case guarantees. Recently, deep learning models have been proposed as alternatives. However, these models require some domain knowledge and extensive hyperparameter tuning as well as lacking interpretability, which is crucial in practice when transparency of the learned mechanisms is mandatory. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach, named LLMMech, that addresses these limitations by incorporating large language models (LLMs) into an evolutionary framework for generating interpretable, hyperparameter-free, empirically strategyproof, and nearly optimal mechanisms. Our experimental results, evaluated on various problem settings where the social cost is arbitrarily weighted across agents and the agent preferences may not be uniformly distributed, demonstrate that the LLM-generated mechanisms generally outperform existing handcrafted baselines and deep learning models. Furthermore, the mechanisms exhibit impressive generalizability to out-of-distribution agent preferences and to larger instances with more agents.