Yiyang Feng (冯乙洋)

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in reasoning, positioning them as promising tools for supporting human problem-solving. However, what happens when their performance is affected by *misinformation*, i.e., incorrect inputs introduced by users due to oversights or gaps in knowledge? Such misinformation is prevalent in real-world interactions with LLMs, yet how it propagates within LLMs’ reasoning process remains underexplored. Focusing on mathematical reasoning, we present a comprehensive analysis of how misinformation affects intermediate reasoning steps and final answers. We also examine how effectively LLMs can correct misinformation when explicitly instructed to do so. Even with explicit instructions, LLMs succeed less than half the time in rectifyingmisinformation, despite possessing correct internal knowledge, leading to significant accuracy drops (10.02% – 72.20%), and the degradation holds with thinking models (4.30% – 19.97%). Further analysis shows that applying factual corrections early in the reasoning process most effectively reduces misinformation propagation, and fine-tuning on synthesized data with early-stage corrections significantly improves reasoning factuality. Our work offers a practical approach to mitigating misinformation propagation.

Crafting an appealing heading is crucial for attracting readers and marketing work or products. A popular way is to summarize the main idea with a refined description and a memorable acronym. However, there lacks a systematic study and a formal benchmark including datasets and metrics. Motivated by this absence, we introduce LOgogram, a novel benchmark comprising 6,653 paper abstracts with corresponding descriptions and acronyms. To measure the quality of heading generation, we propose a set of evaluation metrics from three aspects: summarization, neology, and algorithm. Additionally, we explore three strategies for heading generation(generation ordering, tokenization of acronyms, and framework design) under various prevalent learning paradigms(supervised fine-tuning, in-context learning with Large Language Models(LLMs), and reinforcement learning) on our benchmark. Our experimental results indicate the difficulty in identifying a practice that excels across all summarization, neologistic, and algorithmic aspects.

Conditional dichotomy, the contrast between two outputs conditioned on the same context, is vital for applications such as debate, defeasible inference, and causal reasoning. Existing methods that rely on semantic similarity often fail to capture the nuanced oppositional dynamics essential for these applications. Motivated by these limitations, we introduce a novel task, Conditional Dichotomy Quantification (ConDQ), which formalizes the direct measurement of conditional dichotomy and provides carefully constructed datasets covering debate, defeasible natural language inference, and causal reasoning scenarios. To address this task, we develop the Dichotomy-oriented Geometric Embedding (DoGE) framework, which leverages complex-valued embeddings and a dichotomous objective to model and quantify these oppositional relationships effectively. Extensive experiments validate the effectiveness and versatility of DoGE, demonstrating its potential in understanding and quantifying conditional dichotomy across diverse NLP applications. Our code and datasets are available at https://github.com/cui-shaobo/conditional-dichotomy-quantification.